HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works September 23 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
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
September 23, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara
Brenner in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
L. Ward Nelson
Sam Crawford
Also Present:
Seth Fleetwood
Dan McShane
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN AIRPORT /LAND USE
COMPATIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2003 -319)
Brenner asked where proposed policy 2D -7 is, as referenced in the third
"Whereas" statement.
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated policy 2D -7 is coming forward in the
Comprehensive Plan amendments. Because the urban fringe plan is taking awhile
to get through the process, they'd like to get the committee established more
quickly. Policy 2D -7 addresses airplane noise, compatibility with land uses around
airports based on a tendency for accidents to occur, and creating height hazards
around airports. He submitted handout (on file).
Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford out of the room.
2. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BIRCH BAY WATER AND SEWER
DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN (AB2003 -324)
Brenner asked if "short- term" is defined as five years or less.
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated "short- term" isn't defined in the
Comprehensive Plan. Someone can come in anytime and apply for a rezone as long
as that person meets the criteria to go from short -term to long -term.
Brenner referenced policy 5Q -1 and asked if Ferndale has something to do
with Birch Bay's water and the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District. The district is
currently looking at getting water from the Public Utility District (PUD).
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/23/2003, 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.
Rodney Langer, CHS Engineers, stated that in the past decade, the district
worked with the PUD and Ferndale. Part of the concept was to physically bring the
water through Ferndale's water treatment plant.
Brenner stated the top section on Council packet page 165 says that the
district will pursue getting water from PUD 1, and the following paragraph stated
the district provides wholesale water to PUD 1. She asked the relationship. Langer
stated they are not related. The district, due to its proximity to the Cherry Point
refinery, sells water to the PUD from its source in Blaine, just for the refinery's
domestic operations. The language in that section is talking about a future water
supply for the system as whole, that would be from the PUD and it's Nooksack
water rights, in conjunction with the Blaine supply.
Brenner asked if the supply for Cherry Point is from the Nooksack water
rights. Langer stated it is not. It is from the Blaine groundwater supply.
McShane asked if the water from Blaine is used solely for Cherry Point.
Langer stated all of the district's water comes from Blaine.
McShane stated his concern is the 30 -year contract. That's a long time. He
asked what happens if Blaine decides not to provide water anymore. Langer stated
there are provisions for three ten years extensions. Even though it will meet the
district's forecast for 20 years, the district continues to pursue other water sources.
An element of the annual CIP is to continue looking for water.
McShane stated a new well was drilled recently. Langer stated it looks like a
good source for quality and quantity. The district has an application for a
withdrawal right with the State Department of Ecology (DOE), but there is a
backlog of applications. Hopefully over the next decade, the district can develop
and use it.
Nelson stated there were problems with the jurisdictional nature of Birch Bay
abutting Blaine's urban growth area (UGA). He asked the final outcome. Langer
stated there were tensions in the early 1990's about who would serve utilities north
and south of Lincoln Road as the UGA was being delineated. It's not a particular
issue now. There is a small overlap in the water service area in Blaine's city limits.
City staff recommended that. It is cooperative. The City and district are open to
providing the service that is best for the community. There's nothing formal about
where that will be because the area is largely rural or undeveloped.
Nelson asked who would expand service to the southern portion of Drayton
Harbor. Langer stated that is currently in the district's service area.
Brenner stated approval is subject to having issues resolved between Blaine
and the district. Langer stated that is correct. He's not aware of any contradictions
at this time. The district is planning to serve utilities in Blaine's UGA, but Blaine is
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/23/2003, 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.
aware of it, has reviewed the plans, and doesn't object. The district's sewer plan
was approved in 1999 or 2000. Blaine reviewed it and did not object at that time,
either.
McShane stated the staff report talks about inconsistencies in rural zoning.
There is an agreement that Blaine would be opposed to extension of water lines
into the Blaine UGA unless Blaine is ready to annex it. Aamot stated that came
from the Blaine Comprehensive Plan. Lincoln Road is part of Blaine's water service
area. When they get ready to annex, they will negotiate so that either the district
will serve it or Blaine will take over the service. Now, there is a letter from Terry
Galvin that says they don't oppose water service at this time, even though they
want to keep it rural. If sewer goes in up there, it may not stay rural.
McShane stated it sounds like Blaine is concerned about creating urban areas
that it can't annex, even though it is in the urban growth area. Aamot stated there
is an interlocal agreement with them that say the County rules apply in that area.
If they want, they could ask the County to reopen those negotiations.
Brenner asked if it's correct that those are things that need to be worked out
before any development can take place, and this service area doesn't have
anything to do with it. That's the way she interpreted it. Aamot stated Terry
Galvin says he didn't object to the water system plan. The Blaine Comprehensive
Plan wants to keep the area rural until the City annexes it. The County
Comprehensive Plan regulations don't necessarily say that. The Drayton Harbor
area is a provisional short -term planning area, which will expire soon. In that area,
there will be a significant choice the Council has to make.
Langer stated this document is the roadmap for the district. When a
development comes forward, the district looks at the document to see how the
infrastructure should be put in place. The district's process is that before any
development extension agreement is signed, they seek concurrence with the
County that it's in a short -term planning area and they otherwise have the right to
do this in the county.
McShane asked if the developer also needs approval by the City of Blaine
because Blaine doesn't want services into that area unless it is ready to annex the
area. Aamot stated the County and City have both signed the interlocal
agreement, which says the County rules will apply in the urban growth area. The
City may have different things in mind for the urban growth area, and can
renegotiate the interlocal agreement if it wants. There aren't any provisions in the
interlocal agreement that would keep the urban growth areas at rural densities if all
the conditions of the zoning ordinance are met. The current zoning will apply
within the urban growth area until annexation. Aamot stated the County zoning is
urban residential, four units per acre (UR -4). If there is public water and sewer
available and the area is in a short -term planning area, then the density is UR -4. If
those conditions are not met, the zoning is one dwelling per five acres.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/23/2003, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane stated that the letter says that the City of Blaine Comprehensive
Plan requires master development plan review and annexation before it will support
urban development in the UGA. Aamot stated that if that's what the City wants to
see, perhaps it should renegotiate the interlocal agreement with the County.
McShane stated they could renegotiate the agreement, or the County could
change the zoning in the area to what the City wishes.
Brenner stated that is something the County could do.
Aamot stated the staff will work on small city urban growth areas next year.
That might be a time to address the problem.
Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council, including the
three staff recommendations.
McShane stated there should be a fourth staff recommendation to either
amend the interlocal agreement or to amend Blaine's urban growth area to match
Blaine's Comprehensive Plan.
Brenner asked if that would happen anyway. Aamot stated that when the
Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) was done in 2000, this area was claimed
by the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District as its service area. He's not sure it
should be tied to approval of this plan. How that area develops is more of an issue
between the County and Blaine.
McShane stated they would serve that area, which is fine.
Nelson asked if the district serves the whole area. Langer the district
provides water service where there is development in the south Drayton Harbor
area, outside the city limits. The area within the current limits of Semiahmoo is
served by the City of Blaine.
Motion carried unanimously,
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES (AB2003 -075B)
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, read from a PowerPoint presentation (on file).
Brenner asked why a water storage facility would be difficult to site. Aamot
stated they are difficult to site for aesthetic reasons.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/23/2003, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
The Essential Public Facilities Advisory Committee and Planning Commission
are recommending adding a couple of items to the list of essential public facilities.
The committee reached consensus on about 99 percent of the issues it voted on.
Crawford asked if this is the same committee that is looking at the County's
master facilities. Aamot stated it is not the same committee. The Essential Public
Facility Advisory Committee recommendations are being fed into the master plan
process.
Aamot continued to read from the PowerPoint presentation. Fire District 4
submitted a letter asking that fire stations and emergency medical services be
added to the list of essential public facilities. Staff concurred that they are essential
services in the county. Another issue is whether they are difficult to site. Marilyn
Bentley concluded that only the Fire District 7 addition had an objection. The
others were not contested. They could just make the permitting process for fire
stations easier.
Brenner stated fire stations and emergency medical services are welcome in
neighborhoods, but there may be opposition by neighbors immediately adjacent to
the location.
Crawford stated that was the Fire District 7 issue. In the County, those
things are valuable to have nearby. He's not sure they would meet the essential
facilities definition that says they are difficult to locate.
Aamot continued to read from the PowerPoint presentation (on file). Types
of transportation facilities must have a statewide or regional impact.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Aamot stated it's appropriate to have policies to guide the location or
expansion of linear facilities, such as highways and railroads. It's not appropriate
to have regulations that allow the facilities in one zone, but not another zone
because they go through all types of zoning districts. Part of the reason that the
State adopted the essential pubic facility rules was because local jurisdictions tried
to block State projects. The State eventually won those cases in court.
Brenner asked if passenger intermodal terminals are things like train
stations. Aamot stated they are.
Brenner stated Highway 9 is not included on the statewide map of Highways
of Statewide Significance.
Crawford stated the Council of Governments included Highway 9 and
Highway 542 up to Mt. Baker. It looks like the map was amended in 2002, but the
Council of Governments made the recommendation this year. The map in the
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/23/2003, 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
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.
packet is probably an old map. Aamot stated he would check for a more updated
map. He continued reading from the PowerPoint presentation.
Aamot stated that when the State formulates a plan, the County would
provide input based on the adopted policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Attorneys
let staff know of a court case that indicated local governments are often preempted
by federal government when it relates to railroad siting. The Planning Commission
added the railroad preemption language.
Brenner asked if local governments are preempted with interstate highways.
Aamot stated he didn't know. Even if preempted, the County can provide input
based on local policies.
He continued reading from the PowerPoint presentation. Airports are
different than everything else they are dealing with because there is only one
airport operational facility. If someone was to establish a new airport, the County
would have to rezone the area to an Airport Operations zone.
Nelson asked if Lynden and Blaine airports fall under this. Aamot stated that
if someone wanted to locate an airport in a city, the County provisions wouldn't
apply.
Area rezone criteria are based on State Department of Transportation
recommendations. One emergent issue is regarding public notification of aviation
facilities.
Brenner asked how much further beyond 1,000 feet the public must be
notified. Aamot stated it wasn't specified.
Brenner stated she doesn't understand how the Growth Hearings Board could
leave it open- ended.
Crawford asked the issue. If a new airport is going to go in, a county's
notification process will be minimal compared to the media surrounding the new
facility. Aamot stated he would look into it more. He wants to try to comply with
the law. Aamot finished his PowerPoint presentation.
Brenner referenced Council packet page 175, finding 12. She asked why it
isn't "shall be prohibited" instead of "subject to restrictions." The County is
precluded from not siting them in the county, but the County can restrict into what
zoning the facilities will go. Aamot stated that relates to the sex offender facilities.
Brenner stated the sex offender facilities are restricted within six hundred
feet, which is nothing when they are near schools and camps. Seattle restricted
one to industrial zoning. Restrict what zones they can go in. Aamot stated staff
brought that up with the Planning Commission. After the advisory committee made
its recommendations, King County looked at a remote forestry site and an industrial
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/23/2003, 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.
site. It might be appropriate to substitute a forestry zone for a residential rural
zone.
Brenner stated industrial areas are probably the safest area, but in Seattle
those businesses are being told they have to move out. Aamot stated the State
Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) said it would site the facilities in
areas in the State where most sex offenders come from. Whatcom County is far
down that list. The county may get to that point in the future. The facilities and
offenders are supervised 24 hours per day. Some people on the advisory
committee expressed more concern about people who are released into the
community.
Brenner stated there is an increased risk when the offenders are bunched
together in a facility. Aamot stated it may be appropriate to substitute a lower
density forestry -type area.
Brenner stated they should allow such a facility closer to a central industrial
area. It would be difficult to get a sheriff deputy to a forestry area.
Brenner referenced page six of Exhibit A, the second line of the background
summary. There is a scrivener's error, "affects effects."
Brenner referenced page seven of Exhibit A, goal 2WW, second and third
bullets. Give examples of permitted versus conditional use. She asked if it
depends on the zoning. Aamot stated the matrix on page 79 is an example.
Brenner referenced page eight of Exhibit A, the first full paragraph, second
line, "...Advisory Committee...."
Brenner referenced page 11 of Exhibit A. She asked why they don't talk
about the fact that the Nooksack River is a drinking water source for 30,000 to
40,000 people. They are always talking about Lake Whatcom. One of the problems
with the Cedarville dump was that it was so close to the river. Aamot stated this
relates to transportation, and there is a policy relating to Lake Whatcom. In the
others, there was language about the hundred year flood plain.
Brenner stated there is a lot of pollution that comes off of the roads. The
Nooksack River gets no respect compared to Lake Whatcom.
Crawford stated that would need to be language added to the
Comprehensive Plan on page 189 also in policy 2XX -4(b). The paragraph on the
next page just justifies the language in that policy.
Brenner stated they should add the Nooksack River to that list in policy 2XX-
4, unless there are no viable alternatives. She would like someone to discuss that
with the committee.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/23/2003, 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.
Brenner referenced page 35 of Exhibit A, number three about correctional
facilities being prohibited in the airport operation zone. She disagreed with that
item. Aamot stated the thought was that people are flying into the facility, and the
noise could disturb the inmates.
Brenner stated people live near the airport.
Crawford stated the idea is that they are not allowed to build it and subject
them to the noise.
Brenner referenced page 35 of Exhibit A, number one of the same section.
She suggested the correctional facilities could be located if near some kind of sheriff
or police substation. Otherwise, they should only be allowed in nonresidential
zones. Aamot stated there was some debate on the committee about this issue.
Crawford stated these are the prohibited uses for airport operations areas.
He's confused why they are talking about a zone. Aamot stated the rationale is for
all of the correctional facility recommendations, not just section .205.
Brenner stated correction transitional facilities should not be allowed in a
residential zone. Aamot stated he would talk about correction facilities during the
next presentation. He would try to get Wendy Jones to attend the meeting.
Brenner stated Wendy Jones couldn't change her mind. It's a personal issue.
They don't have to put them in residential zoning. Aamot stated there was some
discussion on the committee about this. The State Department of Corrections
commented. The Department of Corrections wants the County to allow 30 beds in
residential zones. County attorneys said the County allows correction facilities in
other zones. The County wouldn't even have to allow it in residential zones if it
doesn't want to.
Brenner asked about page 24 of Exhibit A. She is confused by the language
about sex offender homes. She asked how they only need a bed for three, when
they have more homeless sex offenders than that. Aamot stated the State told
them how much they need to plan for. The number they need to plan for is one
facility with three beds. This was in the context of deciding equitable distribution,
such as where the facility should be.
Brenner stated the rationale for recommending modifications on page 24 of
Exhibit A talks about making regulations for where the facilities are located, but
they cannot be more restrictive that the requirements of RCW 71.09.285. She
asked if it would be more restrictive than State law if the County only wants to site
the facilities in industrial zones. Aamot stated the County has choices to allow the
facilities in some zones but not others, but they have to get back to the idea that
Whatcom County can't preclude them at all. The State's idea is that the County has
to allow them some place.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/23/2003, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner referenced page 31 of Exhibit A regarding section .077, state
education facilities. She asked why they would have to get a conditional use permit
to have a state educational facility in a light impact industrial zone instead of
making it outright permitted. Aamot stated the committee was concerned about
using up the industrial land supply with non - industrial uses.
Brenner referenced page 36 of Exhibit A regarding solid waste facility
recommendations. She asked the difference between type one and type two solid
waste facility recommendations. Aamot stated pages 75 and 76 have those
definitions.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/23/2003, Page 9