HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil October 7 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
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 7, 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 there was discussion regarding property appraisals
for two parcels on the Mt. Baker highway (AB2002 -018) in executive session
during the Committee of the Whole meeting.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. UPDATE BY ROB POCHERT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (AB2003 -017)
Rob Pochert, Economic Development Council (EDC), stated there are six
active expansion projects and five very active business attraction projects they are
working on. The business development report is coming out very shortly. This is
an updated report. He submitted a copy of the report (on file). It is the first of
regular monthly reports that talk about their activities.
The EDC did a membership campaign in June. It is the first done in a long
time. They recruited nine new members and six members upgraded their
membership. Last year they did a "Think Bellingham" project, but it will be
postponed until Spring of 2004. At that time, the EDC will partner with Skagit
County and the State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
Development (CTED) to do a more regional presentation in British Columbia.
Almost all relocation prospects in the last six months have been Canadian. They
are exploring the creation of one stop network of resources to help Canadian
businesses get started in this area. Issues addressed include immigration,
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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.
incorporation, taxes, banking, real estate, incentives, workforce, and workforce
development. The EDC would be the point of contact and triage the basic needs of
the Canadian companies.
The business plan addresses a new economic development website. They've
gone through a request for proposals (RFP) process. They will use local
consultants. The website will provide up -to -date demographic data, community
profiles of all the communities in Whatcom County, and a geographic information
system - powered searchable database of available commercial and industrial
properties in the county. They also hope to also include information contained in a
recent industrial land survey. They will work with university graduate students to
do some of the data - gathering.
Next week the Board will go into a strategic planning session to review the
mission, set goals, and set objectives. From that session, staff will create a work
plan with measurable outcomes and timelines.
The EDC has also represented the County's Economic Development Initiative
(EDI) program with County staff. He wrote an article in the Business Journal about
the program. They've posted EDI information and application on the website. To
date, they've made over 12 presentations with local governments, districts,
developers, elected officials, and CTED staff. One application has gone through the
process, and three other applications are in development.
The EDC is Working with St. Luke's Foundation Steering Committee on
access to health care issues in Whatcom County. They will do work with the
Community College Business Department to look at business development
curriculums.
Nelson thanked Mr. Pochert. He asked if Mr. Pochert has gotten a handle on
the positives and /or negatives of the community by these potential businesses.
Pochert stated the most feedback he's gotten is from existing companies in the
community that want to expand. There is right now a lack of information on the
available processes and tools. The main issues are on workforce training and
workforce development. They have a solid network of providers, but they need to
do more to coordinate some of those activities to make that information more
readily available. He will address that issue as they put together the one -stop
shop for the Canadian companies. The prototype has worked very well.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they are doing any other marketing efforts for the
EDI program. Pochert stated it becomes a component of the program he presents
to business organizations, chambers, and other community associations. It might
be better to make sure the communities understand first how to access it. It will
also be more actively promoted on the new website.
Roy stated it's great to have this kind of information. They've been working
very hard. She asked if they are going to be linked to the Chamber of Commerce
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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.
and other agencies in the community. Pochert stated there will be links to any
organization that has to do with economic development. In addition, he will link to
state agencies and cultural activities, such as the university and the music festival.
MINUTES CONSENT
Nelson moved to approve the Minutes Consent items.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR SEPTEMBER 23, 2003
2. WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION FOR SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Dave Hanson, Whatcom County Fire Commissioners Association President,
stated there is a Resolution supporting Proposition 1 — Regular Property Tax
Levy for County -Wide EMS (AB2003- 027C). He thanked the Council for its
hard work on this issue. He also thanked the County Executive and Deputy
Administrator Dewey Desler for their support. He asked the Council to endorse the
levy by approving the resolution this evening.
Norma Kirchan, Maple Falls Citizens Association, handed out two resolutions
from Snohomish County regarding methamphetamine labs and other drug use (on
file). Because of their fight against these activities, Whatcom County has inherited
the problem. Sheriff Elfo has agreed to speak with the Snohomish County Sheriff.
She asked the Council to approve a similar resolution. She would also like to obtain
neighborhood grant monies, and hopes to have help from the County Executive's
Office. She thanked the County Council and County Executive for the increased
efforts in her neighborhood.
Bruce Preszler, 483 Summerland Way, Bellingham, spoke on the Ordinance
Adopting Amendments to the Introduction Chapter of the Whatcom County
Comprehensive Plan (AB2003- 075A). In making long range planning, use the
lowest population growth projection. If they build for more growth, the growth will
come. The County would be taxing the current citizens now for growth that may
not come. If it seems that more will come, they can adjust accordingly at that
time. If they don't plan for more growth, the higher amount of growth may not
come.
Jean Freestone, 3200 Vallette Street, read her letter into the record (on file)
and said her letter was written "tongue in cheek" about making development
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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
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.
regulations that will foster an elitist community and shut out everyone but those
with the highest incomes.
Richard Gantman, Mt. Baker School District Superintendent, spoke on the
Ordinance Adopting Amendments to the Introduction Chapter of the
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan (AB2003- 075A). His school district
encompasses 500 square miles in the eastern part of the county, including
Columbia Valley. Many people in the Columbia Valley area consider the census
data to be quite low. The actual population may be higher. Much property in the
Columbia Valley will developed in the near future because the property is very
affordable. The potential population density is large. In the eight proposed
scenarios, he prioritized them by percentage of growth. They don't want to be
surprised, such as the surprise they received when the school built four years ago
for 500 students now has 600 students. They're having to change attendance
patterns to accommodate that surprising population. Whatcom County will be best
served if they don't have any surprises in the future.
Nelson asked which projection he recommends to the school board.
Gantman stated they are ready for another self- study. The enrollment projection is
based on year -to -year enrollment. They have 50 students more this year than last
year. In a district of 2,200 students, 50 more students is significant growth. It
causes stress on the schools, overcrowding of the classrooms, and the need to hire
more staff. He is using numbers higher than the census numbers. Kendall School
is already overcrowded. If the three or four percent growth were to continue, they
will need another school. Make sure long -range planning accommodates that future
need.
McShane asked how the County - established population projection number is
important to the school district's planning. Gantman stated it seems that if the
growth rate is not acknowledged in some form in formal planning, then planning for
services in the eastern part of the county may not happen in a proactive way.
Formal planning includes school planning, services for the community, health
services, and Whatcom Transportation Authority. Whatcom Transportation
Authority was quite surprised at the ridership when it put in one fixed route in that
area. The ridership is very much over what they projected. All kinds of services
must be planned for.
Joan Casey, Bellingham, spoke on the Ordinance Adopting Amendments
to the Introduction Chapter of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
(AB2003- 075A). Defer determining a definitive population projection until the
City of Bellingham has done an analysis that includes infill, topography, zoning, and
environment. This number should be determined with collaboration with the
County, school districts, and transportation districts. There should be a public
hearing.
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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.
CONSENT AGENDA
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through six. On item four, there
has been some change in the dollar amounts because the taxes on some of the
parcels that would have been foreclosed on have been paid by the owners and were
taken out of foreclosure. He was assured that the only amount spent and divided
would be the amount the Treasurer's Office actually spent on each property.
Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through six carried
unanimously.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS AND THE
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CONSERVATION
CORPS FOR SALMON ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES COUNTYWIDE WITH
AN EMPHASIS ON THE TEN MILE CREEK AND BERTRAND CREEK
WATERSHEDS FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 8, 2003 THROUGH
JANUARY 31, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,400 (AB2003 -334)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE HOME PORT
LEARNING CENTER TO PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION TO
YOUTH IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$66,000 (AB2003 -335)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
WHATCOM LAND TRUST FOR CONTINUATION OF PARTICIPATION IN
THE WHATCOM COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PURCHASE OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM, EXTENDING THE CONTRACT TO
OCTOBER 31, 2004 (AB2003 -336)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SUDDEN VALLEY
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, CITY OF BELLINGHAM, AND WATER
DISTRICT 10 TO ASSIST IN THE PURCHASE OF SUDDEN VALLEY
PARCELS THROUGH THE 2003 WHATCOM COUNTY TAX FORECLOSURE
AUCTION, IN AN AMOUNT OF UP TO $8,250 (AB2003 -337)
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS) FOR ONGOING
STREAM FLOW GAGE NETWORK OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR
THE EARLY FLOOD WARNING PROGRAM, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$44,775, OF WHICH $33,775 WILL BE THE COUNTY'S SHARE AND
$11,000 WILL BE FUNDED BY THE USGS (AB2003 -338)
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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.
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE AND CASCADE BUSINESS PARK FOR NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE
RENTAL, FOR A TERM OF TWO YEARS IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,600
(AB2003 -339)
OTHER ITEMS
4. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 1 — REGULAR PROPERTY
TAX LEVY FOR COUNTYWIDE EMS (AB2003 -027C)
Fleetwood moved approval of the resolution.
Brenner stated they need a dedicated fund for this. However, don't go
anywhere near the amount proposed. They don't need it. This County Council
needs to find a way to be careful with the money from the general fund that is
freed up by having a dedicated fund.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they set the rate high initially to cover the five -year
expansion of their contract and services. They are adding another service unit.
The whole rate was set with good reasoning. She will support the request as it is,
and hopes the public will also.
Nelson stated this is a long time overdue. The Council will be just as
judicious with the public's money as it has in the past by not raising any rates for
seven years. Hopefully the district and public will work closely together in the
future to be more economical for all.
McShane stated the County Council will continue to carefully review the
annual budgets and move things in the right direction.
Nelson thanked the fire districts, Bellingham Fire Department, and everyone
who worked on this issue.
Motion carried unanimously.
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
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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.
20.97 — DEFINITIONS, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REGULATORY
PROTECTION FOR SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS (AB2002 -222B)
Amy Pederson, Planner I, gave a staff report and stated the history of the
issue and the ordinance. She suggested and submitted two amendments to the
ordinance document to add language to section four and to amend section
20.80.735 (2)(d)(9) (on file).
Caskey- Schreiber asked if Drayton Harbor is not under the seasonal clearing
provisions. Pederson stated Drayton Harbor is not subject to the seasonal clearing
limitations or the tree retention requirements.
McShane opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Paul Isaacson, 204 Shallow Shore Road, stated has been at every meeting
and has been through this draft many times. He is a member of the Forestry
Advisory Forum and other Lake Whatcom panels. He is appalled by the ordinance.
If 90,000 people need a road, the County will condemn and buy the property.
When 90,000 people need water at the expense of a few in Lake Whatcom, the
County will regulate his land and devalue it. If they are going to do this for the
benefit of the people and to help the water, they need to work together. This
ordinance regulates people who haven't done anything yet. All the people who
have homes, live on the lake, and use the boats are where the pollution comes
from. The pollution doesn't come from his timber lands and vacant treed lots. The
ordinance is unfair. Saving the water will be at the expense of his land and value
for others' benefit. There are a lot of places besides Lake Whatcom and Lake
Samish to protect water quality, such as the Nooksack River. Look at all of the
sources. Don't piecemeal this as they go along. This is not good regulation.
Wynne Lee, 2171 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, stated she supports the
ordinance. It should apply to more than just the three districts. There is an
aquifer under a lot of this land that needs protection. Water quality and quantity
protection is essential to sustain the County's future for every individual and every
business. The new overlay district is a good first step toward protection.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Lee continued to state that the ordinance moves in the direction of a long-
term choice for a sustainable future. It is wise public policy. This should be just a
first step. The issues of water quality and quantity and the development rules that
ensure a future for the water is something they cannot gloss over. It will be hard
for some people to make as much profit on their property without watershed
protection.
Bruce Preszler, 483 Summerland Road, Bellingham, stated he supports the
ordinance. It's been a long and good process.
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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.
Ken Murray, Sudden Valley, stated he is opposed to the ordinance. He
hasn't seen any data that supports the fact that building in the watershed is
harming the water. The regulations will increase the cost of property for families
who would like to move into the area. The business people want to bring Canadian
businesses into Bellingham, but they can't keep businesses in and people out. The
rules are not necessary. Sediment is not going into the lake from new
construction. Sudden Valley has put in its new sewer system and reduced the
amount of effluents in the soil. Sudden Valley was originally built for 4,500 homes.
There are currently 1,500 with another proposed 1,000 to 1,500 lots. Cutting the
proposed population of Sudden Valley by one -third is implementing rules and
regulations that will be costly. The pollution is not coming from new construction
in Sudden Valley.
Ron Reimer, 6595 Northwest Road, stated these regulations are really a
taking. According to a recent article in the Business Pulse, only 700 acres in the
urban growth area (UGA) is developable. Allow a transfer of development rights
that actually makes sense. Give people a reason to cooperate.
Stephanie LeBlanc, 112 Ohio Street, #107, Bellingham, stated she and her
husband are in the construction industry. They are currently building affordable
homes in the Sudden Valley area. The Council decision will have an effect. The
critical areas are another term for wetlands. The areas are designated by one
person, Lyn Morgan -Hill. She speaks at the risk of having her permits pushed to
the bottom of the pile. Any contactor in the room will say this happens. Shame on
those who allow it to happen. Ms. Morgan -Hill has told her that she will walk along
an area during an inspection and mark on her personal map whether an area is a
critical area. That makes it hard for a builder to know whether a land just recently
purchased is classified as a critical area. Any property that the County deems as a
critical area should be disclosed so any title search will show this designation.
People have spent money on the preparation of permit processes just to be shut
down or relegated to a five -year process because it wasn't disclosed. This is
wrong. This is another reason why the County needs to take a second look at what
it is attempting to approve before it cleans up what exists today. The County
should know about the excessive liability insurance increases to contractors in the
state. They are faced with a 500 percent increase in some cases. It will force
contractors in this county to leave or quit. It is another obstacle that local
contactors have to deal with. Now they are adding more restrictions. The Council
could be solely responsible for pushing the unemployment rate over the nation's
limit. There are a multitude of reasons that have an effect on the local economy.
Look at all these aspects of business. She and her husband are experts on erosion
control and know there are better ways to accomplish what they are doing.
Larry Williams, 2719 Donovan, Bellingham, stated they are in the dark ages
regarding stormwater runoff. They are not really protecting their water. He works
on two developments in King County, where all the soil is compacted, rolled,
hydroseeded, or tarped. There is no loose soil. Street sweepers are constantly
taking up all the mud off the streets in the development. The development here is
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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.
spotty. The local practice of treating soil and stormwater runoff is lacking. This
should be a countywide ordinance.
Steve Martini, 2149 Northshore Road, stated he owns property on the lake.
Clarifying language was submitted earlier today. He has built houses along the
lake and sold them at a loss. He is in the design and construction process for
buildings in that area. He owns some property along the lake and also across
Northshore Road. It looks like an ordinance with a lot of sticks and no carrots. It
takes a vast area of the county and makes 80 percent of it untouchable. It borders
on a taking without compensation. The ordinance allows alternative permeable
surfaces on driveways, but nothing in the ordinance deems those preferred
alternatives as pervious and removes them from the impervious surface limit.
When the City enacted its ordinance, it included language that allows reduction of
impervious surfaces on an existing property at the credit of other properties owned
by the same person. There was a process of transfer in the City ordinance.
Consider that process for the County. He submitted a letter from Jon Sitkin (on
file).
Chris Weitzel, 66 Sudden Valley, stated he is a realtor, husband, and father.
He is concerned with the ordinance. He wants to keep homes affordable. The
Sudden Valley Community Association has a good architectural control committee
that doesn't allow people to cut down trees without permission. They have strict
requirements regarding site plans. People also have to go through the County also
to get permission to build. The Sudden Valley developer put in 50 miles of roads
and hundreds of miles of green belts and trails that mostly went through wetlands.
There are 15 different parks. The community has done an aggressive density
reduction program. They've consolidated 500 lots. The community association has
eliminated another 700 properties. The 2,500 impervious surface limit on lots is
too much when they've already spent millions to protect water and open space.
They're getting no credit for what they've already done. There have been water
retention systems out there for 15 years. The lots are about 6,000 square feet.
The impervious surface limit restricts what people can build and their value. The
restriction will limit people from building at a reasonable value. Regarding tree
retention regulations, Sudden Valley residents can't cut down trees without Sudden
Valley's permission. Sudden Valley is already dealing with this problem, and has
for many years.
Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated they have been working on this
for many years. The fourteenth amendment has to do with freedom and due
process for property rights. A 1992 joint resolution resolves to sustain Lake
Whatcom water quality. Get on with it. House Bill 1689 deals with stormwater.
The Sudden Valley stormwater system as required has not been completed or
maintained. Sudden Valley is platted for 65 percent growth, which is beyond the
City and the County. A Senate Bill on local control of a municipal water supply was
passed in April. There is good legislation on the books. If the TDR program gets
on the books, there will be compensation. He supports the ordinance.
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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.
Terry Unger, 222 Grand Avenue, Suite C, Bellingham, stated this ordinance
places too many restrictions and too much uncertainly on new development but not
on existing development. The uncertainty affects financing and other ramifications
of building a house. Time delays and uncertainty caused by the ordinance would
be increased over what exists today. This ordinance places a significant amount of
correctional measures on new development, not existing development. The
general trend constricts new construction to those with higher levels of income.
Craig Ostrom, 2406 Lynn Street, Bellingham, stated he is the Sudden Valley
Community Association Architectural Control Committee Manager. He does plan
review, permitting, site inspection, and erosion control. He submitted a letter from
the Association's general manager, Steve Greiser. In the original Sudden Valley
development, 199 acres of greenbelt were platted. An additional 170 acres have
been taken out through density reduction. Many cluster subdivisions have a lot
size of 12,000 square feet. Twenty percent is 2,900 square feet. He asked the
Council to consider Sudden Valley as a unique area, because Sudden Valley has
put aside a lot of lands and established a lot of greenbelts.
Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, stated he supports the ordinance.
Cal Leenstra, 315 Lakeway Drive, quoted James Madison saying government
is instituted to protect property of every sort. This ordinance, specifically tree
retention, severely impacts private property rights. There is little or no regard for
the consequences. At Lake Samish, there is a different, discriminatory treatment
of property owners on the lake side of the street with no valid reason. This could
open the County to liability. Tree retention is not really applicable to lakeside lots
that were previously denuded of every living thing. The purported reasons for tree
retention are vague. They have no foundation, and they fail to substantially
advance a legitimate government interest, thereby exposing the County to
unnecessary liability for a taking. There is no question that 35 percent retention of
the tree canopy will have an adverse affect on views and values. The Council took
90 percent of his density during a recent Lake Samish downzone. Now the Council
wants to take away the view. The lots are on acreage sloping up from the lake.
Without a view, there is no value. He asked where this will stop. It's not equitable
or fair. The County's action is arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory. It
shouldn't be allowed. He urged the Council to oppose the ordinance. Regarding
bonds, the language is unclear about who is responsible for getting the bond.
Scotti Shannon, Remax Realtor and Shannon Construction Vice - President,
thanked the Council for removing the October to May clearing restriction from the
last run at this ordinance. She doesn't know why they are doing this ordinance
without a recent impartial study of the lake to see if there are any negative effects
to the lake's health. If this is about the lake, and not about inhibiting growth, then
make rules to enforce proper erosion control techniques. San Juan County has
used desalination successfully for over four years. There are other alternatives to
maintaining the lake. Think about how to pay for the administrative costs of these
new rules. Increasing the tree canopy will increase the danger of fire. Her
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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.
company employs approximately 100 people to build each home. Those people
spend a lot of money in the county. Don't take away their jobs. Develop transfers
of development rights.
Bill Querhn, Building Industry Association (BIA) of Whatcom Executive
Officer, stated the BIA expressed concerns over the Title 20 stormwater ordinance,
specifically the proposed ban on clearing from October to May. A land use
stakeholder group was formed and a compromise point system was proposed. It
remains in the present document. The BIA supports the point system. Since then,
the BIA staff and volunteers have expressed concerns over other parts of the
proposed ordinance. The BIA is very concerned about the ordinance. It is filled
with the potential for takings, claims, and other complaints by other present and
future property owners. There will be many lawsuits at taxpayers' expense. The
impact will affect present and future homeowners. The justification of the
ordinance is rescuing Lake Whatcom as a drinking water source. This ordinance
does nothing to stop or reverse the inflow of pollutants that may be entering the
lake from existing sources, including the County's own storm drain system that
flows into the lake, untreated, every day. This ordinance will not make any
improvement at all. It only deals with future construction. Houses that have not
been built yet have not been polluting the lake. Set aside this ordinance until a
formal environmental impact assessment to identify the present flow of pollutants
that may be entering the lake; funding sources are found or created to reduce or
eliminate pollution sources that are document, and; a stakeholder committee
similar to the land use working group is created and completes a review of this
proposed ordinance, weeds out dangerous and frivolous provisions, and replaces
them with a community consensus on erosion control measures and building
standards that will be legal, enforceable, and productive, and won't increase the
cost of housing or diminish the supply of land.
Gary Reid, Building Industry Association President, stated the goal is to
protect the water but the concern is about clarity and accuracy. He is concerned
about seasonal clearing, impervious surfaces, tree retention, and Drayton Harbor.
He encouraged the Council to accept the point system for seasonal clearing. It is
based on engineering principles. Engineering systems that are proven to be
workable should be allowed. One intent of the steering committee was to create
incentive for innovation, allow solutions in unanticipated situations, and to create a
higher standard. Allow a 3,000 square foot impervious surface limit. Pure water
runs off roofs. Increasing roof areas doesn't have much impact. If they built the
whole watershed out at 3,000 square feet, including existing houses that have less
than 3,000 square feet, the total acreage is 3.08 percent of the entire watershed.
At ten percent there is an impact. If they increase from 2,500 to 3,000 square
feet, the total increase is .054 percent of the total watershed. The design impacts
are extreme. Reduced areas creates houses that are functionally obsolete when
they are built. The setbacks are reduced because they have to addressed
driveways. Master bedrooms won't be allowed on the main floor, which may be an
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issue. A large portion of the land is forested.
The State Department of Natural Resources reviews every cutting over 5,000
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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.
board feet. It has a major impact on design. The cost is as high as $13,000 for
five acres just to meet the ordinance.
Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association, stated the BIA has
researched the cost of this regulation to a homeowner in each watershed. They've
talked to many professionals. Whatcom County is hurting its own citizens with this
ordinance. Some of the regulations prevent builders to work and support families
and employees. The regulations also hurt individuals in the watershed. The
regulations, specifically the tree retention language, only ensure that people may
not be able to afford to build on their own property. Some restrictions amount to a
taking without just compensation. Individuals will have to plan their whole lives
around the regulations. There is no flexibility for someone who needs added
impervious surfaces for emergency reasons, such as a wheelchair ramp. Drayton
Harbor is actually included in the tree retention regulations. The development
standards allow only 35 percent of the tree canopy to be cut on lots between two
and five acres in Drayton Harbor. The development standards should follow the
Title 20 regulations. Administrative regulations must follow statutes to be valid. It
is not clear. Everyone cares about water quality. Do an environmental impact
study (EIS) and identify the problem so they can diagnose and fix it.
Tom Iverson, 2330 Birch Bay - Lynden Road, Custer, stated he is an
excavating contractor. He opposed the ordinance. The regulations are too far -
reaching. He lives in the Drayton Harbor watershed. A few years ago, the Health
Department had grants to fix septic systems. There is less farming in the area.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Iverson continued to state that the Soil Conservation Service had a water
study mainly on the Nooksack River that said how much better the water quality is
today compared to what they used to have. What they are doing now is good.
There are a few problem areas. They don't need to throw the baby out with the
bathwater. If there are problems with a particular contractor, try to make that
contractor do better. That should happen first.
Brenda Iverson, 2326 Birch Bay - Lynden Road, Custer, stated she works with
nine families who are supported by the construction industry. These families are a
vital part of the community, pay their taxes, and make this place better. One
requirement is that a contractor must post a bond or surety to make sure the tree
retention is done correctly. Bonding companies will not bond to a third party, such
as a contractor. They will only bond for the owner. The County is asking an owner
who is trying to build an affordable house to set aside a good amount of money to
make sure all of this is done. She applauds the decision to keep the Drayton
Harbor area out of this requirement. Defer the decision on the rest of the
stormwater issues until they really study the impacts. She's not sure the
councilmembers understand all of the issues.
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Nelson asked the average cost for erosion control. Brenda Iverson stated
each house and site will be different, depending on slopes and soils. It could be
$5,000 to $7,000, or more. It is a lot of economic strain for a homeowner to come
up with that money when they are trying to build an affordable house.
Rob Olson, Olson Construction, Sweetwater Road, Bow, stated he works
exclusively in Sudden Valley. He is concerned with the impervious surface
requirements. He would like to be allowed at least 3,000 square feet of impervious
surfaces. He asked if lawn is considered an impervious surface.
McShane stated it is not.
Olson stated he is over the limit allowed by building a 1,700 square foot
home, driveway, and sidewalk. He is also concerned about tree retention
requirements. The percentages are confusing. The lots in Sudden Valley are
6,000 square feet. If there is only one tree, and it's in the middle of the lot that
they need to move to locate the house, then that's 100 percent of the trees. That
language needs to be reviewed.
Tom Pratum, North Cascades Audubon Society, stated there have been
many opportunities for people to bring up their concerns. Many concerns have
been brought forward. This is at least the third public hearing they've had on this
item. This ordinance is a compromise. The ordinance has been compromised in
many ways to satisfy concerns. A lot of the concerns brought up today are
compromised for the ordinance. Pass the ordinance today. Don't water it down
more. Science would dictate that the ordinance is not enough, but this is a political
process. Many constituencies have to be satisfied. Staff and the Council has done
a lot of work on this. He has been at all of these meetings.
Andrew Lohr, 652 Sudden Valley, Bellingham, stated he is an electrical
contractor. This ordinance will have a huge negative impact on building, homes
that average people can buy, and companies in the industry. The ordinance is
more about no growth than clean water. Allowed impervious surfaces should be
changed from 2,500 square feet to 3,000 square feet. The current amount is not
enough. Another 500 square feet will make little difference in the water quality.
However, limiting the amount of impervious surfaces to 2,500 square feet will stop
building. The tree retention requirements goes too far. It is not based on scientific
study. The percentages are picked to limit growth. The ordinance is too open to
interpretation. The regulations will cost too much. It gives too much power to
County employees because it is not well- defined. He asked what this Council has
done about existing problems. Take care of the existing problems. There has not
been a neutral, definitive study of Lake Whatcom. The ones they've had in the
past were put by the wayside because they haven't resulted in what the County
wants to hear. Think about all the detailed consequences. This is really about
limiting growth not protecting water. He wants his grandchildren have the ability
to live at Lake Whatcom. That won't happen with this ordinance.
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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.
Richard Gilda, Jensen Road, stated the original critical areas ordinance has
come and gone. He is opposed to the ordinance. He asked who would gain from
the ordinance. Geologists will have to go out and check the soil and slope. Tree
specialists will have to make sure the trees are not dangerous or dying.
Councilmember McShane, as a professional geologist, should step down from this
process or not accept any personal business in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
McShane stated he does not currently, and he has not worked at all as a
geologist in Whatcom County since he has been on the County Council.
Gilda stated Mr. Monsen is a very frugal Public Works Director. If there is
one person anywhere who can make gravel or fractured rock impervious, then Mr.
Monsen can quit buying oil and concrete for the county roads. They cannot make
gravel and rock impervious once its been fractured. Gravel is not an impervious
surface. The proposed ordinance does not allow silviculture or tree crops permitted
in the watershed. It's a prohibited or conditional use.
Roger Almskaar, 3610 Meridian, stated the ordinance is better than the one
passed in June of 2002, but it still has some problems. The law of supply and
demand always works. Every time rules become more excessive and arbitrary
than needed to get the job done, the cost of housing is raised without any
corresponding public benefit. It becomes more difficult for people to create good
paying jobs. He supports water quality in the lakes and watersheds. It is a valid
public purpose. He has concerns with this ordinance. The impervious surface limit
of 2,500 square feet on a rather small lot is too low. There are small lots zoned
five acres now due to the downzone. Someone with a two acre lot in that zone can
have up to 8,600 square feet. A neighbor with a half -acre may only be able to
have 2,500 square feet. Alternative non - pervious surfaces were removed from the
definitions. There are two problems with the tree retention regulations. Item two
requires prioritization of several factors. It doesn't say who will do the
prioritization. It leads to having to hire expensive wetland and geologic
consultants. The tree retention regulations are well intentioned, but the findings
stating the clear public purpose do not support them. Go with the Building
Industry Association's three points.
Roger Ellingson, 3033 Alderwood, Bellingham, thanked the Council for
including Drayton Harbor in this ordinance. The future of Blaine lies in the Drayton
Harbor ecosystem. The City will attract tourists and businesses based on what the
city and harbor offers in terms of its natural habitat. These amendments are legal,
proper, and will be easily be defended if challenged. However, they are also the
first step. Alone, they are not enough. The County needs to create a market for
transfers of development rights (TDR's). Don't tweak these regulation right now.
If, in the future, these regulations prove to be too restrictive, they may use TDR's
as a way to obtain a variance. They need to work on an ordinance that will
address retrofitting, of which the building industry is the biggest advocate. He
challenged the building industry to continue its advocacy when it comes time to
actually pass that ordinance. It will be very painful. There needs to be lot
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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.
consolidation incentives that encourage people to combine more than one lot. One
way to do that is to ease the regulations adopted tonight. If lots are consolidated,
fewer homes will be built in the watershed. As a consequence, there will be less
impact on the drinking water. They need a comprehensive program to address the
traffic impacts. He thanked the Council for protecting his property rights. His
house is not in the watershed, but it isn't worth a thing without safe drinking
water.
Geoff Menzies, 988 W. Laurel Road, asked the Council to retain items that
have to do with temporary sediment and erosion control in Drayton Harbor, phased
clearing, and soil stabilization. A stakeholder group formed in 1990 in the Drayton
Harbor watershed and worked for five years to come up with the Drayton Harbor
watershed plan. These three recommendations came out of that plan. It has been
over eight years since that committee came up with the recommendations. By
adopting the ordinance, the Council is implementing the work of the community.
The stakeholder work was based on detailed technical review and watershed
characterization for Drayton Harbor. This is not overly burdensome. The Puget
Sound Action Team just finished a review called Coastal Urbanization and Microbial
Contamination of Shellfish- Growing Areas. It documents that they begin to see
decreases in safe shellfish harvesting areas as there are increases in the amount of
impervious surfaces. Retain Drayton Harbor as a special stormwater district. The
watershed action plan done in 1995 identifies land conversion and stormwater as
significant sources of pollution affecting water quality in Drayton Harbor. The
requirements are not overly burdensome for Drayton Harbor. He appreciates the
staff implementing the work that has been done by the community for years.
Every time they implement a recommendation from the community, they are one
step closer to restoring the resource for the community.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated the problem is not clearly
defined. The result is regulatory overkill. The ordinance creates tremendous
uncertainty for the landowners. The ordinance is unreasonable, subject to various
interpretations, and hard to enforce. Tree retention regulations will create several
unintended consequences, including the creation of dangerous trees and fire
danger. It will be difficult for environmentalists to utilize passive solar energy. It
will be costly to the County and general public. It will take more staff time to
enforce the rules.
Cho Lee, Sudden Valley, stated he is a contractor. Ten years ago, he
bought property in Geneva. He waited ten years to develop because of the
moratorium. He finally was forced into bankruptcy and moved to Sudden Valley.
This ordinance is one more obstacle. People who have never paid taxes or carried
the burden of a developer or property owner shouldn't have much say in what goes
on with this issue. They all want to have clean water, but to shut down
construction and growth without valid scientific proof is ridiculous. Construction is
notoriously a feast - and - famine type of business. This will create chaos. They have
a limited number of workers who can't do everything at one time of year. This is a
crisis.
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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
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.
John Lee, Coach Corral Site Development Manager, stated the regulations
become more effective the less wordy they are. Sometimes they try to become
too specific. These are performance standards. The efforts have made the
regulations too prescriptive. Tweak the ordinance more toward performance and
less toward prescriptions. That will allow a sense of reason to the regulations. Be
open to any method that would meet the mandated performance standards.
Twenty -five hundred square feet allows a 35 foot by 12 foot driveway, which is a
minimum setback; 900 square feet for parking and a turnout, and; 576 square feet
for a two -car garage. That leaves only 604 square feet for the house. When they
do that, all the homes will be at 35 feet, which reduces sheet flow. It's something
they want to take advantage of.
Seth Cole, 1083 Chuckanut Drive, stated there are a lot of special interests
who are speaking tonight. His special interest is his drinking water. He wants to
make sure the drinking water is clean and protected. People can see in the many
urban streams in Bellingham that impervious surfaces cause water to runoff
extremely quickly. Vegetation slows down that water. When it rains, water goes
directly into the stream if there are impervious surfaces. There are not many
systems that are good at slowing that water down. In urban areas, banks along
streams are undercut. Streams are full of silt. The water is not clear. That's not
the kind of water he wants going into Lake Whatcom. He wants the water to be
clean. If they continue to allow development as it is occurring now, Lake Whatcom
is going to continue to degrade. They need to do something about that. This
ordinance is a good compromise. It allows builders to continue developing with
clear guidelines. It is too lenient, but it's a compromise he supports.
Jason Reimer, Blaine, stated his family has owned property in the Drayton
Harbor watershed for 50 years. The County Council wasted time and money on
this ordinance that is ridiculous, ludicrous, and foolish. There is no room for
compromise. The councilmembers have not read or misunderstood their oath of
office. The constitution is to protect the individual from the majority. The
impervious surface square footage limit has nothing to do with the individual. He
asked why it's anyone's business if he wants to build a 30,000 square foot home in
Whatcom County. Collectivism has failed. Don't go along with the Building
Industry Association (BIA) all the time. The point system is a compromise based
on the fact that the County is taking away 80 percent of his rights. This isn't about
water. If they are worried about water, then buy a filter. It's not about water or
science. A lot consolidation incentive of 5,000 square feet makes sense, but 3,000
square feet does not.
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley, Bellingham, stated she supports the ordinance.
They are accused of allowing no growth, but that's not the case. Any analysis will
show that the care and concerns expressed for the watersheds have no influence
on the remainder of the county, where growth is encouraged. Any argument
claiming that the motivation is no growth in the county has no merit.
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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.
People are complaining about regulations. She challenged anyone with a
relative who died in an automobile accident caused by speed or drunkenness to say
they don't want regulations on speed limits and drinking while driving. Regulations
are for protecting the whole community. That's where they are going with this, in
terms of protecting drinking water quality and the quality of life for the entire
community.
Someone cited three percent of the watershed at full build out. The
influence on the watershed is, in reality, to each sub - watershed, including every
creek and tributary. They must measure the percentage impact in each sub -
watershed, not taking the average of the entire watershed.
Comments were made about the financial impact to builders and developers.
She proposed the program in 1999, now in effect by the City of Bellingham, to
purchase land in the watershed to hold it in forestry. That is a fair and property
technique, from the standpoint of the landowner. A corollary to that is the transfer
of development rights and land purchasing.
Nancy Graham, Sudden Valley, stated this discussion seems to be about a
Lake Whatcom economic development area. However, the ordinance is about the
protection of their drinking water resource. She supports the ordinance. She
appreciates the detail and amount of work that has gone into the compromises the
past two years. No one needs a home any bigger than 1,200 square feet with a
two -car garage and lots of sidewalks. The Sudden Valley Community Association
requires a minimum of 1,400 square feet for a home size. That isn't necessary.
The Sudden Valley Board, as a corporate entity, really does not represent the
people who live in the communities around the lake and who treasure the forested
aspect. The tree canopy is precious to the quality of the drinking water. She's
concerned about staff's proposal to eliminate the bond requirement in favor of
tree - replacement. She's witnessed the clearing practices that the volunteer
architectural control committee allows in Sudden Valley. Beauty bark is scattered
over the land, and small trees are planted at a time of year that may make it
difficult for them to survive. Tree replacement is not effective the way she's seen
it done in her neighborhood. Adopt the ordinance, and futher protect the County's
drinking water.
Sharon Crosier, Bellingham, stated she's heard a lot of interesting things
tonight from the building industry, and has more compassion for their position.
However, if something is true, it's not more true because 30 people said it.
Something is not less true if only one person says it.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Crosier continued to state that the Council should be strong enough to do
what it needs to do. She thanked the Council for the process.
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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.
Doug Campbell, 1401 Astor Street, stated he is a consulting engineer. The
average cost to a contractor who mistakenly takes out a tree is $60 for a three -
quarter inch tree, $3,400 for a 12 -inch tree, and a $8,300 for an 18 -inch tree
according to the Western Washington University tree loss program. He's
concerned that there is no information in the ordinance about what the bond will
cost a private property owner. Using Western Washington University's program,
the cost is prohibitive. Reconsider the bonding language. It's very difficult to get a
third -party bond. There's no provision in the ordinance to allow for hazard trees.
There was a question about the cost of stormwater treatment. There are about
four ways to do that. One cost - effective way is to do a bio- Swale. It removes
about 50 percent of the loading, but it's the cheapest way to do it. It costs about
$1,500 to $2,000. The land has to be taken out of use because it is tied up in the
bio- swale. A second option is some kind of infiltration. The cost to the homeowner
is between $2,000 and $4,000. The disadvantage is potential damage to the
aquifer. Another option is a storm filter. Those cost about $4,500. They only
work in certain cases when there is enough discharge in the system to force the
water through the filter. They cost about $1,000 per year to maintain. The fourth
option is low- impact development options, which are very expensive now. Treating
stormwater should be done on a local or regional basis, not on an individual basis.
Nothing in the ordinance now promotes that.
Hearing no one else, McShane closed the public hearing.
Nelson moved to adopt the ordinance.
Pederson suggested the following amendments to Section 4 on page four of
the ordinance document, Council packet page 335, "The Lake Whatcom, Drayton
Harbor, and Lake Samish watersheds are defined as shown in exhibits B, C, and D
respectively."
Nelson accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment to his
motion to adopt the ordinance.
Pederson suggestion the following amendment, exhibit A page 18,
subsection 20.80.735(2)(d)(9), "... In the event any trees designated to be
retained are removed, the county shall have the eptien ef enfeFeing any bend
posted require that add+t+enal trees be planted which Fnay be
excess of those previously in existence
does not occur, the county may enforce upon any bond posted. Each tree removed
or destroyed shall...."
Nelson accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment to his
motion to adopt the ordinance.
McShane moved to accept a suggestion that staff recommended as an
addition to section 20.97.187, "Alternative surface methods as set forth in WCC
20.71.603 shall not be considered impervious surfaces."
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Nelson accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment to his
motion to adopt the ordinance.
McShane moved to accept a suggestion that staff recommended as an
addition to section 20.71.603, Alternative Surface Methods, "...with other applicable
regulations and development standards. Surfaces that comply with this section
shall not be considered an impervious surface under WCC 20.71.300."
Nelson accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment to his
motion to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner moved to amend section 20.71.302(1), "For uses in the UR, and
URM, and FAR zone districts, at least 8-0 50 percent of the lot or parcel shall be kept
free of structures and impervious surfaces. In the RR zone districts, at least 80
percent of the lot or parcel shall be kept free of structures and impervious
surfaces." For urban residential (UR) and urban residential -mixed (URM) zones, 80
percent is a very high amount. It treats different properties differently. She is fine
with 80 percent in the rural residential zones.
Nelson stated there was discussion at one time about 3,000 or 2,500 square
feet of impervious surface requirement. A lot in a UR or URM zone is typically
small. He asked if 50 percent would equate to 2,500 or 3,000 square feet.
McShane stated that if the lot is zoned a standard urban residential, three
units per acre (UR -3), 50 percent would equate to 7,500 square feet of impervious
surface.
Crawford stated the gentleman from Sudden Valley said 6,000 square feet is
the average lot size of the developable lots that are left. That amendment would
allow 3,000 square feet on a 6,000 square foot lot.
McShane stated there would be some variation in the nonconforming lots.
Nelson asked if there is language that would tie the two together.
Brenner stated she would tie them together in another amendment. She
withdrew her amendment to do the other amendment first.
Brenner moved to amend section 20.71.30(3), "For lots or parcels where
the applicable formulas in subsections (1) and (2) would not allow a 2,500 3,000
square foot impervious surface area, 2� 3,000 square feet of impervious
surface shall be allowed...."
Roy asked why the square footage was changed from 3,000 square feet in
the first place.
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Planning Committee looked at the total effect of
the change to 2,500 square feet. Tom Pratum generated the total additional
acreage of impervious surfaces that would be allowed with 3,000 square feet. It
was a large amount of land. She asked what would happen with the remaining
language in that section, and if there would no longer be an incentive to
consolidate lots.
Crawford stated the information on Council packet page 382 answers
Councilmember Roy's question.
Nelson stated he would like to support the ordinance. It may take forever to
tweak the ordinance. Public testimony concerns have been about both property
rights and protecting water quality. This ordinance starts a process. They all
realize there will be stormwater protection in some manner. He would rather do
this as a first step. One quote was that 3,000 square feet is a half percent in the
entire watershed. He agreed they need to have good water quality data to base
these requirements on. He preferred to go back to the 3,000 square feet
requirement. It was a Planning Commission recommendation. He's sure
Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber and the other side could put forward good
information. However, he would rather err on the side of helping the public, rather
than saying they need this to be as tight as possible.
McShane stated this amount was originally 2,000 square feet when he was
elected to the County Council. The incentive in the last line in section three may
not be great enough. He suggested, as an alternative, to allow an incentive of
4,000 square feet. Otherwise, he'd prefer to stay at the 2,500 square foot
requirement.
Motion to amend failed 3 -4 with Brenner, Nelson, and Crawford in
favor.
Brenner moved to amend section 20.71.302(1), "For uses in the UR, and
URM, and RR zone districts, at least 8-0 50 percent of the lot or parcel shall be kept
free of structures and impervious surfaces. In the RR zone districts, at least 80
percent of the lot or parcel shall be kept free of structures and impervious
surfaces."
Motion to amend failed 3 -4 with Brenner, Nelson, and Crawford in
favor.
McShane moved to amend the last sentence in section 20.71.302(3),
3,999 4,000 square feet of impervious surface shall be allowed." It's a more
reasonable incentive, given the testimony he heard during public testimony.
Nelson asked what the incentive is. Without consolidating, a person would
be allowed 5,000 square feet.
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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.
McShane stated that is correct. A person has a choice of building two small
or one large house.
Crawford asked if a lawn is or is not included in the definition of an
impervious surface. Goodwin stated it is cross - referenced to section 20.71.603
regarding alternative surfaces, which includes bark, wood mulch, and turf block. It
does not specifically list a lawn. Other similar materials, including lawn, are not an
impervious surface. Lawn is not specifically mentioned in this draft.
Crawford stated it's important to be clear. The County has said for five
years that lawn is an impervious surface. Goodwin stated lawn is currently
enforced as a pervious surface.
Brenner stated she would support the motion. It's not much of an incentive,
but it gives someone another option. If they really want people to consolidate lots,
make it more than 4,000 square feet. It's better than it was.
McShane stated they may consider other incentives in the future,
particularly with transfers of development rights (TDR's).
Motion carried unanimous /y.
Brenner moved to strike section 20.71.351(3). If they are really serious
about encouraging the retention of more open space in the watershed, they
shouldn't limit the maximum number of lots in a cluster to 16. No one has given
her any scientific basis for limiting the number to 16. Encourage as much
clustering as possible. If developers can make it work, give them that option. It
will provide more open space.
McShane stated the limit of 16 had nothing to do with science. It had to do
with consistency with the other rural zoning. The limit was originally a lower
number. It was increased because someone wanted a larger cluster. In rural, one
unit per five acres (R5A) zoning, 80 acres allows 16 housing units.
Roy asked about the result if they eliminated that section.
McShane stated they want to have consistency with the rural element of the
County Comprehensive Plan. The County was required to establish a cluster limit.
Brenner stated they keep saying they want more open space in these areas.
The more they cluster, the more open space they will have.
Roy stated they are talking about the Lake Samish and Lake Whatcom
watersheds. It's hard for her to imagine a cluster larger than 16 houses in these
specific areas.
Brenner stated it's been brought up.
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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.
McShane stated the cluster division rules are not applicable to Drayton
Harbor.
Nelson asked if tree retention requirements would be applied to the entire
development, not the individual lots in the cluster.
McShane stated that is correct.
Caskey- Schreiber asked for staff comment on the decision to allow 16 lots in
a cluster. Goodwin stated they wanted consistency with the other section of the
County Code. The agricultural protection overlay specifies 16 lots because the
Growth Management Hearings Board said a cluster with an unlimited size in a rural
area could create a suburban center. If they had a cluster development as large as
Sudden Valley, there might be pressure to make it into an urban growth area. It
doesn't say anywhere how many lots can or cannot be allowed in a cluster. It
could be 16 or it could be 50. The County Council chose 16 lots for the agricultural
protection overlay, based on the number of lots allowed on an 80 acre parcel.
Crawford asked if there are areas in the Lake Whatcom watershed larger
than 80 acres zoned R5A or larger than 160 acres zoned rural, one unit per ten
acres. Goodwin stated there aren't many.
Brenner amended her motion to amend section 20.71.351(3), "The
maximum number of lots in a lot cluster shall be 4-6 50."
Motion failed 1 -6 with Brenner in favor.
Brenner moved to amend section 20.97.187 to delete gravel roads as an
impervious surface and add a sentence at the end of the section, "Gravel road shall
be considered low -grade pervious surface and given twice the limit /credit of
impervious surface." The Council received definitive information from County staff
that showed there is not a lot of difference between lawn and gravel. There is a
huge difference between gravel and pavement. She agreed with the testimony
that gravel is not impervious. She'd rather see gravel than pavement in the
watershed. The Council included this language once, and it was taken out in
committee by a minority of the Council. Put this back the way it was. Give people
extra credit for using gravel instead of pavement.
McShane stated he received the same information, and came to a very
different conclusion about the definitiveness of the information from staff.
Fleetwood asked if the councilmembers were told that gravel becomes
impervious overtime.
Brenner stated they were not. The councilmembers were told that it
becomes less pervious over time. It never becomes impervious. A study shows it
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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.
is more in line with what lawn does than what pavement does. The Public Works
Department Engineering Manager did a hydrologic analysis of gravel surfaces. It
showed that there is some difference between lawn and gravel, but they are
related more closely than gravel and pavement.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they decided already to give gravel some credit
based on the soil it is on. The Planning Committee weighed this heavily. She
spoke to land planners in King County who consider gravel an impervious surface,
without any credit. Councilmember McShane brought forward a compromise to
give credit based on the hydrology of the soil underneath the gravel. That's why
the Planning Committee adopted what it did.
Roy stated she was impressed with the document received by the engineer
who did the various tests. She asked why they wouldn't give that study any
weight.
Brenner stated that the total of the required conditions in Councilmember
McShane's compromise leave practically nothing on which to put gravel. On the
surface the proposal looks like it gives a lot of leeway, but the map showing the
different types of soils looked like most of the watershed wouldn't be able to use
the gravel.
McShane stated he disagreed. That's not the map he looked at.
Fleetwood asked for an explanation of Councilmember McShane's differing
conclusion of the engineer's study report.
McShane stated the report says that lawns are not that effective, but the
gravel surfaces are different. There are multiple tables in the report that list runoff
coefficients that vary depending on the storm size event and the amount of rain
they've received over time. As an example, table two is for a six -month storm.
The coefficient for total runoff volume for gravel at a six -month storm in type A
soils is seven. There is no runoff for lawns. For pavement, the coefficient is 82, so
gravel is definitely better. However, with the type D soils, the coefficient for gravel
is up to 42, and pavement is still at 82. The amount of runoff varies depending on
the soil underlying the site. The study is accurate, and the results are similar for a
two -year storm.
His proposed compromise reflects the soil types. For A and B soil types,
gravel is okay as long as there is clearance above the groundwater table. It is a
more rational approach based on the study and information from the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS).
The councilmembers received a letter from the Building Industry Association
stated that his entire proposal is arbitrary and capricious, he just made it up
himself, and it did not offer any comprehensive study to support it. However, his
proposal is based on the SCS soils and standards scientific design. He is a
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
practicing Washington State licensed engineering geologist and routinely makes
recommendations regarding stormwater management on a wide variety of
properties in a wide variety of settings. It is his profession. His proposal is a much
more rational approach than ignoring the standard engineering design.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the engineer study was based on soils with a two to
eight percent slope. The land around the Lake Whatcom watershed is steeper
sloped than that.
Roy stated that in every single circumstance, gravel is significantly better
than concrete. That's her dilemma.
McShane stated almost all jurisdictions and in engineering design, gravel is
generally treated as impervious.
Roy stated her concern is the study that refutes that.
Motion carried 4 -3 with Fleetwood, Caskey- Schreiber, and McShane
opposed.
McShane asked if the amendment creates a conflict with subsections
20.71.302(8)(a -e).
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B.)
Brenner moved to amend to strike the current language in section
20.71.302(8) and subsections 20.71.302(8)(a -e) and replace the language in
section 20.71.302(8) "Gravel surfaces shall be given a fifty percent reduction in
impervious surface value."
Motion carried 6 -0 with Nelson out of the room.
Brenner referenced sections 20.80.634(1)(f)(i) regarding Recreation and
(vi) regarding Education. They are great things to have in the design of
stormwater systems, but they should not be required of someone who is doing a
stormwater system. The County could give incentives for people to make
recreation and education part of a stormwater system design. Don't force people
to do it. It would increase costs of doing good stormwater design. It's more
important to protect water quality.
Fleetwood stated these are not mandatory provisions, just examples of
provisions. Recreation and education are just offered as examples of provisions.
Brenner moved to amend Council packet page 352, section
20.80.735(2)(d)(1), °...a cumulative total of 5,000 square feet or 3§ 50 percent of
the existing...." They might want to add language to make this more
understandable. They talked about the different percentages. The difference in
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
percentages will not be significant. Changing the percentage to 50 percent will
start them off at a better place. The 35 percent isn't necessary and wasn't based
on science. Some people wanted 65 percent. Fifty percent is a good compromise.
McShane stated the percentage was based on science, and was not just a
simple decision.
Crawford asked for clarification on the site plan and retention plan. He
asked if they are talking about a survey.
McShane stated they are not. They put some effort into making sure that
didn't happen.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, beginning of tape four, side A. Tape three
contains only a brief portion of the discussion.)
Baumgarten stated that, according to the discussion, a survey wasn't
required. Areas could be marked off by the applicant. There was discussion about
flagging, tape, or anything that was clear to understand. The plan needs to be
drawn to scale by anyone who can measure the area on the ground and draw it to
scale. There is no requirement that it be done by a professional.
Crawford asked how the total amount would be determined if someone
wants to clear the maximum amount. Baumgarten stated they are reasonable in
their interpretation. If measuring it out and it looks like it's the correct
percentage, then that's the way it's interpreted. They can't really argue a
difference of a few feet.
Nelson stated a question came up about 35 retention on a small lot. He
asked how a person would meet setback requirements if tree retention is centrally
located and the clearing is done around the perimeter of the lot.
McShane stated language in section 20.80.735(7) allow for special
circumstances.
Baumgarten stated section 20.80.735(7) allows for replanting at a two -to-
one ratio as a mitigating measure, to facilitate the use of the site. The 6,000
square foot Sudden Valley lots are allowed clearing of 5,000 square feet, according
to this ordinance. A 3,000 square foot area of impervious surface allows 2,000
square feet of open space around the house and a 1,000 square feet of tree
retention.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Brenner, Nelson, and Crawford in favor.
Brenner moved to amend section 20.80.735(2)(d)(9), '...merchantable
timber from any applicant who has had previous significant violations to guarantee
retention...." The language is so onerous. They are punishing people, most of who
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, 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.
do a good job. They know who the people are that don't do good jobs, because
they repeatedly don't do good jobs. She doesn't want to require it otherwise.
Crawford stated he liked the idea, however the land use regulations should
not talk about individuals.
Nelson stated it may be illegal, even though he liked the idea, because they
are applying the law indiscriminately.
Crawford stated it would probably be good not to let the blatant violators
even build anymore. It's a matter of degree.
Roy stated she is concerned about singling out certain people, determining
who makes the judgment, and what they consider 'significant.' There is still some
discretion allowed in the language because it says the County 'may' require a
bond. It covers the opportunity when you know there is a frequent violator. They
have to assume some reasonableness on the part of everyone involved.
Brenner stated the 'may' language is subjective. She gets along with staff,
but there was a comment tonight during testimony that different people can be
treated differently by certain staff. She doesn't like the bond requirement. She
thought her suggestion was fair. She asked if there were any way to make it work.
She amended her motion to amend section 20.80.735(2)(d)(9), "...merchantable
timber from any applicant who has had previous violations to guarantee
retention...."
Fleetwood stated that the present County language says the County 'may'
require a bond. He asked if it is appropriate to say the County may require a bond
or other security in an amount it deems appropriate. Staff already has the
discretion to require a bond in some cases, but if staff does require a bond, it now
has to be 125 percent. It is doesn't make sense to invest in the administration the
authority to make a discretionary call. Just grant the administration the discretion
to require a bond where they deem it appropriate.
Brenner amended her motion to amend section 20.80.735(2)(d)(9), "...in an
amount equate not to exceed 125 percent of the merchantable timber from any
applicant who has had previous violations to guarantee retention...." The staff
would have discretion dealing with applicants with previous violations.
Crawford stated the language requires fines. His question is why they even
need this bond. The person will face a fine of 150 percent in the water resource
protection overlay. Just delete the bond requirement.
Fleetwood asked how they would guarantee performance.
McShane stated he recently experienced a situation where someone
required by the building permit to leave trees for slope stability reasons removed
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
every single tree. The violators had all sorts of violations, but no ability to pay.
The action was horrific. It closed the road for 80 people.
Crawford asked if the person could have gone ahead and moved the trees
without a bond.
McShane stated that in this case, the county government - not Whatcom
County - was unable to recover the cost.
Crawford stated that in that flagrant situation, the person would have gone
ahead and removed the trees, even without the bond.
Brenner stated her motion is a compromise. She amended her motion to
amend section 20.80.735(2)(d)(9), "...in an amount equate not to exceed 125
percent of the merchantable timber from any applicant who has had previous
violations of this chapter to guarantee retention...."
Motion to amend failed 3 -4 with Brenner, Nelson, and Crawford in
favor.
Nelson asked for an estimate of the actual impact of bonding. He'd heard
it's approximately $6,000. It shouldn't be that much. If in the wet season, a
person wouldn't be allowed to do it anyway. In the dry season, there shouldn't be
that much of an erosion problem. The bonding is based on what they have to do.
It's erroneous to put both bonding and erosion control measures on a single - family
residence.
Roy asked if this is something that would happen every single time.
Nelson stated the language says shall,' not 'may.' He moved to amend
section 20.80.735(e)(1)(b)(v), "The county shall may require a bond...."
Motion carried 6 -1 with McShane opposed.
Fleetwood stated there are no criteria for the Planning staff that would
describe how they would exercise that discretion. He asked for an example of a
scenario where the County might not require the bond, or if it is the County's
intention to require the bond in every instance. Baumgarten stated staff has to
look at that, compare it against the Critical Areas Ordinance and other things. He
can think of places where a bond may be required, based on proximity to a water
body. It is a lot of the same criteria they use for the seasonal clearing point
system.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Prosecuting Attorney, stated Councilmember
Fleetwood's concern about giving discretion to staff without guidance is well -
founded. The Council could tie this discretion into those criteria Mr. Baumgarten
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
just mentioned. It would be prudent to build a reference to the criteria into the
code.
Goodwin stated the Critical Areas Ordinance also says 'may' and has no
criteria. Staff may need to write criteria for all.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this was discussed in committee. If trees are key
to slope sustainability or there is a history of someone not respecting clearing
rules, a bond may be appropriate.
Brenner moved to amend section 20.80.735(2)(d)(9), "The county may
require a bond or other security in an amount equal to not to exceed 125 percent
of the merchantable timber...." In some instances, staff should be able to require a
smaller bond if appropriate.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like Ms. Goodwin to develop criteria, and
then figure out what they will base the bond on.
Goodwin stated staff agrees with the motion. It allows discretion to require
a bond of less than 125 percent.
Pederson stated staff could incorporate similar or the same language as is in
section 20.80.735(2)(e)(1) regarding the point system worksheet as requirement
for a bond.
McShane suggested amending language in section 20.80.735(2)(d)(9), "The
eeunty technical administrator may require a bond or other security in an amount
equal to 125 percent of the merchantable timber, based on evaluation of clearing
activities established in the seasonal clearing site evaluation worksheet to
guarantee retention of...."
Brenner asked why they have to put it in there if it's already there. It's
what the County will use to evaluate it anyway. Pederson stated one refers to tree
clearing and the other refers to seasonal clearing activities. They are two different
things.
Brenner stated she would accept the suggested language as a
friendly amendment to her motion.
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a break at 10:40 p.m.)
McShane stated staff recommends deferring on coming up with
administrative criteria until they can make a recommendation. He stated the
motion to amend section 20.80.735(2)(d)(9), "The county may require a bond or
other security in an amount equal to not to exceed 125 percent of the
merchantable timber...."
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Crawford stated the normal practice for wetland mitigation in the Critical
Areas Ordinance is to require a bond, but there are exceptions occasionally.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Brenner stated she would support the ordinance. She debated back and
forth on it. She's pleased to have gotten the gravel thing, and won't push it. She
hopes this is a starting point, and that the County makes it work better for
everyone. She asked when they are going to start talking about retrofitting in the
watershed. People have a legitimate gripe when all this is being put on the
shoulders of the people who haven't developed yet. If they have problems in the
watershed, they do need to protect them. Treat people more equitably.
Nelson thanked the committee for spending time on this item. He hoped
this is a first step. The community should look at it as a step toward providing
quality development standards that help all in the community. They need to
evaluate this carefully as they use this ordinance. He hoped staff will provide
evaluations of how it is working. They still need to get measurements of quantity
and quality from the lake, so they can have a baseline of the lake. He hoped the
Council isn't so strident in making downzones with this ordinance in place. He's
opposed to downzones. He'd like to see the County working with the community
on transfers of development rights and engineering credits. That may be
something to look at in the future.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this process has been good evidence that the
Council is willing to work with the Building Industry Association. This ordinance is
a far cry from what the Council passed a year ago. The Council is willing to
continue working on it as needed. The Council has tried as much as possible to
work with everyone on this issue. The ordinance won't make anyone 100 percent
happy. For now, it's the Council's best effort to put the community on a plan that
takes positive steps to protect the watersheds in the area. She thanked everyone
who worked on the process.
Fleetwood stated he would support the ordinance. Lake Whatcom is the
largest drinking water source in Western Washington that has much development.
By that standard, the County is immensely permissive. This is one more step.
There will be more steps. He agrees they need to do something about existing
development. He suspects they'll be talking about that in 2004.
Roy thanked staff for working on this. Everyone has worked very hard on
this item.
McShane stated he appreciated the administration's support.
Motion to adopt as amended carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
OTHER ITEMS
1. DISCUSSION AND FORMULATION OF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN WRIA 3 WATERSHED PLAN IN THE
UPPER SAMISH RIVER BASIN (AB2003 -327)
Roy reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated Water
Resources Division Manager Bruce Roll is going to hold a discussion on this at a
later water resources work session.
2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT PROGRAM APPLICATION
AND RECOMMENDATION (AB2003 -333)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and stated a new proposal is coming forward. He moved approval of this with the
$167,000 as a grant and the remainder as a loan.
Motion failed unanimously.
Crawford moved to approve the proposal with 100 percent of the request
payable as a loan.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. REQUEST BY WATER DISTRICT 10 TO CHANGE ITS NAME TO LAKE
WHATCOM WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT (AB2003 -329)
Nelson moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8 RESOURCE
LANDS — FOREST RESOURCE LANDS SECTION OF THE WHATCOM
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2003 -075C)
Roy reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated committee
recommends holding a public hearing on this item in two weeks. The committee
has made amendments. She moved to hold a public hearing on this item.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(AB2003 -075A)
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated
the Bellingham City Council has asked that this item be held.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Brenner moved to accept the Introduction Items, including the substitute
version of the ordinance amending the 2003 budget, eleventh request.
McShane withdrew item two.
Motion to approve Introduction Items one and three through six
carried unanimously.
1. ORDINANCE CONTINUING THE INTERIM CONDITIONAL USE
CRITERIA ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE 2003 -027 FOR THE SITING OF
MUSHROOM COMPOSTING AS A CONDITIONAL USE WITHIN THE
AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT (AB2003 -158A)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2003 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET,
ELEVENTH REQUEST (AB2003 -340)
McShane stated the supplemental budget request item includes an additional
request regarding $20,000 for support for the Energy Facility Site Evaluation
Council (EFSEC) process. He won't participate in the discussion or vote on this item
in any way.
Nelson moved approval.
Motion to amend carried 6 -0 with McShane abstaining.
3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT
CHAPTER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(CHAPTER 11) (AB2003 -075D)
4. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CHAPTER
OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CHAPTER 2),
WHICH INCLUDES RURAL LANDS (AB2003 -075E)
S. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WHATCOM COUNTY 2004 ANNUAL
ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (AB2003 -332)
6. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, GENERAL PURPOSES GRANT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,000,000 (AB2003 -341)
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
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.
LETTERS WRITTEN BY COUNCIL
1. LETTER WRITTEN TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE WASHINGTON STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (WSAC) REGARDING WHATCOM
COUNTY'S OFFER TO HOST THE 2006 WSAC CONFERENCE (AB2003-
164)
McShane stated this letter has already been sent. He moved to approve
sending the letter.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Crawford stated San Juan County Commissioner Darcie Nielsen dressed down
the Whatcom County Council when she found out Whatcom County sent that letter.
No one from the Whatcom County Council has attended a single Washington State
Association of Counties (WSAC) meeting.
McShane stated Whatcom County is the lowest paid county legislative body
in the state, including Garfield County, with a population of 2,400.
Brenner stated the Public Works Committee unanimously voted to ask the full
Council about radio interference in the City of Ferndale. She will work with the
County Prosecutor.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape four, side A.)
Brenner moved to send something to the Federal Communication
Commission (FCC) in support of the City of Ferndale.
Nelson stated the motion approved in committee was not to support
Ferndale, but to identify the issues of interference that affects Ferndale, the
County, or anyone else.
Brenner agreed. The Prosecutor stated the Council needed to come up with
findings that would support the problem.
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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 motion was to allow Councilmember Brenner to draft
and send a letter, on behalf of the Council, expressing Whatcom County's concerns
with the radio interference caused by a particular radio station in the Ferndale area.
Brenner stated her motion is to only work on the letter.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:07 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on November 18 , 2003.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 10/7/2003, Page 33