HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil June 3 20031
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
June 3, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Dan McShane
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 there was discussion regarding a request
authorization for the Executive to enter into a collective bargaining
agreement between Whatcom County and Whatcom County Deputy
Sheriff's Guild for the period of January 1, 2000 through December 31,
2002 (AB2003 -215) in executive session during the Committee of the Whole
meeting.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
STATE OF THE COUNTY ADDRESS BY WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE
PETE KREMEN (AB2003 -017)
Pete Kremen, County Executive, read the State of the County address into the
record (on file). He thanked all County employees.
MINUTES CONSENT
SPECIAL COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MAY 13, 2003
Fleetwood Moved to approve the minutes.
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, 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.
Brenner stated there is a scrivener's error at the top of page four, "Diek
Dave Pros."
Motion to approved and amend carried 6 -0 with Nelson abstaining
due to his absence during the meeting.
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Leonard Lindstrom, City, asked if they are having fun yet. Keep working on
those educations.
Bernice Brannon, 4145 Patos, Ferndale stated she lives within the
boundaries of the Lummi Reservation. The Tribe has posted a sign saying that the
Tribe has zoning jurisdiction for the entire reservation. She talked to the Lummi
Planning Department. There would be a hearing on the portion of the map that is
blacked out. There would be a hearing on the rest of the map on June 18. The
County does have jurisdiction. The County should maintain jurisdiction out there.
This is another way for the Tribe to harass the residents. The County should assert
its jurisdiction.
CONSENT AGENDA
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through eight.
Brenner withdrew item six.
McShane withdrew item three.
Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one, two, four, five, seven,
and eight carried unanimous /y.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID
#03 -40 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, SAHLBERG
EQUIPMENT, FOR A REPLACEMENT VIBRATORY ROLLER FOR USE BY
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $82,758.56
(AB2003 -214)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM
COUNTY AND WHATCOM COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF'S GUILD FOR THE
PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2000, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2002
(AB2003 -215)
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, 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.
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
FLOOD WORKS AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
DIKING DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR LEVEE BACK SLOPING WORK ON THE
NOOKSACK RIVER NORTH OF SLATER ROAD, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$42,143.90 (AB2003 -216)
Crawford moved to approve the request.
McShane stated at some point the Council will have to decide how to handle
districts that don't operate through the usual process. He has some sympathy for
districts that are put in the awkward position of inheriting past decisions that were
inappropriate. This is the second time this has happened since he's been on the
County Council. Before they had the countywide flood program, districts paid for
things themselves.
Nelson stated he likes to see things being driven by policy. He was assured
that the policies would be made clear. The Flood Control Zone District Advisory
Committee approved and sent this forward. Assert policy to the advisory
committee and diking districts. However, they have the funding from the levy,
which is to help these districts. The advisory committee voted and approved it, so
he will support the motion.
Brenner stated they should consider whether or not to support it if it
happens again, but don't punish the new commissioners because of the actions of
past commissioners. Additionally, she supports the improvements for which this
money paid.
Motion carried 5 -2 with McShane and Roy opposed.
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE WHATCOM
COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND THE FRONT STREET
PARTNERSHIP TO DEVELOP A LOCAL "COALITION AGAINST
TOBACCO USE" (CATU) FOR A TERM OF JUNE 1, 2003, THROUGH
DECEMBER 31, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,000 (AB2003 -217)
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR TEMPORARY PASSENGER FERRY
SERVICE TO LUMMI ISLAND FROM AUGUST 1, 2003, THROUGH JULY
31, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED
CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $60,000 (AB2003 -218)
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT NO. 200209003 BETWEEN WHATCOM
COUNTY AND HDR ENGINEERING, INC. TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF
WORK TO PROVIDE AN ASSESSMENT FOR FEASIBILITY OF REUSING
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, 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.
AN EXISTING BUILDING AS A TEMPORARY MINIMUM - SECURITY
FACILITY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED
CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $127,357 (AB2003 -219)
Crawford moved to approve the request.
Brenner stated it is more important to make a commitment to do a
temporary jail, and stick with that commitment. This is $25,000, a lot of money.
If they need an architect to look at the building, issue a request for proposals (RFP)
for local architects to respond. The County would receive a response for less than
$25,000. Don't send the County's money out of the area.
Roy stated Lt. Jones testified at committee that these people have
experience converting warehouses into jails and know money- saving possibilities.
This might save the County money in the long run. It will also hopefully provide
certainty. She agreed that they need to approach the task in a way to make it
successful.
Bill Elfo, Interim Sheriff, stated the current company has expertise in this
area. They've done it before. They plan on bringing in two people from Texas to
do just what the County seeks to do. He was originally skeptical of the cost.
However, the benefit will save the County money later. Also, the County is in a
critical situation. Going out for bids will delay the County further. Delay could be a
hardship.
Crawford stated time is of the essence. It's possible that the transition of
the current facility will happen by the start of the year. They estimate that the
analysis will take four to five weeks. He asked if that is workable for the Sheriff's
Office. Elfo stated he could work with a timeframe of four to five weeks.
Brenner stated there are a lot of trusting people in this process. She isn't
trusting of this process. The courthouse retrofit used contractors outside the area.
There isn't as much accountability from those people. The $25,000 could be used
for the structural work that needs to be done on the facility. They may end up
with something that they won't like.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated this service is being coupled with a
local firm, King & Associates. There is a local architect and company involved in
this issue.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they can stick with the four to five week
timeframe. Kremen stated he is somewhat confident that the County can exert as
much pressure as possible to expedite the process, and bring the study in sooner.
He would like to see it done in two to three weeks.
Brenner moved to amend the request to pay for the local services, David
King and Associates, and let them do the work.
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Kremen stated that if the amendment were to pass, the County can't enter
into the contract. It's not an option. It would elongate the process.
Motion to amend failed 6 -1 with Brenner in favor.
Motion to approve the request carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT NO. 200301025 BETWEEN WHATCOM
COUNTY AND THE BELLINGHAM / WHATCOM COUNTY ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF WORK TO
PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE COUNTY'S ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT PROGRAM, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$58,000, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$73,000 (AB2003 -220)
8. RESOLUTION AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY VANTAGECARE
RETIREMENT HEALTH SAVINGS (RHS) PLAN TO PROVIDE TO
BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES WHEN SPECIFIED IN WHATCOM
COUNTY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS, AND REVISE
EXISTING NON - HEALTH DISTRIBUTION FEATURES OF THE RHS PLAN
IN ACCORDANCE WITH GUIDANCE ICMA -RC HAS RECEIVED FROM
THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (AB2003 -210)
PUBLIC HEARING
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.71 — WATER RESOURCE
PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.80 —
SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS (STORMWATER AND CLEARING),
CHAPTER 20.85 — PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, AND CHAPTER
20.97 — DEFINITIONS, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REGULATORY
PROTECTION FOR SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS (AB2002 -222B)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated
they've worked on this for two years. There has been a lot of discussion, public
input, and debate. It's been challenging to come up with regulations that protect
the watershed without taking away too many development rights. People still
believe that the proposal leans too far one way or the other.
The zone regulates development standards for stormwater, prohibits surface
mining in certain areas, changes the amount of impervious surface allowed on a
property, land clearing, erosion control and soil stabilization, and tree retention.
There are changes to the Planned Unit Development regulations and the definition.
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Crawford asked if they are considering a version of the ordinance that
eliminates Drayton Harbor from the water resource special management district.
Goodwin stated that is correct. It is still a stormwater special district.
McShane opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Al Hanners, 3007 Plymouth Drive, Bellingham, stated he would like to see
Drayton Harbor protected. The shellfish and native plants need to be protected.
The purpose of clearing is usually to build houses, which create pollution.
In the State of the County address, Executive Kremen talked about jobs.
There aren't any jobs in this county except for building houses. The population is
increasing. They have to make a choice.
Dave Determan, 6989 Birch Bay Drive, stated Drayton Harbor needs to be
protected. Blaine gets its water from aquifers that are in the Drayton Harbor
watershed. If drinking water is the issue as it is with Lake Whatcom and Lake
Samish, then also protect Drayton Harbor.
The Terrell Creek watershed runs through all the heavy impact industry
areas. There needs to be provisions for these areas. Birch Bay is as important as
Lake Whatcom.
Chris Dillard, 2216 G Street, People for Lake Whatcom Vice President, stated
the science is clear that development impacts threaten Lake Whatcom. This action
needs to be taken to ensure Lake Whatcom as a viable drinking water source. He
supports the 20 percent limit of impervious surfaces. The tree retention language
is good but there is potential to abuse if a landowner is allowed to cut 35 percent of
the tree canopy each year. The seasonal land clearing should be reinstated as
originally written.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Dillard continued to stated there is still concern the land clearing rules can't
offer adequate protection. County staff is unable to enforce them. The Council
should implement a testing program for the point system to make sure it works.
Rick Dubrow, 2523 Utter Street, Bellingham, stated he is the owner of A -1
Builders. He is also the vice - president on the board of RESources, president of
Sustainable Connections, and a member of the Building Industry Association. He is
speaking tonight as an individual. After this ordinance, they need to look at
existing housing and erosion. Most silt fences are poorly installed. They need to
prevent erosion instead of treat erosion. Phosphorous cannot be removed from the
water. He asked the Council to table this item until the total maximum daily load
(TMDL) study comes out.
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, 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.
Andrew Lohrer, 652 Sudden Valley, stated that these regulations would
cause a loss of jobs, a loss of affordable homes, and a loss of business. They can
work within the system to allow them to build all year long, when the weather
permits. They can protect the watershed and build at the same time. If he can
only work five months out of the year, he would have to lay off three of his four
employees.
McShane stated there is not a seasonal restriction in the proposed ordinance.
They are accepting the point system.
Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated he supports this ordinance. They
need it as quick as possible. This is not something that is new tonight or last July.
It goes back to 1989 and the 21 goals of the joint resolution. None of this is new.
The Lake Whatcom watershed is one of two in the state that provides drinking
water for over 50,000 people and is not protected.
Lincoln Rutter, 8373 Semiahmoo Drive, stated he supports the work of the
Planning Commission. He supports the ordinance. Drayton Harbor should be
included in the water resource protection overlay district. It is a marine estuary.
Eighty percent of marine species live in the estuary areas. Eighty five percent of
the species in Washington State live in riparian zones. Healthy estuaries are critical
for the survival of species on which many Whatcom County employed depend. He
submitted two publications from DNR (on file). Seasonal restrictions on clearing
activities and tree retention rations are valid in the context of a marine estuary.
Marine estuaries and drinking water areas both relate to public health, safety, and
welfare, and are being threatened by pollution. Birch Bay should also be protected
after adoption of this ordinance. It contains eel grass beds and the last spawning
grounds for species such as herring, which feed salmon and steelhead, which feed
millions of seabirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl that rely on those fish. The survival
of wildlife is fundamental to the growth of the tourist industry. The conversion
option harvest plan should be struck from the ordinance.
Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association (BIA) of Whatcom County
Government Affairs, 3323 Northwest Ave, stated she would speak about seasonal
clearing. She discussed the history of the seasonal clearing regulations. The point
system was not intended to guarantee that a project could be permitted during the
so- called wet season, but it provides for the County's administrator to review an
applicant's wish to clear land, evaluate a project, and determine if it can proceed
with property erosion control measures. Reinstate wording that allows the
technical advisor to consider an engineered erosion control plan for a site. The BIA
supports creation of a stormwater collection and treatment system for all watershed
areas, since existing development is the first concern that needs to be addressed.
Rob Olsen, 3920 Sweetwater Road, Bow, stated he builds in Sudden Valley.
He asked about the minimum lot size that would limit the buildable size to 2,500
square feet of impervious surfaces.
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, 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.
McShane stated any lot would always get at least 2,500 square feet.
Crawford stated that limit was changed from 3,000 square feet of impervious
surfaces.
Olsen stated a lot of lots in Sudden Valley would be allowed 2,500 square
feet of impervious surfaces. A typical rambler with 1,670 square feet would require
2,623 square feet of impervious surface. That doesn't include a driveway. He
couldn't build this house. That limit restricts people from building. The garage,
eaves, and decks are included in the impervious surfaces for this house.
Geoff Menzies, 988 W. Laurel Road, stated they should leave Drayton Harbor
in as a water resource special management area. To take it out is contrary to the
findings and recommendations of the Drayton Harbor Watershed Management
Committee. The committee identified stormwater and land conversion as a
significant threats to water quality. He read the recommendations from the plan to
protect watershed the community developed. Drayton Harbor has its biggest
problems during the winter months. The water quality around the entrance to the
harbor is the biggest problem. Water quality in both creeks seems to have
improved in the past few years. They do not need additional sources of nutrients
and bacteria to offset recent accomplishments. Including Drayton Harbor is
supported by the goals and policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Paul Isaacson, 204 Shallow Shores Road, stated that his proposal was for
more than 35 percent of the existing trees may be removed on lots five acres or
greater if replanting is done per the Department of Natural Resource's forest
practice rules. The concept for this ordinance has been in the works for two years,
but the actions to implement it have not. Many people in the room don't have a
clue of what this entails. He requests compensation for those who are unduly
burdened, per the Home Rule Charter. With the 65 percent tree retention rule, the
County could steal $100,000 of timber from someone on a ten -acre tract. There is
no provision for anyone who is unduly burdened.
The City and County have purchased land in the watershed. When the
appraisals for that land were done, timber was an aspect of high value, which the
governments recognized. He asked why the timber they are going to take from the
property owners now has no value.
Marion Beddill, 2600 Seeley Street, Bellingham stated the purpose of all the
regulations is public health derived from control of erosion and runoff into sensitive
water bodies. If everyone behaved well, they wouldn't need rules. Some people
misbehave, so they must set constraints. The Council should consider gravel an
impervious surface. Consider enforcement and budget. Phosphorus is
understudied. Complete the TMDL study. Look into what other chemical besides
phosphorus merits consideration in the study. Define the lake quality as the
current status, not its status in the past. Stormwater treatment facilities are very
costly. It's better to keep the water clean in the first place.
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, 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.
Tom Pratum, 2241 North Shore Road, stated he represents the North
Cascades Audubon. This ordinance has been given an extraordinary hearing
throughout the process. The Council has heard everyone's view. The science is
there to support this ordinance and more regulations. He approves the reduction of
impervious surface allowances. He is concerned that Drayton Harbor was removed
from the land- clearing portion of the ordinance. It is very an important area for
waterfowl. There is no lower limit on the tree clearing. There is also no limit on
the number of times a person can do tree clearing. He doesn't agree with the
seasonal clearing restrictions.
Roger Ellingson, 3033 Alderwood, Bellingham, stated his law office is in
Blaine and active in the Blaine community. The City of Blaine and community of
Birch Bay have embraced their designation as an important birding area. This will
attract bird watchers who are the cream of the crop of tourists. This designation
will improve the image of Blaine as a place to relocate businesses and retire.
Birding is very important to the City of Blaine. The south part of Drayton Harbor is
a very sensitive area because of the estuaries and creeks in the area. Keep the
record open for Robin Matthews' most recent annual report. He's told that basin
two is now degrading faster than basin one.
Jason Reimer, 9951 Peace Road, Blaine, stated he's glad Drayton Harbor is
out of the ordinance. It is a taking without compensation. If the Council puts
Drayton Harbor back, he recommends that all farmers in the county dump their
pollution into the harbor because all studies since 1992 have proven that they can't
find one source of pollution upstream from the farmers. The impervious surface
idea is stupid. They are going to stop development in Sudden Valley. That's how
most people in the county make their livings.
Ellen Murphy, 901 Forest Street, stated everyone has sincere concerns that
commitment and creativity can address. Historically, these concerns always end up
winning over the concerns about the water. Nothing should come before protection
and restoration of the lake.
Brenda Iverson, 2326 Birch Bay- Lynden Road, stated she is an employee of
a construction company who does work in the Drayton Harbor, Lake Whatcom, and
Lake Samish watersheds. The concern of drinking water is a big one. The point
system has been a good one for Lake Whatcom. Erosion controls do work if they're
properly constructed. She agrees with removing the Drayton Harbor watershed.
There's no way that construction or clearing during wet seasons that water would
come off the lots. It is a huge watershed. She asked if they are willing to sacrifice
jobs to save birds.
Peter Watts, 2154 North Shore Road, stated its not clear the extent to which
they intend to control forestry activities. There will be conflicts between the
proposed ordinance and DNR. Agriculture is not defined in the ordinance. Various
classes of forest permits are referred to, but not defined. Revisit the issue.
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Watts continued to ask that the Council please take a second look at the
ordinance.
Brenner asked what the conflict is between this ordinance and DNR. Watts
stated this ordinance purports to control tree cutting and clearing operations, which
are necessary for forestry practices. There are some exemptions, but they are not
defined. That is a problem.
Roger Almskaar, 3610 Meridian, stated he participated with the working
group that worked with the Planning Department. The product is a good -faith
compromise. He supports the ordinance in general. Look at the testimony
carefully and deliberate on the testimony for a couple of weeks.
This is a complicated ordinance, more so than the majority of land use rules.
There needs to be a balance between clear standards and flexibility. These rules
need a valid public purpose. Improving the level of protection to these three water
bodies is a valid public purpose. The rules must be reasonably related and the
least restrictive possible to still get the job done.
The 2,500 square foot impervious surface threshold is too low. It ought to
be 3,000 or 3,500. He supports removing the Drayton Harbor watershed from the
water resource special management area. The area is fundamentally different from
Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish. The Building Industry Association raised good
questions about the tree canopy rules. He supports Paul Isaacson's suggestion on
lots larger than five acres. Come back and look at this ordinance in six months.
Raise threshold level for impervious surfaces. Deal with Drayton Harbor separately.
Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County, stated he
participated in the working group. Changing the seasonal clearing regulation mid -
season would have made it difficult for builders. Interest rates have been so low, it
has caused a building boom. Applicants are six to eight weeks from getting an
appointment for a building permit, and weeks to months away from getting the
permit. That will be going into the wet season. Allow staff flexibility to approve
clearing if it is dry. He is in favor of the point system.
John Lee, 4942 Pacific Highway, Coach Corral Site Development Manager,
stated the setbacks they are required to meet could eat up the amount of land
available for impervious surfaces. The critical areas setbacks can be up to 100 feet.
That requires 1200 square feet of impervious surfaces for a 12 -foot driveway. The
impervious surface criteria and setbacks make it very difficult to develop a lot. The
two criteria can make a lot virtually unbuildable.
Lerline Hammer, 4040 Mt. Baker Hwy, Everson, stated this ordinance
generates a lot of emotion and should be based on practical common sense, which
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, 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.
isn't being considered. She asked the Council to give this more time and more
consideration.
Craig Ostrom, 2406 Lynn Street, asked the Council to take more time to
work on this ordinance. In section 20.71.302(1), define "structures." He's not sure
that the 2,500 square foot impervious surface threshold addresses the Sudden
Valley lots very well. A threshold of 3,000 feet would fit better. The homes have
onsite stormwater retention. There is considerable effort given to erosion control
and to mitigate water going back into the soils.
Cal Leenstra, 315 Lakeway, stated he is concerned about the ordinance. He
owns 25 acres at Lake Samish that was downzoned from three lots per acre to one
lot per five acres. He used to be allowed 50 percent of the lot available for
impervious surfaces. This ordinance would only allow 20 percent of impervious
surfaces. He asked if the tree retention requirement requires a survey. A bond is
required. The ordinance talks about stepping outside the clearing allowance and
then replacing trees at a two -to -one ratio. If there's an argument about the tree,
the landowner must hire a forester to decide who wins. They are getting more and
more bureaucracy. Government costs account for 35 to 50 percent of a low cost
home and 25 percent of a moderately cost home. He's not against keeping trees.
He is a landscaper. He asked where the 35 percent requirement comes from. He
has a case against the County for the downzone. If he is only allowed 35 percent,
the lots won't have a view to the lake, lowering the amount they will sell for. They
should be allowed pastures. The people who are in favor of this don't have a tree
on their lots. He would like the same benefits. These are five -acre tracts. Don't
approve these measures, and take more time.
Marie Hitchman, 601- 16th Street, stated the good of boys want to do what
they want to do. Whenever they talk about trees, they have to remember that
trees are a prime mover in an ecosystem. Trees act like big sponges and hold the
rain and soil. Everything is connected to everything else. Every time they cut a
tree, they have to think about the effect.
Hearing no one else, McShane closed the public hearing.
McShane stated the seasonal clearing point system is not part of this
ordinance. If the Council makes any significant changes, it will need to have
another public hearing on those amendments.
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a five - minute break at 9:00 p.m.)
McShane moved to adopt the ordinance.
Crawford moved to amend section 20.71.302 (1) to restore open area
criteria back to 50 percent, and reinstate the urban residential (UR) zone areas
greater than 10,000 square feet requirement that 60 percent must be kept open.
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, 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.
Roy asked why the committee went from 50 percent to 80 percent, other
than the known effects of impervious surfaces to the watershed.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the committee considered the cumulative effect of
all impervious surfaces in the watershed. This was an attempt to reduce that total
amount. This formula has a better overall end effect.
McShane stated that a significant amount of development that will occur in
the Lake Whatcom watershed is with the UR zoned areas, including Sudden Valley,
Geneva, and Hillsdale. A standard lot is 15,000 square feet. This change would
allow for 7,500 square feet of impervious surface, which is the equivalent of two
typical city lots. The overall goal is to avoid the measurable effects of more than
ten percent impervious surfaces. There is a default to another percentage if a
person is constrained by a smaller lot.
Brenner stated she understood that they are way under a ten percent total
of impervious surfaces throughout the entire watershed. There are certain areas
with more development, but they are also areas with small lots. They need a larger
amount allowed for a modest house. Otherwise, just mandate that someone can't
build on their lot and pay them for the value of the property. This is the same as a
taking.
McShane stated he is against the motion. The motion will allow 7,500
square feet of impervious surfaces on a standard 15,000 square foot lot.
Nelson stated the studies he read indicate that the problem is not with
rainwater off of roofs, but materials that are in the yards. In UR areas, there may
be inappropriate use of fertilizers and phosphates, driveway drainage, and
contaminated roads. He has not seen one study that cites roof runoff as a
contaminant.
McShane stated he distributed a study by a civil engineer to councilmembers
regarding impervious surfaces and vegetation retention. The focus is not
necessarily on the pollution within the stormwater and surface runoff. The impacts
to stormwater are the increased peak discharges in drainage that goes into the lake
or stream. Once they start going over ten percent impervious surface area or
removal of vegetation that is in hydrologic maturity, the flows increase enough that
it causes an impact to that given stream. In the case of Lake Whatcom, that given
stream is discharging water at a much faster rate than it otherwise would be. The
sediment that might be in the creek is being delivered to the lake with the
phosphorus that it carries. Also, the higher flows will cause the creek to erode, and
contribute even more sediment. The main threat to the lake's dissolved oxygen
levels is the phosphorus associated with sediment.
Nelson stated that doesn't disagree with what he just stated. The actual
culprit is existing development. They need to have a handle on building in the
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, 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
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.
future. Design structures for stormwater management would be more appropriate
than limiting future impervious surfaces.
McShane stated that unfortunately, on high levels of impervious surface
areas, the engineering design fixes and the ability to retain the water in ways to
reduce the peak discharges don't work very well. Therefore, avoidance is a good
approach. This is a way of avoiding some of the impacts. Without a doubt, there
will still be impacts. They are deciding on a compromise between the science and a
reasonable solution. They can disagree on what is reasonable. Whatever they do,
there should be a compromise that allows development, however constrained it
might be.
Caskey- Schreiber stated Tom Pratum submitted statistics on how impervious
surface is affected by acreage. With the current zoning, 331 acres are impervious
surface. If they are to keep the 50 percent, the impervious surfaces would be 681
acres. If they go to 20 percent, it would be an additional 272 acres. If the
downzone is approved, it's a difference of 562 acres of additional impervious
surfaces, versus 224 acres at 80 percent. These statistics are only for the UR
zones.
Brenner stated she is convinced.
Motion to amend failed 2 -5 with Crawford and Nelson in favor.
Crawford moved to amend section 20.71.302(4) to restore a minimum
threshold of impervious surface allowed to 3,000 square feet.
Brenner stated this is very important. The square footage is arbitrary. For
these zones, the extra 500 square feet will not make a significant difference in the
watershed or sub - basin. She's convinced that this is something that both sides will
be able to live with. People will still have to build modest houses.
Roy stated everyone needs to find the lot to fit the house they want. That
lot may not be in the Lake Whatcom watershed. There are other house designs
besides a rambler. There are other ways to build a smaller footprint.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that if someone consolidates two or more lots, that
person would be allowed to build 3,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. The
amounts add up. Using the 3,000 square foot lot designation in the UR zone, it
totals 388 acres of impervious surfaces. If they use the 2,000 square foot
maximum, the total would be 258 acres. A maximum of 2,500 is already a
compromise. They are talking about just the UR -3 zone.
Brenner stated it is not significant for the watershed, but it is significant to
the people. There are a lot of elderly or retired people in the watershed. A rambler
of that size is very small. There are plenty of people who have owned land in the
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, 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.
watershed for many years. It's not a good option to make them sell their land and
go somewhere else.
Fleetwood stated he wants to stay with the maximum of 2,500 square feet.
It's not an arbitrary number. It's entirely consistent with a great amount of science
they've all seen that says significant reductions in impervious surfaces are an
intelligent thing to do for water quality. It's also not entirely prohibitive. One can
still build. One must simply build smaller. Compared to other significant
watersheds used as drinking water sources in Western Washington and Oregon,
they are being incredibly permissive. Those are entirely restricted. He is against
the motion.
McShane stated he is against the motion. A maximum of 2,500 square feet
is reasonable, from his perspective. It is a compromise between 2,000 and 3,000
square feet.
Brenner stated it's not about reducing impervious surface. Everyone agrees
they want to see a reduction in impervious surfaces. She hasn't seen any science
that says 2,500 square feet is scientifically supported.
Motion to amend failed 3 -4 with Brenner, Nelson, and Crawford in
favor.
Crawford moved to amend section 20.71.302(5) to eliminate the second
sentence and the word "however" at the beginning of the third sentence. The
second sentence might discourage someone from doing appropriate maintenance
that would result in less runoff in the watershed.
Brenner asked why the second sentence is included.
Nelson stated that if there is a nonconforming impervious surface that is
redeveloped, the objective is to reduce runoff.
Amy Pederson, Planner I, stated that was the original rationale. There was
extensive discussion about what to do with existing development. That provision
was an effort to address existing development that is nonconforming with the
regulations they put into place.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Crawford stated there may be cases where they would discourage someone
from doing a decent project.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that someone with a
derelict house that they want to tear it down, they could rebuild it on the same
footprint. They cannot make it bigger.
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated the language says that the impervious surface amount has to
be reduced if someone is redeveloping more than 50 percent of the area.
Motion to amend failed 2 -5 with Brenner and Crawford in favor.
Crawford moved to delete section 20.80.636(2) regarding the stormwater
special district requirements. This is where the value is talked about. If they are
talking about the watershed, it's not appropriate to use the dollar value as a
measure of protection. The physical impact of the structure is at stake, not the
dollar value.
Brenner asked if they can legally justify watershed protection based on the
assessed value of the house. Goodwin stated the uniform building code (UBC) is
based on value. If someone is doing a minor remodel, they shouldn't have to
retrofit the whole lot. The value determines whether or not an improvement is
significant.
Brenner stated the UBC relates to updating and improving a house and
safety standards. This has to do with watershed protection.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated it is a rational
relationship.
Nelson stated he would rather go with a percentage that addresses the
specific issues they want to deal with, such as a nonpolluting roof or energy
upgrades. It would encourage people to include beneficial updates to a renovation
project. Look at things that are going to have an impact on the watershed.
Chris Brueske, Engineering Manager, stated this was added to address a
case when a house is completely torn down and rebuilt in the original footprint. As
a significant improvement, it would have to include stormwater controls. There was
an interest at the time this was written to require a component of retrofitting.
McShane stated this is just under the stormwater rules. One would actually
install stormwater design. They are not talking about impervious surfaces. This
applies to someone who spends more than 50 percent of the assessed value.
Someone will not be affected if that person is replacing a roof, doing interior work,
or replacing windows and siding.
Brenner asked if it would be better to state that intent rather than using
assessed value.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the engineers argued for this. They said anything
above a 50 percent remodel is significant. This is different from the previous
impervious surface section. It is important to keep the two sections separate. It
applies to Drayton Harbor, Lake Whatcom, and Lake Samish.
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, 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.
Roy stated they discussed many options to include retrofitting. This was the
most practical and fair way to do that.
Motion to amend failed 2 -5 with Brenner and Crawford in favor.
Crawford moved to remove subsection 20.80.735(2)(b). He's
uncomfortable with a rule that allows determination by a technical administrator.
They need predictability in the permitting processes and the administration of the
process. They haven't defined when the technical administrator will make that
determination.
Brenner stated that language is the reason she supports this item. There
will be instances that will be more environmentally sound by not phasing. She likes
that it will be judged on a case -by -case basis.
McShane stated there is predictability and flexibility. This includes flexibility.
Motion to amend failed 1 -6 with Crawford in favor.
Crawford moved to remove all tree retention language, section
20.80.735(2)(d).
Motion to amend failed 1 -6 with Crawford in favor.
Crawford moved to amend 20.80.735(2)(d)(1), "...square feet or -3-5 50
percent...."
Motion failed 2 -5 with Nelson and Crawford in favor.
Crawford moved to amend section 20.80.735(e), '...increased to 4-58 125
percent...." That is the standards amount.
Fleetwood asked how it is standard.
Crawford stated 125 percent is what the County uses on most of its fines.
Motion to amend failed 1 -6 with Crawford in favor.
Crawford moved to amend section 20.80.737(2), "...property ei= the
ent on- or off - site." It's too ambiguous and vague, unless they define
how the environment would be affected.
Fleetwood stated that in the law it is called overly broad instead of vague.
He asked for the reason they used an overly broad definition of environment. It
could be interpreted to mean everything.
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, 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.
Brenner stated she agreed with Councilmember Fleetwood. She didn't
realize the environment meant everything.
Roy stated she supports the motion. It is very vague.
Motion to amend carried 5 -1 -1 with McShane opposed and Caskey-
Schreiber abstaining.
Brenner moved to amend section 20.71.351(3), 'The maximum number of
lots in a lot cluster shall be 16 24." There could be more open space if they allow
more houses in the cluster. A concerned was raised that putting 24 houses
together in a small space will create a small town. It will not, and it will create a lot
more open space around it. It may give builders the option of more efficiency. It's
better for the environment.
McShane stated the lot cluster is 16 throughout the code. If the amount of
clustered lots is going to be addressed, it should be addressed in a broader view.
Brenner stated there is no scientific reason for 16. She doesn't like to
support something just because that's the way they've always done it.
Motion to amend failed 3 -4 with Brenner, Crawford, and Roy in favor.
Brenner moved to amend section 20.80.735(2)(d)(1) to add a sentence at
the end, "On lots five acres or greater, more than 35 percent of the existing trees
may be removed if replanting is completed per DNR forest practices rules." If
someone wants to clear more and wants to replant, that person should be able to
under this rule.
Nelson stated language in the forest practice rules seem somewhat arbitrary.
This language is clearer. There will be enough protection of the canopy.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Nelson, Brenner, and Crawford in favor
Brenner moved to amend section 20.97.187 regarding impervious surfaces,
to add, "However gravel roads using 1 Y4 -inch or greater clean gravel shall be
considered low grade pervious surface and shall be allowed twice the limit of
impervious surface." The modular grid pavement is an interesting concept. The
lattice of load bearing material is over a permeable base. King County agrees that
certain gravel uses are considered permeable. On logging roads, the clean gravel is
not compacted by the heaviest truckloads.
Nelson stated the issue is the runoff from slopes, which will happen
regardless of the material. No one would argue that a gravel road, properly
maintained, will have more impact that open ground. A gravel road will provide
environmental protection from oil spills on a flatter surface. On a hard surface,
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, 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.
they are going to have the drainage runoff from storm events. On a gravel road is
more protective than asphalt. He would rather define a degree of slope.
Roy stated this has to be an easily proven scientific issue. Either water runs
off pounded down gravel, or it doesn't.
McShane stated that in stormwater calculations, gravel is treated as
impervious. A travel pit client has a gravel floor with no silts or fines throughout
the pit. Most of the year, there is standing water in the pit from compacted gravel.
Even with a small amount of fines, it still becomes so compacted that it holds water
on the surface. They've actually had to dig trenches to infiltrate the site. It is a
flat site.
Roy asked about the King County information.
McShane stated that if there is not an appropriate base under the grid, it
would not be pervious. It is the same with impervious pavers.
Brenner stated she is defining gravel as a low -grade pervious surface. Credit
should be given to use of gravel instead of asphalt or concrete.
Caskey- Schreiber asked staff if there is any type of gravel that is considered
pervious. Brueske stated Councilmember Brenner's concept is intriguing. Staff has
not analyzed it. A large size, clear gravel may serve some of the same functions as
the drain layer under pervious pavers. Gravel's perviousness relies heavily on the
base that is underneath it. Many of the logging roads using 1 Ya -inch clear gravel
are placed on heavily compacted old logging roads. The road base itself acts as
impervious surfaces. It will respond differently.
McShane stated a modular grid pavement consists of a lattice of concrete,
plastic, or other load- bearing material, which is a hard rigid material with holes in
it. He asked if one would be able to use that system for a driveway in a watershed
and have it count permeable. Brueske stated it would be considered an alternative
surfacing.
McShane stated it is currently allowed and would not be counted as pervious.
Brenner stated 1 Ya -inch or greater clean gravel should be considered as a
low -grade pervious surface. It is less pervious than forest floor, but is more
pervious than concrete and asphalt.
Crawford stated that gravel has to be maintained to keep its perviousness.
He would like to include some language about maintenance.
Brenner stated that's why she is calling it low -grade pervious. The rate of
runoff is slower than asphalt or concrete.
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Motion to amend carried 5 -2 with Fleetwood and McShane opposed.
Nelson asked how the seasonal clearing worksheet pertains to this
document. It should be part of the documentation. It should be an exhibit.
Goodwin stated she was thinking about the gravel, and questioned where it
would go if it is just a definition.
Nelson stated it is in the definitions for impervious surface to clarify "gravel."
Goodwin stated they normally don't have the standard for crediting someone for
impervious surface in the definition section. She will figure out where to put it in
the code to make it work. She's concerned about putting it in the definition section
if it's a credit.
Nelson stated it is still a definition. Goodwin stated she will leave it in as is,
and then do an administrative interpretation if they don't know what it means.
Nelson asked about the point system. Goodwin stated the point system is
administration, not part of the code, and not part of the ordinance. It is just how
staff would administer the words in the ordinance.
Nelson stated the point system is a significant part of this ordinance.
Goodwin stated it wasn't intended to be adopted by ordinance. It is administrative
guidance.
Nelson asked if the seasonal clearing site evaluation flow chart is part of the
ordinance. Goodwin stated it is not.
Nelson asked how to evaluate the point system. Goodwin stated it would be
evaluated administratively.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side 8.)
Nelson asked how the Council would address any significant changes.
McShane stated the Council will hear from people who are not getting
permits, and can change the code at that time. Goodwin stated staff thinks it
would be done administratively, just like all of the other development regulations
are done administratively.
Brenner asked if this point system is the way the administration is operating
right now. Goodwin stated they don't use a point system now. There isn't a
seasonal restriction on land clearing now. The point system was written to enforce
this ordinance. It hasn't been used. Until the Council adopts this ordinance, it
doesn't exist.
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Nelson moved to amend page two of the ordinance to add language to the
"NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED" section, "Section 3. This ordinance will be
reviewed in two years to deal with equity, fiscal impacts, benefits, and total
maximum daily load findings." This is a dramatic step forward that this Council has
worked hard on. He has concerns about the approach they are taking. There was
discussion regarding the new TMDL studies that are coming out. He has questions
regarding monitoring. He would like to keep a close eye on this situation.
Fleetwood stated he doesn't want to limit their ability to review it sooner.
Roy stated this language is vague. The benefit doesn't specify who benefits.
There are many loaded terms. This could be really complex.
Nelson stated they may want to readdress the management programs that
aren't working to reduce the load to the lake. He's concerned that they are not
addressing the specific causes for the problems, but they are dealing with new
construction, which may not have those impacts.
Roy stated new construction doesn't have impacts because it hasn't been
built yet. It will have impacts the minute it has been built. She doesn't understand
that argument. This motion is too vague. It would be easy to have arguments that
are far afield.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she agreed. It's difficult to quantify whether this is
beneficial and to whom. They are not going to be able to measure the positive
influence because they are reducing acreage. They don't have a baseline. They'll
never know what the alternative will produce.
Fleetwood stated he wouldn't support the motion. The Council can review
the ordinance any time a majority of the councilmembers thinks there is good
cause.
Brenner stated this ordinance is so significant that everyone deserves for the
Council to make a commitment. Just say that the ordinance shall be reviewed in
two years, without defining anything else.
Nelson stated he liked specifics. This ordinance has potential impacts both
ways. They need to look at specifics.
Motion to amend failed 3 -4 with Brenner, Nelson, and Crawford in
favor.
Brenner moved to amend page two of the ordinance to add language to the
"NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED" section, "Section 3. This ordinance will be
reviewed within two years of adoption."
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, 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.
Motion carried 4 -3 with McShane, Caskey- Schreiber, and Fleetwood
opposed.
Roy moved to amend:
1. In section 20.80.735, put Drayton Harbor back in as a water resource
special management area, and
2. In section 20.80.735((1)(a), reinstate language at the beginning of
the subsection, "Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish watersheds:" and
3. In section 20.80.735(2)(d), add language, "Tree canopy area
retention. In Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish watersheds, tin
addition to...."
This adds Drayton Harbor back into the ordinance, but the tree retention and
seasonal clearing would only apply to Lake Samish and Lake Whatcom.
Subsections (a -c) in section 20.80.735(2) still apply to Drayton Harbor. These
were the areas that Mr. Menzies was most concerned about. The language is such
that there is discretion for the Planning Department. The National Ecosystems
Presidential Commission determined that ocean pollution often begins hundreds of
miles inland. The erosion control measures are basic.
Crawford asked if this requires another public hearing.
McShane stated it and another couple of amendments they approved would
require another public hearing.
Fleetwood asked if the public hearing would be on the entire document, or
simply on the addition of Drayton Harbor. Grant stated the public notice must be
broad enough to incorporate Drayton Harbor.
Brenner stated she would support the motion. Subsections (a) and (c) are
good soil erosion practices.
Roy stated that as they look at the shoreline issues and marine resources in
general, the Council should work with the Planning Department, Shellfish Protection
District Advisory Committee, and Birch Bay. Look at the specific needs of some of
those areas.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she supported the motion. It's important to
recognize how fragile that area is and how much work they've done to try and
reopen Drayton Harbor for shellfish.
Roy stated many people have mentioned the economic issues tonight. There
was a multi - million dollar industry lost in Drayton Harbor because of pollution. The
oyster industry is gone. The area is nationally known for its birds that are attracted
to the area. There are two sides to the economic issue. It's good economics for
the county to save this area.
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, 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.
Motion to amend carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
McShane stated that the ordinance would be reintroduced at the next
meeting on June 17 and a public hearing will be scheduled at the July 8 meeting.
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE INCREASING THE PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT'S PETTY CASH REVOLVING FUND (AB2003 -212)
(Clerk's Note: Vice -Chair Caskey- Schreiber assumed the duties of the chair.)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and moved approval.
Motion to approve carried unanimously.
2. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
JULIAN MARSH TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH
ADVISORY BOARD (AB2003 -221)
(Clerk's Note: Chair McShane resumed the duties of the chair.)
Nelson moved to confirm the appointment.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
JON -PAUL SHANNAHAN TO THE MARINE RESOURCE COMMITTEE
(AB2003 -222)
Brenner moved to confirm the appointment.
Motion carried unanimously.
LETTERS SENT BY COUNCIL
1. LETTER SENT TO THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY REGARDING EIS REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GEORGIA STRAIT
CROSSING PIPELINE PROJECT.
Brenner moved approval. She thanked Councilmember Roy for her work
on this.
McShane also thanked Dave Grant and the Planning Staff.
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, 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.
(Clerk's Notes: This motion was not voted on.)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Nelson moved to accept the Introduction Items, including the substitute
supplemental budget request #6.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION 2002 -016: WASHINGTON
COMMUNITY ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION TEAM (WA -CERT) TO
PROVIDE ANNUAL PRIORITIZATION OF WA -CERT PROJECTS
(AB2003 -223)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2003 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET,
SIXTH REQUEST (AB2003 -224)
OTHER BUSINESS
Roy stated the Council and Executive sent letters asking for the
supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Georgia Strait
Crossing (GSX) pipeline. She was told today that the State Department of Ecology
decided to do that.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Brenner stated she has a book entitled Going Local regarding creating self -
reliant communities. It's appropriate for planning and economic development
issues. Anyone can read it when she is done.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10.40 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on June 17 , 2003.
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Dan McShane, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 6/3/2003, Page 24