HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil June 18 20021
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
June 18, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
Nelson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Dan McShane
Sharon Roy
SPECIAL PRESENTATION - FLAG SALUTE:
Girl Scout Troop #1135 presented the colors and led the meeting in the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Nelson announced that there was discussion regarding the
unrepresented employee salary resolution (AB2002 -225) and collective
bargaining negotiations (AB2001 -391) in executive session during the
Committee of the Whole meeting.
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Mike Kaufman, 1620 Huntley Road, thanked Council for opposing the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the Georgia Strait Crossing (GSX). Their
action in that is fraud.
Mary Petty, County, stated Whatcom County is a tinderbox. She suggested
that the Council create an ordinance regarding the clearing of properties adjacent to
residences and clearing of all underbrush in vacant areas.
Much is being done for senior citizens, but nothing is being done for youth.
There is no proper youth center in Bellingham. There are no activities for young
people. School used to stay open until 6:00 p.m. during the depression.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
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.
She suggested that someone develop a Bellingham /Whatcom County
Olympic -style program for anyone of any age. It would make the public feel as if
they are a part of the community. The event could include athletic and scholastic
events. There should be categories for all groups and abilities. To minimize the
costs, qualified, screened volunteers at schools, the library, parks, and all
community centers could operate the event. There could be a civilian youth corps
to facilitate the program.
Lastly, services need to be available to the homeless, endangered, and
incapacitated members of society. Some entities in government are ultimately
responsible for the welfare of these people. It is only a matter of finding who,
where, and how they can do something about it.
Bob Seaman, 8670 Delta Line Road, Custer, thanked Councilmember Brenner
for helping him on his issue. They still have not gotten the issue resolved. He is
still battling the issue. He is having a battle with the Planning and Development
Services Department trying to expand his neighbor's property. He had to hire an
attorney. He was refused an opportunity to provide any evidence against the
expansion. He was told that they had sufficient documentation and affidavits, and
that they didn't need any evidence from him. They proceeded to push this through.
He filed an appeal. He found out about this by accident. His attorney, Phil Serka,
submitted paperwork that states there is no way this expansion can go through.
The County rescinded its expansion. They didn't even have to go to the Hearing
Examiner.
When he filed his appeal, he looked through the file on Beacon Battery. He
understands why it has gone through expansion. Until 1994, the sales building was
permitted for personal use only. It went from a 720 square foot building to an
1,800 square foot building, without any conditional use permit process. County
records show that the building presently being used for retail tire sales is permitted
for personal use only, as well. In addition, the Washington Administrative Code
only allows a tire pile of Yz acre in size. According to the site plan, there is over an
acre with tires on this site. This issue has been going on forever. He'd like to see
an independent audit on this issue. The Planning and Development Services
Department won't help.
Janet Hammond, Beaver Circle, stated she is speaking on behalf of the
Alternative Humane Society of Whatcom County. She is concerned with the
eyewitness reports regarding Security Specialists Plus (SSP) who describe some
conditions that clearly appear to be contract violations. The specifications expressly
require that the contractor shall comply with the standards set forth in the Humane
Society of the United States Uniform Standards Guidelines. They've gone into the
ventilation and lack of exercise problems. She is happy that Mr. Kremen reported
to the people in the Bellingham Herald that he proposed formation of an advisory
committee to guide County animal control policy. It is a wonderful thing to get to
the bottom of this. However, County taxpayers are paying nearly $300,000 per
year for animal control services. Given these apparent contract violations,
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
taxpayers are not getting their money's worth. Not complying with a government
contract is a very serious matter.
She proposed the formation of a compliance committee that will expressly
have the following duties: monitor SSP in terms of the contract, identify instances
of non - compliance, prescribe remedial action with a company timeframe. This
should be incorporated in the Council's decision when it approves the contract
tonight. She wants it in place so there is no misunderstanding, and so they can get
on with this right away. This is a very important thing to do. A means of
enforcement and consequences for noncompliance are also essential and need to be
spelled out expressly. With some of these measures in place, and with SSP's
commitment to serving the animals of Whatcom County, they will see significant
improvements.
Sherilyn Wells, 1020 Geneva, Bellingham, spoke regarding file number 2002-
227, which is the moratorium being revisited this evening. To follow
Comprehensive Plan policies, they should enact a complete moratorium in the
entire watershed until they follow policies 7D -2, 11G -5, and 2PP -4. Those policies
say that the County is mandated by the Comprehensive Plan to do an in -depth
environmental analysis for comprehensive plans and subarea plans, to eliminate the
need for future analysis by the private sector. They are to determine what
cumulative impacts that development activity may have on watershed hydrology.
This plan was enacted in May 1997. They still don't have that. When the Hearing
Examiner considered a proposal to put in a sewer to Sudden Valley, he came to the
conclusion that there is insufficient information to predict when or how much
urbanization can occur before these impacts result in significant water quality
problems, and there is insufficient information to support an educated guess about
how much the impacts of urbanization on water quality can be appropriately dealt
with through mitigation. This was before the report on urban toxics came out by
the State Department of Ecology (DOE) in 1999, and before the mercury reports in
March and April of 2001.
The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) directs them on what to consider
when they do an environmental impact study (EIS). They are supposed to consider
that the level of detail in an EIS has to be commensurate with the importance of
the resource. In the Water District's EIS, the conclusion was that Bellingham could
lose its reservoir. That EIS underestimated the impacts, because they felt that
there was no demonstrable degradation in the lake at that point, which conflicts
with the DOE, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and all the other
water quality experts that looked at the lake.
A threshold determination shall not balance whether beneficial aspects
outweigh adverse impacts. If they expect that some impacts are going to be
significant, they study it, even if they think there is a balance going on. There is a
lot of new information since any of these EIS's were last done. At the very least,
do a supplemental EIS. If they want to follow the Comprehensive Plan policies,
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
they want to do their own EIS, taking into consideration all activities in the
watershed.
Carolyn Rice, 2600 Donovan #5, Bellingham, spoke regarding the extension
of the existing contract with Security Specialists Plus Preferred Animal Care (SSP -
PAC). No audit has been done during the five -year duration of the contract. Nearly
$1.5 million has been expended without scrutiny of the actual use of the money or
of the compliance with the performance standards required in the contract.
Because of this, the County has no basis to assess the issues raised about the care
of the animals over the last three to four years, which the Council has been
informed of. It is demonstrable by direct observation that SSP -PAC is not
performing up to contract standards. On June 1, she personally saw and
experienced conditions that did not meet the Humane Society of the United States
guidelines for operating an animal shelter, which are the performance standards
specified in this existing contract. At that time, she saw things that were not up to
standard regarding housing, floors, heating and cooling, and cleaning. All of these
have an impact on the animals' health and well- being, and reflected on the nature
of the daily care of the animals.
The County Executive's declared intention to form a voluntary advisory
committee to address these issues is a positive step, but it does nothing to assure
that the contractor will be brought in to contractual compliance. That is her
concern. The new contract doesn't have any change in the provisions for
monitoring or auditing. The County needs to add two provisions to the contract.
One provision should be for compliance with clearly specified consequences if the
contractor fails to perform to contractual standards. The second provision should
be to provide for delineated County monitoring for the duration of the extension to
ensure ongoing compliance.
Bill Quehrn, 3805 Gable Crest Court, Bellingham, stated he supported
Security Specialists Plus (SSP). There have been lots of abuse and neglect charges
about animals. It is certainly true that abuse and neglect of animals in Whatcom
County is rampant. However, they must remember it was the abuse and neglect of
those animals that brought them to SSP. Many of those animals came out of
deplorable situations of either being left on their own, left in situations that were
not healthy for them, or the owners simply couldn't or didn't want to deal with
them any further. They were orphaned. Anyone who walks through the facility, as
he has, will find clean cages and animals that are well fed, watered, and cared for.
The employees on duty are doing their very best to make them comfortable within
the surroundings that have available to them. It is unfortunate that there are not
enough adoption homes in Whatcom County to take care of every one of the
animals that have been raised or allowed to breed, then left on their own.
However, the fact is that there aren't enough homes out there. Given the
conditions that many of those animals came from and the conditions to which they
would be forced to return if left on their own, their days at SSP will be much
happier than they would have been anywhere else. It's sad that they don't do a
better job as citizens or as a community to educate and encourage others to take
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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.
better care of their animals, and not dump them on the taxpayers, expecting them
to take care the animals. The folks at SSP are doing their very best within the
limits of their abilities to take care of those animals in a much better way than they
would have had otherwise. It is appropriate and proper for the Council to look at
the contract and make sure compliance is kept, but for many of these animals, they
would have had less of a chance of any decent survival without the folks at SSP.
Joe Deeny, 2104 Wilson Ave, Human Rights Task Force Board of Directors
Vice - Chair, supported the resolution to not put back the memorial to Jefferson
Davis at the Peace Arch Park. It is repugnant and embarrassing that they would
have such a monument in the Peace Arch Park to a leader of the effort to
perpetuate slavery in the United States. Highway 99 should not be called the
Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway. Highway 99 should be renamed for Mr. Stewart
from Snohomish County, who was a veteran of the Civil War, on the Union side and
who was an African American pioneer in Snohomish County. His descendents still
live there today. As the citizens' representatives in Whatcom County, it is
appropriate for the County Council to make this resolution to strongly reaffirm that
Whatcom County is truly for liberty and justice for all. The State Department of
Transportation and Senator Gardner need to hear the Council's voice.
Camille Hackler, 2217 A Street, stated she supported the resolution to not
put the memorial to Jefferson Davis back at the Peace Arch Park. The County
should honor all citizens, not just by tolerance, but by also embracing all cultures
and diversities.
Rita Foley, S. Lake Whatcom, stated she has been against Security
Specialists Plus (SSP) in the first place. When people do things for profit, they
don't do a good job. She wasn't in favor of that at all. She's been worried about it
for a long time.
Regarding Lake Whatcom watershed, there is a project going on for a road
that goes nowhere from Lake Whatcom Boulevard toward Lake Whatcom. When it
goes to the bottom of the road, there are huge wetlands and a creek. The creek is
very important. It is a large creek. The County has allowed the property owner to
bulldoze an area 60 feet wide and muck around in the wetlands. The property
owner has plenty of money, and he doesn't need to destroy the watershed. Huge
trees have come down. They are running roads in every direction. They talk about
protecting the watershed, but she doesn't see how they do it. She asked why they
are allowing this in the watershed.
There are horrible violations going on, and the County doesn't have enough
teeth to fine these people and stop them. Forget the EIS's and start doing
something. They've had thousands of dollars worth of studies and the lake is still
degrading.
She doesn't want the North Lake Whatcom trail named after Ken Hertz.
Hardly anyone knows about the naming of this trail. This trail is from the Trillium
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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.
Corporation. The Trillium Corporation doesn't deserve much of anything, and Ken
Hertz doesn't either. They might as well name it the Jefferson Davis trail.
Bell Shalome, 816 - 20th Street, Bellingham, spoke on the Jefferson Davis
memorial. A great majority of the American citizens is realizing the deplorable way
they have treated people of color throughout history. They have an opportunity to
make a small step by removing the Jefferson Davis marker.
Sherry Jubilo, Bellingham, stated she opposes the Jefferson Davis memorial.
The resolution is very important. She gathered signatures representing the NAACP
petition that the highway name should be changed, and there should not be a
memorial there. Symbols are important. She hoped Whatcom County would
change the symbols that intimidate folks when they come to Whatcom County,
instead of welcoming them. A Jefferson Davis monument only says welcome to the
Aryan Nation. It does not say welcome to everyone.
Mark Hurlbert, 2515 King Street, Bellingham, stated the Lake Whatcom
watershed carries a very high load of toxins of many kinds. For many years, he has
lived in and read of different communities and their water supplies. He asked why
Bellingham and Whatcom County are not acting with the same seriousness about
the water supply that most of the nation is acting. The leaders are not doing their
jobs. Some years ago, the United States Supreme Court decided on a case from
Spokane, Washington concerning their water supply. The court decided that when
development of private property poses a threat to health, those private property
rights are negated. They have a greater right to clean water, clean air, and a lack
of toxics in the environment.
Mary Lee Rustand, 1641 Baker Creek Place, Bellingham, stated that Security
Specialists Plus (SSP) is in compliance with the Humane Society of the United
States (HSUS), otherwise the HSUS would not renew the SSP membership every
year. SSP is also in compliance with the contract. She asked the Council to place
its trust in the Executive's Office, which has been working with them on these
issues. Vote for the contract, with the changes made to save County dollars. Keep
in mind the employees, whose hearts and souls are there for the animals. Keep the
animals in mind, which need shelter and care that Jan Greco and her team provide
at SSP Preferred Animal Care (PAC). They are willing and look forward to working
with any committee that is formed through the Executive's Office.
Deborah Sallee, 5603 Noon Road, stated she adopted a cat last summer.
Each week, there was a mother cat with four kittens in a medium -sized dog carrier
with a litter box and food and water dish. The space available for that cat and her
four kittens was about the size of an 8 Y2 -inch by 11 -inch piece of paper. Each time
she went in weekly, the cat had no water. She had food that was contaminated by
litter and feces. The officers walked right past her. It was 6:00 p.m. and it was
time for them to leave. She wasn't willing to leave that cat without food and water
for overnight. She came back in the next morning. Jan Greco generously agreed
to let that cat go to her home and foster the kittens. When she took the cat home,
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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.
she drank lots of water. Three days later, she finally urinated. That was not
humane treatment. She and other volunteers have been kicked out. From what
she's heard since then, they are still seeing cats in carriers. They are still seeing
animals that don't have clean food and water. She suggested that they have an
oversight committee as part of that contract. The committee should be able to
make SSP do things in the contract. They maybe need to get experts from outside
the community, such as the ASPCA or the National Humane Society. If they let this
contract go based on past performance, it will be a real disgrace.
MINUTES CONSENT
Brenner moved to approve Minutes Consent items one through
SIX.
Caskey- Schreiber asked to include the substitute page from the
Joint City /County meeting in the motion.
Brenner accepted the change.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JUNE 4, 2002
2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JUNE 4, 2002
3. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MAY 21, 2002
4. SPECIAL COUNTY COUNCIL /BELLINGHAM CITY COUNCIL JOINT
MEETING FOR MAY 21, 2002
S. SPECIAL COUNTY COUNCIL (BUDGET WORK SESSION) FOR MAY 14,
2002
6. WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION FOR MAY 14, 2002
CONSENT AGENDA
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through ten.
Caskey- Schreiber withdrew item ten.
Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through nine carried
unanimously.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
AND THE SALMON RECOVERY FUNDING BOARD TO INVENTORY FISH
BARRIER DRAINAGE STRUCTURES IN THE WRIA 1 BASIS, FOR A
TOTAL OF $708,390 WITH A COUNTY MATCH OF $177,097 (AB2002-
230)
2. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF THE SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY
AND THE SETTING OF A DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING THEREON
PURSUANT TO WCC 1.10 (AB2002 -231)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT AMONG WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES, THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM AND WATER DISTRICT
#10 TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO PERFORM MERCURY SOURCE
INVESTIGATION WORK IN LAKE WHATCOM IN THE CONTRACT
AMOUNT OF $100,000 (AB2002 -232)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO
PROVIDE FOR A STUDY TO REVIEW EXISTING AND NEWLY
COLLECTED DATA TO EVALUATE POTENTIAL SOURCES OF MERCURY
IN LAKE WHATCOM, IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $156,100 WITH
A COUNTY AMOUNT OF $78,500 (AB2002 -233)
S. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL COUNTY ROAD FUNDS FOR
COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 992224, YEW STREET ROAD
RECONSTRUCTION (AB2002 -234)
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT FOR TEMPORARY PASSENGER FERRY SERVICE TO LUMMI
ISLAND AND GOOSEBERRY POINT WHEN THE WHATCOM CHIEF IS IN
DRY DOCK, IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000 (AB2002 -235)
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE PACIFIC
NORTHWEST TRAIL ASSOCIATION USING FUNDING FROM THE
"SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND SELF - DETERMINATION ACT OF 2000"
TITLE III FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,500 (AB2002 -236)
8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM FOR
WHAT -COMM COMMUNICATIONS CENTER SERVICES, IN THE 2002
AMOUNT OF $611,766 (AB2002 -237)
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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.
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT EXTENSION BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NANCY
JORDAN TO ASSIST WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IN UPDATING AND IMPLEMENTING THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $5,000 FOR A
TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $15,000 (AB2002 -238)
10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT EXTENSION BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SSP-
PREFERRED ANIMAL CARE TO PROVIDE ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES,
IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $295,824 (AB2002 -149A)
See discussion following the public hearing items.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. INTERIM ORDINANCE AMENDING WCC TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.71 —
WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.80
— SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS, CHAPTER 20.85 — PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND CHAPTER 20.97 — DEFINITIONS TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REGULATORY PROTECTION FOR SENSITIVE
WATERSHEDS (AB2002 -222)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated
this is an interim ordinance that would go to the Planning Commission after
adoption by the Council. It makes changes to the water resource overlay district
zone that affects both the Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish areas. Many of the
changes are to make it to administer, read, and understand. The substantive
changes deal with impervious surface minimums, cluster subdivision requirements,
stormwater and stormwater special districts, and seasonal restrictions on land
clearing. There are some requirements on tree clearing that is associated with land
clearing. Trees over eight inches must be retained on 50 percent of a lot with a
5,000 square foot footprint for the house and yard. There are a few other small
changes.
Nelson asked if Drayton Harbor is also water resource protection area.
Goodwin stated Drayton Harbor is not a water resource protection area. It is a
stormwater special district. The overlay does not apply to Drayton Harbor.
Nelson opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Sherilyn Wells, 1020 Geneva, Bellingham, stated she is speaking as a citizen
and a representative of the Clean Water Alliance. Her testimony for this hearing
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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.
also applies to the interim downzoning ordinance, file number AB2002 -226. These
ordinances are much better than the status quo. However, they still have no
comprehensive environmental and public health analyses. Without that, they are
not engaging in informed decision - making, according to the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA). There is case law that says that if they don't do an
environmental impact statement (EIS) if needed, then any ordinance can be voided
from the date of adoption. That means they will leave the worst of the two
ordinances. Put a moratorium in place and go from there.
In terms of stormwater, her written testimony says that a necessary
stormwater treatment system would have to remove a greater percentage of solid
and dissolved substances than is typically achievable, if they are going to properly
protect human and environmental health. Such a stormwater system would include
redundant processes for reliability, be sized to treat large flows, contain a variety of
treatment stages to remove various categories of pollutants, and receive regular
maintenance. Without such a treatment system, significant environmental and
human health impacts are anticipated. An international expert on stormwater
assured her that these statements are 100 percent accurate.
All of these Lake Whatcom studies have been done on a supplemented lake.
Twenty -five percent of the water coming into Lake Whatcom for many years was
from the middle fork of the Nooksack River. According to Bill McCourt of the City of
Bellingham Public Works Department, without access to the diversion at historic
levels, Lake Whatcom subsequently sank in 1998 to a 40 -year low. Less flushing of
the lake can be expected to significantly increase the lake's response to pollution as
a result of the long residence time characteristic of Lake Whatcom.
They are looking at studies on a lake that no longer exists. This lake is much
reduced in the amount of water that is flushing it. That is another reason to do a
supplemental EIS.
Tim Paxton, 2120 Ellis Street, Bellingham, stated he agreed with Sherilyn
Wells. This needs a little more scientific study. Because the conditions of the lake
have changed so much recently, and the County has not done an EIS, they don't
have a solid basis for making a decision. The regulations sound great, but he
doesn't know where the science is. He wants to see the science that shows that the
stormwater is being taken care of. The stormwater systems out there aren't
working. The science is not there for them to make the decisions they need to
make about this lake. The Council should not be willing to compromise without
knowing what the consequences are of the decisions. SEPA requires them to do a
complete EIS. There is a new situation at the lake. The Nooksack diversion is
changing. New contaminants are showing up in the watershed. There is an almost
complete lack of enforcement of the issues at the lake.
Alan Looff, 2125 Ellis Street, stated he is an area habitat biologist for the
State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). He represents the WDFW. They
are concerned over the status of the two native salmonid species that reside in
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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.
Lake Whatcom. These two species are the Lake Whatcom cutthroat and kokanee
salmon. Over the last 10,000 years, these two species have evolved in
reproductive isolation, since the formation of Whatcom Falls on Whatcom Creek.
The kokanee are genetically unique, according to the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS). The cutthroat trout are presently used by his department as brood
stock. They need to have a pure genetic strain that isn't tampered by hatchery fish
to keep an influx of good genetics into that brood stock. Currently, there is a
declining population in both species, as documented by WDFW staff. They are also
concerned about pollution of PCB and mercury. PCB has been found in high
concentrations of kokanee. Mercury has been found in small -mouth bass, yellow
perch, and other species in the lake. There is now a health advisor warning about
that. Lake Sammamish kokanee are listed on the endangered species list. A study
is being developed to determine whether the Lake Whatcom kokanee will also be on
the list. He asked that the Council take these issues into consideration during its
future land use planning decisions.
Robert Lofton, 1126 - 21s' Street, Bellingham, stated this Council has an
opportunity to indicate the value it places on the health of the community.
Tonight's votes are not economic issues. The profit and loss of wealth is secondary
to the well being of this community. It is dependent on the assurance of clean
water. Private economic gain does not take precedence over the health of the
community. Lake Whatcom belongs to all of the people. It is the only source of
clean water. Building in the watershed results in degraded water. He encouraged
the Council to unanimously approve the interim ordinance.
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seely Street, Bellingham, stated she supports the
ordinance with a couple of cautions. The middle fork of the Nooksack River has
been flushing Lake Whatcom for 40 years. The conditions are changing. Science is
beginning to show that the acceleration of deterioration of Lake Whatcom has
begun. Stormwater treatment can only really be done by a sewage treatment
plant. If they don't do that, they have to keep the contamination from going into
the lake. Detention ponds are a sham. The pollution that goes into it will be
retained by the grass and soil in the bottom of the ponds. When the first fall storm
comes along, it grabs the pollution and sends it to the lake.
Martin Nickerson, 242 Bayside Road, stated he is a retired civil engineer. It
used to be that if you wanted to keep pollution out of a watershed, you put a fence
around it and didn't let people in. It was taken as a given that there wouldn't be
any development. He strongly supports stringent guidelines for any development,
processing of any waste, or any kind of use of the watershed. No study will tell
them all the details of what will happen as a watershed is more and more
developed. Every years, people find out more things that affect people's health
from water supplies.
Paul Isaacson, 204 Shallow Shores Road, Bellingham, suggested that the
Council remove section 20.80.734(4) of the interim ordinance, which requires a
300 -foot setback. Almost all Whatcom County citizens are closer than 300 feet to a
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
critical area. It effectively removes the thresholds that have been set in non -
special management areas. This rule change requires a permit with an associated
SEPA review, which adds too much staff time and costs.
In section 20.80.735(2)(e)(i), the language should apply to lots that are less
than five acres, and not be applicable to lots that are over five acres. He believes
staff supports this. It is not enforceable. Tree retention cannot be obtained on
parcels, because the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the governing
agency on parcels of two acres or more. If they make this difficult, people will get
a class III DNR permit after initial development, and will not be applicable to the
critical area ordinance (CAO). It would be better to work with people on long -term
tree retention than to force or encourage them to take another direction that may
not have the desired outcome.
Section 20.80.735(2)(e)(vi) is a subjective code that has no staff and cannot
be scientifically justified. It is repetitive to subsection (ii) in the same section.
Section 20.97.053 indicates that one cannot maintain a lot, bail hay, or mow
a lawn. There must be a maintenance provision in the document.
Jean Freestone, 3200 Vallette Street, Bellingham, stated the science is
mixed, at best. Proponents seem to be those who rely on various grants and
County funds for monitoring. No grant seeker ever minimizes the problem for
which they are seeking to address. Georgia- Pacific is no longer taking water from
the lake. They previously used more water than everyone else in the entire City of
Bellingham. They might have a problem of too much water rather than too little
water. Over 70 percent of the watershed is in forestry. Very little of the land in the
watershed is developable because of steep slopes and other issues. Even at full
build out, the percentage of impervious surfaces would not be enough to meet the
standard of having a major impact. The water quality continues to surpass the
water quality of fully protected watersheds, such as that in Seattle and other areas,
in spite of the fact that the County has had a lot of population growth. Don't
burden citizens further with unnecessary regulations.
Tom Pratum, 2241 North Shore Road, stated that in the early 1980's, studies
indicated that the diversion and flushing the lake was the reason why the lake
water quality improved during the 1970's. These stormwater special district
standards are good. They are better than what was there before. They may not be
stringent enough, but it is an interim ordinance that can be strengthened later. The
County staff is well intentioned. He wonders if there is enough staff to enforce the
regulations. The ordinance is not easier to read and understand. Some sections
that were in Title 20 have been put into the engineering section of the document.
He asked the Engineering Division to be more forthcoming in allowing the public to
get copies of the special district standards. Other than that, this is a great thing.
Steve Hood, State Department of Ecology, Railroad Avenue, stated he's glad
that the County is doing something. The DOE is working on a total maximum daily
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 12
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1 load (TMDL) study. The land use decisions are the Council's decisions. It's
2 important that the Council makes these decisions. Those people who take early
3 and aggressive action, rather than waiting for all the answers, have the best
4 success.
5
6 Roger Ellingson, 3033 Alderwood, Bellingham, thanked the Council for finally
7 making this a high priority. This is long overdue. It would be a mistake to assume
8 that these regulations are sufficient by themselves. The restriction on density is
9 the most important.
10
11 Dennis Jones, 122 Sudden Valley Drive East, stated he is a citizen who was
12 on the lake after the flood in 1983 and was aware of the joint resolution in 1992.
13 He is in favor of the ordinances. Think globally, but act locally. For those who live
14 by the lake, the status of the water supply is a blessing, not a curse. It is also their
15 responsibility as stewards to make sacrifices. A blanket moratorium is the easy
16 way out. He commends Councilmember McShane, Steve Hood, Linda Marrom, and
17 the people who worked on this. He also thanked those who brought the community
18 together to finally work on this project. Right now, the County owns 88 lots in
19 Sudden Valley. Use the Whatcom Land Trust or Kulshan Community Land Trust to
20 restrict those lots. Water District 10 owns 17 more lots. Sudden Valley has
21 removed 1,400 lots. They can use more help restricting lots. He commends the
22 stormwater district approach.
23
24 Rod Brown, 4600 Ryzex Way, stated he represents the seventh largest
25 private employer in the County, Ryzex. Ryzex is a high -tech, low- impact business
26 that focuses on recycling and high technology. They provide high wage and living
27 wage jobs. He supports the free enterprise system. He respects property rights,
28 and is pro- business. He understands the desire of the Lake Whatcom landowners
29 to reap the maximum financial benefit from the asset they have, in the form of the
30 title they have to the land around the lake. However, as a member of the
31 community that depends on the water from Lake Whatcom, he finds himself
32 compelled to speak.
33
34 It's a tragedy that the community's forefathers did not have the foresight to
35 protect the watershed. He grew up in a country that, 100 years ago, closed off all
36 water supplies to people and animals. He finds it staggering that people are still
37 advocating for multi -use area in Lake Whatcom. Any argument for expansion,
38 based on the right to realize the same value on the land as those who built before
39 them, ignores the common sense reality that the existing developments should
40 never have been allowed in the first place. This is an issue that is far more basic
41 than money. It is a question of survival for the community, children, and quality of
42 life. If the water becomes polluted, the City will have to pay more money to clean
43 it, and most of the taxpayers who will pay for it do not live on the lake. When the
44 City reaches a point where it cannot afford to clean the water, low- income families
45 and those who cannot afford bottled water will suffer the affects. The final burden
46 will be in the form of a lost competitive edge for the community if the quality of life,
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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
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.
which is the main selling feature, is eroded. He supported the complete
moratorium on any further development in the watershed.
Mimi Ferlin, 22 Strawberry Point, stated her family has been here since 1918.
Take a look at Lake Geneva in Switzerland. It has been there for hundreds of
years. It has a million people living around the lake. There are ferries and boats
on the lake. The water is pure and clean. The people drink out of the lake. They
were able to achieve that through infrastructure. She asked why everyone who
drinks the water share in the cost of that infrastructure and keeping the water
clean, rather than penalizing some of them who live on the lake. They didn't
choose to build on the lake.
Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
McShane moved to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner stated she agreed with the comments that Paul Isaacson made. She
asked for a summary of Whatcom County Code (WCC) Chapter 16.16 and Title 23,
as referenced in section 20.80.734(4) regarding the 300 -foot critical area buffer
regulation. Goodwin stated Chapter 16.16 is a section of the Critical Area
Ordinance, and Title 23 is the shoreline regulations.
Brenner stated that, effectively, no one lives more than 300 feet from a
critical area in Whatcom County. Goodwin stated many people don't live within 300
feet of a critical area. All this section says is that, if someone is within 300 feet of a
stream or wetland in the Lake Whatcom watershed, there needs to be County
review and approval of the land clearing proposal to make sure that erosion control
and silt fences are installed properly. It doesn't mean that they are prohibited from
doing land clearing. It just says that the County will review and approve the
control.
Brenner stated the definition of "land clearing" needs to be a clearer.
According to the definition, even pulling out weeds is clearing. The original
definition says that clearing happens when soil is exposed, which is what they are
concerned about. Stay with the original definition. Goodwin stated the intent is
about removing vegetation. The concern is for wetland vegetation or something
that is important, such as trees that are over eight inches. They can tighten the
definition of "clearing" to specifically exempt things like lawn mowing, or they can
strike section 20.80.734(4), but there wouldn't be any clearing review.
Nelson stated people are allowed to clear a portion of the stream buffers
through a conversion harvest plan when a house is built. People are actually going
up to the buffers and removing forested areas when they put in a home site.
Goodwin stated the concern is about trees and other vegetation that should have
been retained. It is a matter of additional review. If they want to specify that the
clearing is when the soil is exposed, it wouldn't weaken the definition considerably,
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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.
but it would mean that there may not be an opportunity to review and approve the
clearing if someone just cuts down all the trees.
Brenner stated there are already tree retention regulations. Someone who
requests a building permit will have the area reviewed anyway for tree retention.
This language says that review could happen more than once for the same thing.
Use staff more efficiently. Tighten up the clearing definition. She moved to amend
the definition of "clearing," section 20.97.053, to eliminate the second sentence.
McShane stated he would support the amendment. This is an interim
ordinance. Staff is seeking to do something additional here, but the definition
needs to be tightened up. As this goes through the Planning Commission, he would
be interested in going beyond what the clearing definition is currently for
stormwater special districts. He's content to remove the language now, on an
interim basis.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner stated that she would like to have as many people subject to the
critical area ordinance (CAO) as possible. If anything over two acres is subject to
the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) governing, and would make the
property owner not subject to the CAO, she would like to do whatever they can to
keep local control. She moved to amend section 20.80.735(2)(e)(i), "i. On parcels
less than five acres, tThe applicant shall retain existing trees..."
Crawford stated the class II DNR permit kicks in at two acres. He asked why
they are specifying less than five acres, and whether they want to specify less than
two acres.
Brenner stated no. This will encourage people to consolidate parcels and
make them bigger. Goodwin stated the DNR rules don't pertain to the size of the
parcel, but the amount of land they are clearing. It also depends on how big the
trees are, until they get up to a certain number of board feet.
Isaacson stated they wouldn't want to specify just two acres because there
are other applications where DNR might be applicable. That would also be the
5,000 board foot rule. In the Lake Whatcom or Lake Samish watersheds, there are
some stands that might run 25,000 board feet to the acre. The idea of specifying
five acres is to follow the desire of the proponents to consolidate. If two
landowners each have three acres, they would both be subjected to a lot of
stringent regulations. If one owner purchases the other's parcel, those stringent
regulations would not apply. If a person with a home gets a permit and gets a six -
year moratorium, it's a joke because they are not building anything because they
already live there. The public has lost.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford moved to remove section 20.80.735(2)(x). They've been given
testimony that there may be more sediment going into the lake during rain events
in the summertime than in the wintertime. There is a constant flushing of sediment
during the continual storms of the winter. They haven't been presented any
conclusive discussion that seasonal clearing is the way to go.
Brenner spoke against the motion. When they look at the rain charts, there
is no comparison. In the winter, there is so much more rain. It still runs that
sediment and pollution into the lake quicker and easier than a one -time event.
McShane spoke against the motion. He had concerns about large rain events
in the summertime. He was not sure it will make a lot of difference one way or
another. However, he was convinced by the information presented that the
wintertime events will cumulatively add up, and they will end up with more soil
going off. The summertime events are unusual. The other advantage of doing it in
the summertime is that the owner will have time to stabilize the site with
vegetation, so things will be fine in the wintertime.
Crawford stated the summer storm events are not that rare. One happened
last night.
Motion failed 1 -6 with Crawford in favor.
Crawford moved to remove section 20.80.735(2)(c) regarding phased
clearing. They did not reach any consensus that phased clearing would produce
less runoff. They would have to hear some convincing information from a sediment
control specialist that could tell them what the impacts are of land clearing that
happens in bits and pieces, as opposed to getting a project done in one shot.
Nelson stated that they don't want to have the land disturbed continuously if
it is not appropriate. He asked if phased clearing is required on all activities, or if it
is based upon the constraints of a particular property that may require phased
clearing. Goodwin stated the land clearing will be phased, and the phased clearing
plan will be required if the site conditions require it. It pertains to all sites.
McShane stated phased clearing is described, and it will be up to the
administrator, based on the site - specific conditions.
Brenner stated she brought this up in committee. One needs to do a plan if
it is extensive. She agreed with the motion. There are going to be projects that
will have more impact by going in and out several times. She wasn't comfortable
with this language. In committee, she was told that it is phased for every parcel,
and a plan may be required.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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
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 language in that section, `based on site characteristics or
constraints including, but not limited to, slopes, proximity to shorelines, wetlands,
etc." was added during committee based on the concern that Councilmember
Brenner expressed at that time. It addresses Councilmember Crawford's issue.
Fleetwood suggested that the first sentence be "may" instead of "shall" and
to combine the first and second sentences, "...at any one time, ilf determined to be
appropriate...." Goodwin agreed that would work.
Crawford did not accept Councilmember Fleetwood's suggestion. He's
picturing the clearing occurring in a spot where a project was proposed. There are
standards that address the runoff concerns of a project. To say that the technical
administrator would now decide if the developer has to do this in phases, they need
some predictability. The project will or will not stand on its own merits, based on
whether or not it is a viable project and whether the sediment and runoff can be
contained. To introduce this phased clearing concept is a cause for concern.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Crawford and Brenner in favor.
Fleetwood moved to amend 20.80.735(2)(c), "Phased Clearing. Construction
activity and land clearing activities shall may be phased to limit the amount of
exposed soil that occurs at any one time.. .,, 1if determined to be appropriate by the
technical administrator ... proximity to shorelines, wetlands, etc.,
plan may be requir . A phased clearing plan...."
Brenner asked how it would be better to do phased clearing on steep slopes.
Goodwin stated that if there is a large subdivision, the roads would be cleared and
the trees would be left on the lots until they are ready to build the houses, which
may be five or ten years. Meanwhile, they don't have rain falling and sediment
rolling off the slope until they are ready to go. Then someone comes in, decides
where to build the house, and leaves the trees where they don't want to build the
house.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Motion to adopt the ordinance as amended carried 6 -1 with Crawford
opposed.
2. ORDINANCE CONTINUING A MORATORIUM ON APPLICATIONS FOR
CONDITIONAL AND /OR LAND USE PERMITS FOR ELECTRICAL POWER
TRANSMISSION LINES OF 115,000 VOLTS OR LESS, DESIGNED TO
CARRY 100 MEGAWATTS OR GREATER LOADS, EXCEPT IN THOSE
DISTRICTS CLASSIFIED AS INDUSTRIAL (AB2002 -224)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated there is no staff report.
The committee has been working for some time on the proposed regulations. They
have several different options, but none of them are coming forward at this time.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 17
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1 The committee is no longer meeting. There is no purpose, in her opinion, to
2 continue the moratorium. She doesn't recommend adoption.
3
4 Brenner asked if the committee came up with recommended language.
5 Goodwin stated the committee came up with language, but no one is happy with
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
what the committee came up with.
Nelson opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Mike Kaufman, Utility Planning Advisory Committee Chair, stated the
committee came up with language during a hurried meeting. After that, Puget
Sound Energy wanted to delete part of the language and add language. He voted
for it, but didn't like it. He thought he would be better off lobbying the County
Council. The last time, they brought something forward, it was changed anyway.
Speaking as a citizen, they passed a moratorium to plug a loophole in the
citizen initiative 490. An electrical engineering company has a proposal out and has
found a way around this initiative. The citizens believe that the company's proposal
is wrong, and does not live up to the intent of Initiative 490. They need to plug the
loophole and stop the possible proliferation of power lines. The way around it is to
build more power lines with less power in them. That is wrong. He suggested that
the County Council pass the moratorium and find the language to strengthen and
plug the loopholes. Support the moratorium, and have the political will to write the
language strengthening the initiative.
Gary Nelson, 851 Coho Way, Fiber Cloud Data Center, stated some of the
concerns are basic hearsay. His real concern is for economic development of
Whatcom County, including decent and clean jobs in Whatcom County. Based on
one report, without a long -term plan for increased generation and transmission,
businesses may have to close. In addition to the aluminum industry, Washington
State is home to many intensive manufacturing firms. Much of the state's
agriculture depends on abundant, reliable, and affordable energy. The regulatory
process in State and local government must be streamlined and simplified.
Contradictory, redundant, and unnecessary regulations have grown out of a
fragmented patchwork process with too much authority ceded to regulation, and
too many jurisdictions claiming responsibility. Regulators focus on outcomes rather
than processes. Cost benefit analysis should be an integral part of the regulatory
equation, with a conscious emphasis on scientific justification for new regulation.
Energy infrastructure must be expanded and diversified to transport and store
water to meet agricultural and urban demand. Low cost and reliable electricity is a
critical element of Washington's economy. Washington needs an energy strategy
designed to ensure the availability of low cost and reliable electricity. A recent
energy crisis has weakened many of Washington's utilities. Their financial viability
and access to capital are essential to their ability to provide Washington's energy
needs. The Pacific Northwest needs additional electrical transmission lines to meet
the expected growth and energy demand.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 18
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1 Dean Rogers, 1712 High Noon Road, Bellingham, stated he is a citizen that is
2 concerned that this County could soon become the home to several gas fired
3 electrical plants. They don't need large power plants. They need small power
4 plants located near where the power is needed and near a corridor. He is also a
5 member of Generations Affected by Senseless Power (GASP). This organization is
6 trying to educate the citizens of Whatcom County. He is also a member of the
7 Utility Planning Commission. He supports continuing the moratorium for another
8 six months.
9
10 Bo Bumford, 8523 Paradise Valley Road, Sumas, thanked the Council for the
11 work it does. Firing of natural gas generates electricity produced to go on the
12 power lines. It contributes to unhealthy air. Nationwide, asthma is the number one
13 reasons that kids miss school. Gas fired power plants have finer particulates than
14 most. Whatcom County produces far more power in this county than it consumes.
15 All of this power production creates pollution from four natural gas plants in this
16 county. Do not encourage industry to come into the county with uncontrolled
17 economic growth. They need reasonable economic growth. The power lines in the
18 county handle all the county's power needs. Few carry more than 50 megawatts,
19 yet Puget Sound Energy (PSE) is asking for language to allow the lines to carry 160
20 megawatts. This is a direct attempt to allow Sumas Energy 2 (SE2) to come into
21 the county, by changing the verbiage of the ordinance. Extend the moratorium.
22
23 Joan Casey, West Toledo Street, Bellingham, stated there seems to be a lot
24 of confusion around the language of this very controversial issue. Extend the
25 power line moratorium.
26
27 Tom Anderson, 1744 Sapphire Trail, Public Utility District 1 General Manager,
28 stated he participated with the Utility Committee. It seems that the real concern of
29 the committee is the power plant question. Dabbling in restricting power lines is
30 not a very efficient way to control the construction of power plants. His real
31 concern with the power line issue is that they could have an impact on the ability to
32 do industrial development. That isn't what they want to accomplish. There are
33 certainly valid reasons for restricting power line proliferation in more residential and
34 rural areas with low density. He does not know of any project that would be
35 impacted by continuing the moratorium. If they chose to continue the moratorium,
36 also look at the scientific basis and get better understanding of what makes sense
37 before they put in a permanent ordinance. Of the 23 public utility districts in the
38 state that supply power, 11 of them responded to him and said that none of them
39 have a similar restriction in place. Several of them are required to go through the
40 conditional use permit process for 115 - kilovolt construction. They all seemed to
41 think that worked well for raising the questions that needed to be raised. There
42 isn't a problem in continuing the moratorium for any project. If they continue it,
43 make an effort to get some specifics before they do anything permanent.
44
45 Caskey- Schreiber asked if Mr. Anderson would consider British Petroleum
46 (BP) a high -end industry in consuming power. Anderson stated British Petroleum
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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.
consumes about 90 megawatts. That's fairly large. It is not the largest in the
county. Alcoa Intalco Works is the largest. They use 470 megawatts.
McShane asked the load that Public Utility District 1 considered for its
proposed 115 kV line to Bellingham Cold Storage and Georgia Pacific. Anderson
stated at the time, the Georgia Pacific mill operated at about 40 megawatts.
Bellingham Cold Storage uses about 10 megawatts. The maximum that line would
have carried would have been 50 or 60 megawatts.
Brenner asked about the scientific information they should look at if the
Council continues the moratorium. Anderson stated one of the problems that came
up during the committee's debate was that there seems to be a concern about
electromagnetic fields (EMF's). On the other hand, there is a concern about the
proliferation of power lines. Those two things are opposed. If they want to reduce
EMF, then they have to have more power lines to reduce the amperage and
voltage. If they don't want a proliferation of power lines, then they have to put in
heavier lines with higher amperages that create higher magnetic fields. They can't
have it both ways. The line size doesn't change the field. The field is strictly
determined by the voltage and amperage.
Brenner asked if lots of smaller lines with more voltage increase EMF's.
Crawford stated the letter from Puget Sound Energy explains it.
Kathy Larsen, Puget Sound Energy (PSE) Community Relations Manager,
stated PSE has concerns about the Council continuing the moratorium on 115 kV
transmission lines in Whatcom County. They do not believe there is a documented
need for the moratorium or for a change in the County Code. She presented a copy
of the letter that she presented to the councilmembers earlier that day. The
moratorium potentially denies PSE the ability to use its standard utility practices for
design and construction of utility systems. It creates inconsistency in non -
functionality with an existing regional transmission system that reaches from the
Canadian border and goes south through Thurston County, west to Kitsap County,
and east to Kittitas County. The language unreasonably restricts PSE's ability to
design and deliver energy to its customers and to build to PSE utility design
standards. PSE has an obligation to serve all its customers with essential electric
service throughout the service territory. The Washington State Utility and
Transportation Commission, appointed by the Governor, regulates PSE. The
language of the moratorium restricts PSE's ability and limits PSE's options to meet
electrical load growth forecasted to occur under the State Growth Management Act
(GMA). If restricted by the moratorium, PSE may be unable to build an electrical
system on a single 115 kV line, and would need to build two systems at a higher
cost and at a greater environmental impact. The moratorium would create
significant obstacles to deliver public service obligations by the company. Several
councilmembers made comments that the proposed language of the moratorium
was an attempt to stop SE2, and that PSE was merely an unintended consequence.
PSE is not SE2, and has no association with that project. PSE takes its
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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
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.
responsibility seriously in delivering safe, reliable, efficient, and cost - effective
energy to the citizens of Whatcom County. In contacting other utilities in the
Northwest, she found no other utilities that have any imposed restrictions on 115
kV lines or 230 transmission lines. In many cases, 115 kV lines are a permitted
use. Current Whatcom County Code dictates that applicants go through a
conditional use permit process that allows staff to do an environmental review, a
public involvement process, and a hearing examiner decision. She asked the
Council to lift the moratorium and leave the County Code as is. Good public policy
is based on facts, data, logic, and documented science, not unsubstantiated
assertions. However, if they must continue the moratorium, she urged the Council
to consider the concerns with the moratorium language as they have noted on her
letter in the record. Pursue an educational process for councilmembers to fully
understand the issue.
Candice Ambrosio, 1712 High Noon Road, stated Initiative 490, which was
passed by 66 percent of the voters, was brought about because PSE proposed a
transmission line through a residential neighborhood. This moratorium is to
strengthen that initiative so it carries out the will of the people. Extend the
moratorium, and have the Utility Planning Advisory Committee work this out so it
protects the people.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated he supports Gary Nelson's
comments. He is the kind of entrepreneur that Whatcom County has benefited
from in the past, and needs more of in the future. They say they want good jobs
and reasonable power, but they continue to handicap those who would provide
those benefits.
Marian Bedill, 3600 Seely Street, Bellingham, stated she supports the
moratorium. SE2's existing proposal is for a power line to run north through the
industrial zone into Canada. However, it is unlikely that the Canadian line will be
permitted or built. The consequence is that SE2 will run the line in Whatcom
County. It is a big, industrial transmission line. The moratorium would restrict that
power line, which would have an indirect effect of restricting the SE2 plant. This
moratorium would support the Council's decision to oppose SE2.
Tip Johnson, 2719 Donovan, stated this has nothing to do with science, it has
to do with policy and planning. If they don't have a plan, then locating facilities and
transmission lines will be done haphazardly.
Chris Dillard, Kelly Road, stated that if they double the amount of high -
voltage power lines in the county, then Enron executives could have made $2 billion
in the last year. One year ago, people pushed to build a power plant in the City of
Bellingham because of the energy crisis and other reasons. A year has gone by,
and the energy crisis was a sham. He encouraged the Council to continue the
moratorium. Someone mentioned that no other county in the state has a similar
moratorium. However, Whatcom County is the hub of natural gas coming south
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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
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.
from the border. There is a reason why Whatcom County might do something
different than the other counties.
Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to approve the moratorium and adopt the
ordinance, with the intent of hiring an objective third party to educate the
councilmembers on this issue. She's talked to Kraig Olason and the Utilities
Planning Advisory Committee (UPAC). She's not comfortable with PSE drafting
regulations for their own industry. She would appreciate hearing from an objective
third party. The 100- megawatt limit in the moratorium will not hurt anyone. One
of the highest users, BP, only uses 90 megawatts. One megawatt powers 750
homes. The recommendation from the UPAC was for 160 megawatts, which is over
100,000 homes. Whatcom County only has 160,000 people in this county. It is
obviously not intended to be distribution lines. They are talking about transmission
lines. That is exactly what the 1990 initiative addressed.
Brenner stated she supported the motion because six months won't hurt
anyone. She is really disappointed, especially when the chair of the Utility Advisory
Committee votes for something he doesn't agree with, and then tells the Council to
have political courage. She's counting on the UPAC to have more knowledge about
this than she has. She's very frustrated that no one can come up with something
that works. She's really concerned about giving SE2 any more ability to do
anything when they have nothing to do with this county. Whatcom County is the
depository of many things for other places. This moratorium has nothing to do with
economic development since they have so much power here now. She wants to
understand more about what would work. She supports having an objective third
party educate her. She is not bashing PSE, which does a very good job. She wants
to understand this better.
Roy stated she supported the moratorium. There is no way they can keep it
on for a long time and not affect anyone negatively. She would really like to hear
from someone who knows about wheeling power, power grids, and where Whatcom
County fits in the grand scheme of sending power down the West Coast. She asked
if it would all go through Whatcom County. There is more to this than the science.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Crawford asked if SE2 filed an application to the County or State. He
understands it's a State permitted issue. SE2 is talking about having a line going
north to Canada. He assumes that goes through part of Whatcom County. He
asked if SE2 has applied to the County to do that.
McShane stated the line would go through the City of Sumas. It never goes
through Whatcom County jurisdiction.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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.
Crawford asked if the moratorium only applies to the unincorporated areas of
the county.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated it only applies
to the unincorporated areas.
Nelson stated he supported the original moratorium and the intent of the
committee. There is not a declared emergency, which is necessary. This is not
necessary under the current regulatory practices and permitting processes. It is
time that they develop those corridors. A moratorium will not accomplish that task.
Brenner stated she would like to see corridors developed during the six -
month moratorium. That would alleviate a lot of the concerns. Because of it's
location, Whatcom County will have power passing through. They should have
corridors like the Bonneville Power Administration's corridors without people in
them. There is a way to do that.
Motion carried 5 -2 with Crawford and Nelson opposed.
3. ORDINANCE IMPOSING INTERIM ZONING WITHIN THE LAKE
WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2002 -226)
Nelson opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Warren Sheay, 1453 Humbolt, Bellingham, stated the way that they treat
their land, air, and water is abominable. In the watershed, which is the source of
drinking water, they saturate the ground with fertilizers and chemicals. They pave
over land to park their oversized metal monsters. They pollute the lake with the
noisy personal watercraft. They denude the forest. They overrun, overpopulate,
and overdevelop. Many of them consider the land, air, and water to be sacred.
The downzone proposal is a no- brainer. Common sense dictates that this step be
implemented. They do know that more development means more pollution. They
do know that they are going to have an expensive time to police and prevent
development once it is put in. Passing the downzone will not be enough. The
County Council must take many more proactive steps to protect the watershed. He
voted for all three new councilmembers on the strength of their concerns for the
environment. Now it's time for them to get busy.
The construction industry is constantly harping about the housing shortage.
Of course they have a housing shortage. The county doubled in population in the
last 20 years, and the population will double again in the next 20 years. There will
never be enough housing. If the building and real estate industries are really
concerned about the housing shortage, they should donate half of their
considerable profits to the family planning agencies. Save the watershed.
Bob Hollingsworth, 1877 Academy Road, read editorials from the Bellingham
Herald dated September 19, 1999. The editorials said that a moratorium on
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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.
development of land around Lake Whatcom might sound like a radical idea, but the
extinction of two fish species and having to find a new drinking water source for
more than 66,000 people aren't ordinary problems. Allowing development in the
watershed to continue runs contrary to everything these efforts to protect the lake
seek to accomplish. The development moratorium hasn't been popular with a
majority of the Council, but maybe the latest round of State Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) studies could finally be the long- overdue wake -up call. Imposing a
moratorium is something that can be done right away to stop things from getting
worse. After decades of study and debate, Lake Whatcom continues to get worse,
not better. They are now at the point they were warned of.
From an editorial dated November 21, 2001: For too long, Whatcom County
officials have failed to take strong leadership to protect Lake Whatcom. The lake
has been valued as picturesque, a lovely recreational spot, and a beautiful place to
live. It hasn't been valued as a drinking water source for more than the 85,000
people. The Whatcom County Council had an opportunity to take a step it should
have taken long ago. However, a measure put forward by County Executive Pete
Kremen fell short by the one vote needed to put an emergency ordinance in place
that would have stopped new subdivisions around the lake. The cost of this failed
vote may have set the County back in a way that won't be realized for years.
Because the reservoir has not been managed well to this point, some steps will
likely need to be taken that might otherwise not have been necessary. Tough
choices are on the horizon. Kremen and the County need to let science and
forward - thinking be their guide. Continue on the path toward stronger protection
for the drinking water.
Today, he saw 13 ten -yard dump trucks and several tandem dump trucks go
by. Stuff is running off the hill by the bucket load. They have to bring it to a halt.
He is in favor of the moratorium, and it's a good start.
Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association, read a letter from Building
Industry Association President Gary Reid. The BIA is opposed to the proposed
downzone plan as presented to the Council. There is, at best, insufficient data to
justify downzoning property in the watershed, solely to protect the quality of the
lake's water. There are other steps that should be taken that will improve water
quality now and preserve it for the future. There is a growing body of evidence that
pollutants are beginning to have an impact on parts of the lake. The downzone
proposal seems to suggest that houses that haven't been built yet are the solution
to the problem. Even if not one single new home is ever built anywhere in
Whatcom County, it will accomplish everything in terms of reducing the level of
pollutants currently entering the lake. Since 1999, the BIA of Whatcom County has
called for the formation of a stormwater management district to begin capturing
and treating runoff from already - developed areas around the lake. The BIA
believes that everyone who receives their water from the lake, and not just
property owners in the watershed, should share in the cost of creating and
operating a stormwater management utility. They've been told repeatedly that
creating stormwater utilities could be very difficult and, at best, might be 60
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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.
percent effective. However, 60 percent or even 30 percent is better than doing
nothing. They have an opportunity and obligation as a community to face up to a
difficult problem and fix it. Renewed efforts in public education and enforcement of
good stewardship practices in the watershed can further increase that number at a
very low or no cost to anyone. The downzone will not accomplish that.
Compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA) makes it mandatory to
replace land taken out of production to accommodate growth in the community.
The downzone does not answer the question of how much urban sprawl will be
created in that process. Nor does the downzone answer the question of what the
impact will be on the already- soaring costs of land for citizens. With every increase
of $1,000 in the cost of a home, at least 400 families are priced out of the market.
If they have a problem with pollution entering the lake, then fix it. By reducing the
volume of pollution presently entering the lake, they can make room for new
development built to best management practices and technologies with little or no
net increase in pollution. If land is to be taken out of production, it should be
accompanied by a workable plan to replace it elsewhere. The BIA of Whatcom
County submitted a plan that would accomplish far more for the future of the lake,
the community, and their children than the downzone.
Allen Jewell, 1265 Sudden Valley, stated he agreed with the comments made
by the previous speaker. It's a good thing to pass a law that people want, but it's
not necessarily a good thing to pass something that is premature, costly, or
unnecessary. If they think it is necessary, keep in mind that they are playing with
the private property rights and retirement rights of a lot of people. The County
might have to purchase a lot of the land it will downzone. Downzoning means that
the owner, who has worked to hold onto the land, may not be able to hold onto it.
The owner's income and profit will be reduced or eliminated. The lake is pure
enough now to exceed most cities' water quality. He has a small piece of land that
is on the lake. Sudden Valley has done more than any place in the county to
protect Lake Whatcom. Over half of Sudden Valley is in green space. Sudden
Valley has removed 1,400 lots from development. There are only about 1,430 lots
available fore development now in Sudden Valley. Sudden Valley's effort to
increase sewer capacity, prevent rain runoff into the lake, and to prevent sewer
overflows are probably not known to the community.
Lee Denke, 601 North 4th Street, Mt. Vernon, stated he owns property in the
Lake Whatcom watershed. A property owner needs predictability. One can't have
an investment and not know with reasonable certainty what they can do with it
over time. If a landowner's value can be greatly affected by a simple vote of the
Council from time to time, he or she doesn't have a reason to buy or hold any
vacant property. His property is presently zoned rural residential, two units per
acre (RR2). If this downzone is approved, he has lost 90 percent of his density and
potential value of the property. He's owned the property for 43 years. He certainly
didn't look forward to the value and use diminishing. The drainage of his property
goes approximately one mile before it gets into Lake Whatcom. It gets into Lake
Whatcom near the north end and the creek. This is far north and downstream from
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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.
the City's intake. If they desire to protect the water, they should exclude from the
downzone those properties where the drainage goes into the lake downstream and
north of where the City gets its water. He could lose 90 percent of the value of his
property, yet he received no individual notice that this could happen. The people
who would be affected should have been notified.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that Mr. Denke is vested, and this downzone doesn't
affected him. Denke stated that if that might be true if he continues to have
exactly what they began with. Unfortunately, as they get into the development
process, certain changes must be made, and those changes could not necessarily
be made if they are looking for a zoning of rural, one unit per five acres (R5A).
Roger Ufkes, 12 Sudden Valley, stated he wanted to talk about a piece of
property that was the old campground years ago. There are many areas in Sudden
Valley that have been denoted by a letter system by the developer years ago. His
property is the only one in Sudden Valley that has been short platted. He got
County approval. He built the shopping center and Deer Creek condominiums. He
built a detention pond. He stubbed the utilities to the new property. He bought 12
water and sewer permits, cleared the site, took the trees down, and everything is
ready to go. The reason that the six -month moratorium will be a problem is
because the Water District says he has to buy water rights by November 1. The
Water District won't allow him to wait for six months. He can't buy more water and
sewer permits if he doesn't even know if he can develop the 12 he already has. It's
unfair to paint all of Sudden Valley with the same moratorium, when this is the only
piece of property that was short - platted and approved by the County Council. At
the previous meeting he attended, he thought that he could be allowed at least
three units per acre instead of the 12 units per acre. Now, the R5A zone makes the
total property un- buildable. Another piece of property that he owns has wetland
issues. If detention and retention were a problem, something could be worked out
with the County.
Brenner asked if Mr. Ufkes attended the meeting a week ago. Ufkes stated
he did. He was told that this didn't affect him. However, he found out that it did
affect him.
McShane stated Mr. Ufkes' map didn't indicate that he had already been
downzoned in December. The current zoning is urban residential, three units per
acre (UR -3).
Ufkes stated the zoning used to be twelve units per acre (UR -12), and then it
was downzoned to UR -3, which allows him a few units. If his property is
downzoned to R5A, he can't build anything.
Chris Dillard, 1102 Kelly Road, stated landowners have invested their money
in land. Investments aren't guaranteed. It's as simple as that. People who own
shares of a company can see those shares devalued. That's the way it works.
Therefore, that isn't a very important issue, but it shouldn't be overlooked either.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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
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.
There are members of the community who have property that is worth money and
put their money into it. It's critical to come up with a plan to protect the lake that
fairly and reasonably compensates people. He supports the downzone, but
ultimately for the property owners and people who are trying to make decisions
about their futures, they are never going to know what to do. They are not going
to be able to sell their land, because they won't know what will happen in the
future. It makes sense to have a complete building moratorium in the watershed,
to preserve the rights of the property owner. They can come up with a plan for
reasonable compensation where it's appropriate.
Reis Southworth, 3297 Sunrise Cove, stated she agreed with Chris Dillard
regarding the need for the moratorium in the Lake Whatcom watershed. She read
quotes from Robert Kennedy Jr. who recently spoke here regarding visioning and
protecting the water. Good environmental policy is identical to good economic
policy.
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley, stated she supports the downzone. Mr. Denke
spoke about the value of properties being reduced. In 1999, she brought forward a
citizen legislative initiative to the City of Bellingham asking for a program to fund
the acquisition of properties within the Lake Whatcom watershed, for the purpose of
removing them from development. That initiative failed by a narrow margin of
votes, but the City Council passed it the following year. It is the Lake Whatcom
Watershed Preservation Program. It is funded and active. Together with the
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and Purchase of Development Rights (PDR)
programs in place, they are methods for compensating property owners as those
development rights are removed.
Mr. Denke spoke of his property being downstream of the City's water intake.
The science shows that is not a major positive factor for two reasons. First,
research has shown that the lake water doesn't flow only downstream. The lake is
so large that they may have circulatory flows, so that part of the water flows
upstream. Second, Lake Whatcom is also recreational and supports habitat. Being
allowed to pollute the lake and creek just because it is downstream of the water
intake doesn't make sense. Support the downzone.
Joan Casey, 1015 W. Toledo, Bellingham, stated it is the ten -year
anniversary of the joint resolution by the City Council, County Council, and Water
District 10 regarding the protection of the Lake Whatcom watershed. This year is
the 30th anniversary of the Clean Water Act. It has been six months since this
County passed a building moratorium on Lake Whatcom. Last week, the
Bellingham City Council supported a resolution to support this downzone proposal.
There is no silver bullet to permanently protect the Lake Whatcom reservoir.
They need a plan that includes the downzone, implementing the State mandated
stormwater regulations, watershed land acquisition, strict limits on forestry
conversion, the continuation of the building moratorium, a single administrative
entity to oversee all watershed management functions. A leader does the right
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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.
thing. They are all leaders elected by this community. The downzone is the right
thing to do.
Myron Wlaznak, 4215 E. Oregon Street, stated that if previous council's had
taken more of a leadership role, they wouldn't be here tonight. The action that
they take today will have a favorable impact on the protection of Lake Whatcom far
into the future. He thanked the Council for showing its leadership.
This is just a first step in a comprehensive approach. A number of proposals
are under consideration, and will be evaluated in the coming months. Each
proposal has a part in protecting the lake. Each proposal will have an impact on
the lake, people drinking the water, and people living in the watershed. Stay the
course, in spite of the controversy now and in the future.
Most of the proposals will cost money. Provide adequate funding and
adequate staffing to enact and enforce the ordinances. It will not be popular, but it
is crucial to accomplish the task. His group, People for Lake Whatcom, is
committed to working with the councils and other interested groups to develop
workable programs that address land use issues, compensation issues, and retrofit
issues. The time is right for a collaborative approach that benefits the entire
community.
No one has all the answers. There is much critical information that they do
not yet have. New information will become available as new technologies become
available. A conservative approach to future development in the watershed is the
wisest option until a definitive course is readily apparent. Be sure that there will be
disagreements during this process, but they need to work through them. The time
for action is now.
Bruce Kraig, 1904 - 18th Street, Bellingham, stated he supports the
downzone and moratorium. His great grandparents homesteaded in Whatcom
County over 100 years ago. The water source is sacred. The San Francisco Bay
area has reservoirs that are totally off limits. There should be no more
development, boating, or logging in the watershed. Freedom without moral
discipline and self- imposed limitations is chaos, not freedom. It is the duty of every
citizen to think of the community as a whole.
Debbie Craig, 1457 Marine Drive, stated that stormwater runoff containing
pesticides, herbicides, metals, fertilizers, and other contaminants associated with
urban development is the greatest contributor to the watershed degradation.
Preventative steps must be taken to maintain the high water quality that they
currently enjoy. The Council has started taking those steps. She hoped the Council
votes to continue taking those steps.
Paul Isaacson, 204 Shallow Shores Road, Lake Samish, stated he will have a
substantial loss on his investment in the watershed. He's reasoned with that fact,
and he will not oppose the downzone. However, he is fundamentally opposed to
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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
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 transfer of wealth. They live in a country where they all want to be equal. He
is opposed to taking from him and giving to the rest of the county outside of the
watershed without a plan. He's worked for hundreds of hours on the land
acquisition team, the Lake Whatcom Forestry Form, and the Lake Samish
committees. He worked ten years ago on the transfers of development rights
(TDR's) that were a failure. Now, they are going for a downzone, and they haven't
solved any of the issues. To take what he is willing to lose and give to other people
in the county is unfair. It is appropriate to change their development standards in
the watershed and have this five acres zoning, but don't give away what he has.
He doesn't have a 401(k) retirement plan, but he doesn't have a right to take
someone else's. His land is his retirement and family's future. Somebody needs to
figure out how not to give his money away. He agreed that they should not build at
a density more than R5A, but not without the appropriate provision.
Bill Hinely, 2676 Donovan Avenue, Bellingham, stated the Constitution and
the Declaration of Independence have an undue emphasis on looking out for the
individual, and a lack of emphasis on community responsibility and people working
together. They have inherited the thinking that they have unlimited resources.
They need to look at their basic social values. They should always say that clean
water, uncontaminated soil, and clean air take priority. Everything else should
come after that. He suggested looking into the website www.earthcharter.org on
the internet. People from 50 countries have come together to say that they need to
have a global reexamination of basic human values.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B.)
Tom Pratum, 2241 North Shore Road, Bellingham, stated he supports the
downzone. The zoning in the watershed is nonsense. It's been that way for 20
years. Mr. Denke's property is a particularly odd zoning. It is the lone zoning in
the entire area of rural residential, two units per acre (RR2) zoning. There are
many properties like that in the Lake Whatcom watershed. This interim zoning of
R5A will be a good thing. There may be some areas that could be upzoned later.
In Sudden Valley, the northeast portion outside of the current urban growth area
(UGA) near Lakewood needs to be included in the downzone. There are about 45
acres there. There are a few lots that are zoned UR -3 or URM -12.
Steve Hood, State Department of Ecology (DOE), stated the DOE won't try
and tell the Council about land use decisions. He wanted to echo what the building
industry said. They can stop building all together and it won't change the impacts
that exist now. The DOE will look at what the future build out is for the lake when
it looks at the solution. Decisions that the Council makes now will make a big
difference when they are looking at how much they need to reduce the existing
impacts. It is going to be tough. It won't be cheap. They are going to look at a
package of solutions. How much they reduce in the future will depend on how they
lay out that future.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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.
Lisalea Latva, 2330 Dean Avenue, Bellingham, stated she arrived in
Bellingham and was dumbfounded by what she saw. She can't believe there are
any houses on Lake Whatcom, which should be called Whatcom Reservoir. She
grew up in New England. They hear a lot about science, data, and statistics. If
they all go inside themselves, they would realize that it doesn't make sense that
they put development in the drinking water. There are erosion control measures
that don't work. There are a dozen sites where the erosion control measures are
not maintained. They are a joke. She can't believe boats are allowed on the lake.
The Council has an opportunity to do just a little bit. Downzoning is just the
beginning. She hoped that there is no development whatsoever in the watershed
permanently. They might not have all the facts and figures, but they should err on
the side of caution. She hoped this is the beginning of creating tough measures to
protect the water. Decide that health is more important than property rights. She
hoped they don't have to litigate every development to protect the watershed.
Keith Anderson, 1915 Academy Road, Bellingham, stated he owns 20 acres
in the R2A zone on south side of Academy Road. He bought the land because it
was forested. It is second growth with a closed canopy and an open, park -like
understory. It is a remnant of what was once covering all of Whatcom County. He
resisted clearing it because it is beautiful and ecologically valuable. He commonly
turns down timber cruisers who tell him how much it would be worth cut. He
intends to place it into a conservation easement before selling it. He's done his
own, voluntary de facto downzone already. He was opposed to the recent
extension of Academy Road. He's managed his part of the watershed in a
responsible and sustainable way voluntarily. He's always been fearful of what his
neighborhood could develop into if allowed to build out to its zoned potential. He
applauded Councilmember McShane's and others' vision and courage in proposing a
more enlightened clearing ordinance and correcting the excessively dense zoning of
the past. He would gladly sacrifice his ability to develop up to seven more lots, in
exchange for knowing that the watershed will not become Bellingham's Bellevue
east.
Phil Colwell, 3719 Haggen Road, stated he lives in Water District 7 and the
Lake Whatcom watershed. The moratorium should be enacted. He owns property
there. His main concern is what the County is prepared to do in terms of
compensation to the property owners who have less than five acres, and can't do
anything with their parcels. When he purchased the property 18 years ago, he
didn't intend to develop it. The developing areas are encroaching on him. He
would like to stay there, but he is paying developable taxes per acre. It is not fair
for him to be taxed at a higher value to compensate for Lake Whatcom during the
balance of the moratorium. He's not for the moratorium. He's for the protection of
the watershed.
Brenner stated any lot already platted in the watershed can be developed.
Colwell stated he owns seven acres, but the road divides it. A portion of that
becomes un- developable because of the County road.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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.
Brenner stated this ordinance does not undo a lot of record.
Roger Ellingson, Blaine, stated this is not a radical proposal, because it does
nothing to reduce the number of homes, the amount of development, or the traffic
in the watershed. They already have the problems. The amendment allows more
homes to be built, more traffic, and more impacts. There are sensitive areas in the
watershed where no new homes should be allowed. Unfortunately, those areas are
where existing, vested lots of record exist. They should not eliminate the right to
build on these lots without seriously committing whatever they can to compensate
the landowners to the maximum extent feasible. One of the ways to do that is
through a TDR program. The current TDR program is useless. It's never been
used. The Council needs to make a commitment and effort to involve the
environmentalists, the building industry, the banking industry, the real estate
industry, and private property owners who own land in the watershed. These
people are not evil. They are very important members of the community. Unless
they bring the entire community together, the program will be compromised.
Instead of name - calling, they need to bring people together. The first priority is to
protect the lake. The second priority is to protect he people who live in the
watershed.
Hugh Beatty, 2104 Mackenzie Avenue, stated he is a property owner in the
Lake Whatcom watershed, in Sudden Valley. He will not build on it. They can
downzone it.
Rita Foley, Blue Canyon Road, stated she supports the downzone, but it isn't
big enough. It should be zoned rural, one unit per ten acres (R10A). There are big
parcels of land owned by private owners at her end of the lake. A density of R5A
would be a lot. It's a start in the right direction. They've found three 55- gallon
drums of oil on property off of South Bay Drive, near the creek and water. The
DOE came out, looked at it, and left. The Health Department took care of it. She is
for anything that will help the Lake Whatcom watershed. Her entire property is
natural. Housing and people pollute.
Mark Hurlbert, 2515 King Street, Bellingham, stated quite a number of
landowners and developers are worrying about their investments. He sympathizes
with them. He started a business in this county a few years ago. If it had been
successful, it would have contributed to the fiscal health of the community. He put
all his money into it. In the end, he lost everything. He did not come running to
the County Council because he put an investment into the county, and ask the
County to pay back his investment and give him the profit he might have realized.
That is the nature of speculation. It is absolutely not the business of the County
Council to guarantee the investment and profit of speculators. They are not evil,
but it is the nature of speculation. By the free market principles that most of these
developers will espouse, the County Council should not be involved in guaranteeing
their investments. That is a government bailout. It is welfare. They have no right
to it.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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
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.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated he won't argue against reducing the
density in the watershed. However, he is concerned about how the proposal will
work out. When they eliminate a large number of potential building sites, they
need to consider where that development can and will go. He is afraid that they
will force development into rural Whatcom County. They instituted a TDR program
several years ago. To his knowledge, none have been created. The City of
Bellingham has not created a viable receiving area. They should not go ahead with
this proposal until Bellingham cooperates with a workable TDR program. He's also
concerned about the effect on the County's tax base. Mr. Isaacson and Mr.
Ellingson made some good comments. It's also not the duty of the Council to keep
changing the rules on people.
Jean Freestone, 3200 Vallette Street, stated she doesn't own land in the
watershed. She's never been able to afford it. She's been concerned about a
number of things that are issues behind this. A blue ribbon committee on Lake
Whatcom rated sewage overflow from Water District 10 as the biggest pollution
problem. Sherilyn Wells and her group fought against improving sewer. Restricting
development would further hamper the sewer project. The Clean Water Alliance
always seems to oppose any reasonable solution, short of a complete moratorium.
It is outrageous that water users are being taxed to buy land in the watershed. A
utility tax is as regressive as they can get. The poorest renter is paying the same
as the richest landowner. Bellingham voters turned down that tax at the polls, but
the City Council initiated it. Now, the conservation tax is also being used for the
same purpose. They have better things for which to use their conservation money.
The County will no doubt be justly sued by property owners affected by a
downzone, resulting in more costs. Ultimately, taxpayers will end up burdened by
compensation. The recent purchase of ten parcels in the watershed for $810,000
means that they are paying people $81,000 for each structure not built. They
erode the tax base, making the rest of the people pay more. She's never been able
to afford Lake Whatcom property, and she opposed the County Council making her
pay for it through taxation.
Pablo Schroeder, 1412 - 22nd Street, stated he invested in the stock market,
and lost everything. He is a carpet layer. It benefits him to build houses.
However, he supports clean drinking water, the moratorium, and the downzone.
Sherilyn Wells, 1020 Geneva Street, stated the court ruled that the Black
Diamond sewer system will be environmentally superior to a septic system, but has
done so without a full environmental review of the question. It's entirely possible
that development could worsen the environmental situation by facilitating denser
development than would be available under county jurisdiction on septic. This gets
back to the issue of having a full environmental review before making decisions.
She applauds the Council's courage in even bringing a proposal like this forward.
She thanked Councilmember McShane. However, they need to make an informed
position. Evaluate the full value of the fishery, including the cultural and economic
value in land use decisions that may impact the fishery. Evaluate the potential for
the negative, and then make the decision. They don't have the studies called for in
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, 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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
the Comprehensive Plan. Put a moratorium in place to maintain the status quo for
now, and then look at the issue comprehensively. There is such a thing as an
inherent or vested right to imperil the health or impair the safety of the community.
Austin Creek is not included in this proposal. Nothing is being done there.
However, Austin Creek is one of two creeks in which cryptosporidium has been
detected. Watershed monitoring scientists have suggested that Austin Creek may
now be a health hazard. Protect public health. Do the study first.
Jillian Trinkhaus, 615 W. Connecticut Street, stated she is in favor of the
downzone. This is a first step. They still need to address traffic issues around the
lake. Educate people more about what they put on their lawns. Approve the
downzone. There are other issues to work on.
Jim Milstead, 1469 Oriental Ave, stated he is in favor of the moratorium. In
Berkeley Hills near San Francisco, there are two reservoirs. The water district
owned the reservoirs. There were no houses around them. Only rowboats were
allowed. No airplanes were allowed to land on the drinking water. That would be
ridiculous. Chris Spens advocated for trucks to take Lake Louise Road rather than
Lakeway, because it would protect the lake from pollution. Here, people are using
their motorboats and landing on the lake. That sort of thing has to stop. Exclude
motorized craft on drinking water.
Ken Wilcox, 3900 Frasier Street, Bellingham, stated he lives in the
watershed, and could put up some more lots. However, he supports the downzone.
He's not there to divide his land. There are many birds nesting in the trees on his
property. He has tried to be a good steward of the environment. He doesn't use
pesticides or fertilizers. He recycles his motor oil. A lot of the people who are also
good stewards are not at this meeting. They support the idea of taking care of the
lake. Urban development is the biggest threat to the lake. It is the source of most
of the problems they are trying to get a handle on. Roger Ellingson made valuable
points about TDR's. Tom Pratum has worked a lot with the group People for Lake
Whatcom. He is a member of the board for the Clean Water Alliance. Despite what
they might read in the Bellingham Herald, the Clean Water Alliance fully supports
what the People For Lake Whatcom group is trying to do. Sherilyn Wells also
deserves a lot of credit for her hard work.
Tip Johnson, 2719 Donovan Avenue, Bellingham, asked the Council to please
do the downzone. It's a baby step. It was a mistake to put residential
development in the Lake Whatcom watershed in the first place. It's better to get it
over with and move on with it. TDR's are going to hurt a lot of low- to moderate -
income neighborhoods, unless they can figure out a way to get Edgemoor to take
its share. It's government's job to regulate land use. Everyone is guaranteed a
reasonable use of his or her property. Forestry is the most reasonable use of the
Lake Whatcom watershed.
Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a five - minute break at 10 :45p.m.)
McShane moved to adopt the ordinance.
McShane moved to amend by adopting the map that was handed out.
Typically when they do a zoning change, they adopt a map. He was hesitant to ask
staff to prepare a map for something that the Council pushed.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend the map. He didn't want to create any spot
downzones. Exclude the area at the north end of the lake that is the Strawberry
Point area. All of the area is developed except four lots, which have water and
sewer available. It is currently zoned rural residential, two units per acre (RR2).
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend the map. There is an urban residential area
currently zoned at three units per acre (UR -3). It is the UR -3 area adjacent to
neighborhood business zoning in Sudden Valley. It is the entire area of section D.
Nelson stated the map would become Exhibit B.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend the map. There is an area of urban residential,
twelve units per acre (URM -12) zoning at the north part of Sudden Valley and an
adjoining areas of urban residential, three units per acre (UR -3) and of rural
residential, two units per acre (RR2) north of Sudden Valley. Include those areas in
the zoning change to rural, one unit per five acres (R5A). These areas are outside
of Sudden Valley, except for the very north end of Sudden Valley. The level of
development is inappropriate. The zoning is too intensive for that area, that close
to the lake. Most of the area has not been subdivided. It fits in with the larger
picture of what he is attempting to do. The areas are all outside the urban growth
area (UGA). They shouldn't have URM12 zoning outside of an urban growth area.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Brenner stated the Council is very sensitive to the concerns that are raised.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side A.)
Brenner stated she doesn't believe in downzoning. Someone said the zoning
was not appropriate to begin with. That is accurate. This is not about speculation
on the part of certain property owners. Peoples' homes are really important. Not
every single person bought land just to turn it over. They need to get away from
an "us" versus "them" attitude. It really bothers her. At the most recent Water
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 34
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.
Resources work session, they discussed forming a Council subcommittee to develop
a workable transfer of development rights (TDR) program. The one they have
doesn't work. TDR programs can work. She moved to amend the ordinance by
adding language, "BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that
a Council TDR committee consisting of three councilmembers is formed to develop
an effective Transfer of Development Rights program." Councilmembers Fleetwood
and Roy have volunteered to be on this committee with her. That is the only way
she will support this downzone. They have to be serious about working out some
compensation.
Roy stated she supported the concept of looking into this. She was not sure
about developing the program. She asked if this unnamed committee would
actually develop the program or define it and set up some parameters.
Brenner stated "develop" is meant in general terms.
Crawford asked the purpose of forming a subcommittee in conjunction with
this ordinance that downzones people.
Brenner stated this is an interim downzone that is better than the
moratorium that is in place. During that interim time, she wants to start working
on a workable TDR program. She's talking about compensating people to allow
them to transfer value out of the watershed.
Crawford asked if the TDR program that is developed would apply to these
people who are being downzoned now, or to people who are downzoned in the
future.
Brenner stated she is talking about all of it.
McShane stated he supported the amendment. They heard a broad range of
views tonight. In the proposed interim zoning, there are areas where this is just
not necessary or practical. If the goal is to get down to that kind of density, they
may need to bring in other tools, such as TDR's. He choose R5A zoning because
they should leave a developable value to land. They've heard from people who say
that they want the land to all be forest. He's not comfortable going that far. If
they had a TDR program, maybe they could go that far and go beyond a zoning
proposal. The zoning alone will not do it. There are areas in Geneva and Sudden
Valley that have existing platted lots. Zoning will not deal with those. They need a
TDR program to take care of those problems. It creates a broader package and
provides more tools and flexibility in how they move through this interim zoning to
a final zoning.
Fleetwood stated he would support the amendment. There isn't any
contention on the Council about creating this subcommittee. It doesn't matter
whether they create it separately or as an amendment to this downzone. It doesn't
fit with this, but it doesn't matter.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 35
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1
2 Brenner stated it fits for her. She needs to know they are serious about a
3 TDR program if she is going to support the downzone. People will believe that the
4 Council is serious about it.
5
6 Motion to amend carried unanimously.
7
8 Brenner stated the County made a big mistake by purchasing forestland.
9 She was disturbed about the talk that it would prevent intense development. She
10 believes strongly in good forest practices, which includes selective logging. It is a
11 beneficial use in the watershed. They need to start making sure that they get the
12 biggest bang for their buck. There are a lot of densely zoned properties in the
13 watershed. Use the Conservation Futures money to provide incentives to people to
14 not develop to the maximum. Most of the loggers in Whatcom County are as good
15 stewards as anyone there. They need to all work together.
16
17 Crawford spoke against the ordinance. It is premature, and not a good idea
18 for a lot of reasons. One reason is that they do not have definitive numbers on how
19 many people are affected. They have not determined where the displaced
20 subdivided lots will go in Whatcom County. They have not addressed the primary
21 source of pollution, which is the existing older developments with inadequate
22 stormwater treatment. County Charter section 1.11 says that the rights of the
23 citizens shall be guaranteed, and no regulation or ordinance shall be generated
24 without consideration of and provisions for compensation to those unduly burdened.
25 They have not created an equitable mechanism for compensation. The TDR
26 program is a good program. The reason it is not working is because there is not a
27 receiving area with an equal value. He doesn't believe that it's been substantiated
28 that development may lead to irreversible harm, especially with new kinds of
29 modern development with modern stormwater treatment. He doesn't believe that
30 it's been substantiated that new building lots pose a serious risk. It hasn't been
31 substantiated that it's necessary to avoid future degradation and it's associated
32 threats. The County Council has committed to the community to work toward
33 development standards that will mitigate impacts to the lake. This is not a
34 development standard. This is a resignation on the Council's part that they can't
35 come up with the development standards. He has not lost confidence that they can
36 do that. He's worked on the Council and Planning Commission for five years. They
37 have made tremendous strides with their development standards. It is not yet time
38 to give up on that and say that development of any kind will threaten the lake.
39
40 Nelson stated there is a potential for 3,250 new building lots in the
41 watershed. This would affect approximately 2,200 lots. In the Comprehensive
42 Plan, they have designated all the potential rural development that could occur.
43 They have also worked with various cities and jurisdictions on the urban growth
44 area densities. He asked if this meets with the Growth Management Act (GMA)
45 requirements on identifying how that density will be met.
46
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 36
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.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Manager, stated it is not
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan to take an interim action. There is no
inconsistency if it is prudent to protect natural resources. The question is where
they find additional home sites in the county. Later this year, the Birch Bay
subarea plan will come forward. It will take additional housing units, and it is one
of the fastest - growing areas in the county. The County is shifting its focus, through
the subarea planning process, to look at growth in another area. During the
Comprehensive Plan update for this year, the County will look at other areas to take
additional growth. The urban growth areas of Bellingham would be appropriate to
take growth that is outside the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Nelson stated they need to evaluate the numbers during this process. This
needs to be docketed by resolution.
Roy asked if environmental impact statements (EIS) are required to make
this kind of change to the Comprehensive Plan. Hart stated he disagreed. The
issue is an interim ordinance at this point. One of the basics of natural resource
planning is that they act on a precautionary principle. They have this opportunity
to act on that principle. The State Department of Ecology representative mentioned
that it is consistent with natural resource planning objectives.
Roy stated they don't want to have any surprises for the staff. Hart stated
staff would come to the Council with an additional service request.
Fleetwood asked if Mr. Hart agreed that an EIS is necessary if they are
contemplating a permanent ordinance. Hart stated the value of this interim period
is that they can sort out and evaluate those issues through the Planning
Commission and public processes.
McShane stated the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) officer makes that
determination.
Nelson stated he is opposed to the ordinance. In 1992, there was great
turmoil in the county, much of it centered around Lake Whatcom and the studies
that have been done on it. There was a lot of concern in the community. There are
people in the community with other viewpoints. Other communities will view this
as another mechanism by which to impose their desires to protect their
communities. It is not consistent. He is not opposed to recognizing that certain
zones have ramifications, but they need to address it fully before they look at the
downzone. They have not done that. They have made great strides toward doing
that. He hopes they can have the community's support when the Council needs to
implement the other programs.
Fleetwood stated he is in strong favor of this. It constitutes one small step in
a multi- faceted, comprehensive approach that they've been talking about for the
last six months, and longer. He disagreed that there will ever be a community
consensus on the question of downzoning.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Motion to adopt the ordinance as amended carried 5 -2 with Crawford and
Nelson opposed.
3A. RESOLUTION INITIATING THE DOCKETING OF A ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT WITHIN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED WATER
RESOURCE OVERLAY DISTRICT (AB2002 -226A)
McShane stated the resolution includes changes incorporated in ordinance
above and the addition of the map.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
CONSENT AGENDA
10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT EXTENSION BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SSP-
PREFERRED ANIMAL CARE TO PROVIDE ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES,
IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $295,824 (AB2002 -149A)
Crawford moved to approve.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this has been a long ongoing saga. She feels bad
for all involved, especially the animals. She doesn't think it is all the Rustands'
fault for things not running as they possibly should. It is the County's responsibility
to look into some of the contracts that they assign, especially when it is a new
provider. She moved amend the section A1.1 of the contract to require the shelter
have good signs out front so people can find the facility and require an exercise
yard for the animals. Several people said they could not find the facility. If they
are going to promote a good adoption program, the citizens have to be able to find
it. An exercise yard will help in the long run. If there is not adequate staffing to
exercise the animals twice per day for 20 minutes each time, then the animals can
be turned loose in an exercise yard. She applauded the County Executive for
working on creating an advisory committee with a diverse composition. This
committee will help anyone who provides this service to do it to the standards of
the Humane Society, and have accountability for this kind of operation. The
committee can give the Council future recommendations on policy regarding animal
control.
Nelson asked the signage requirements for the business park.
Crawford stated the shelter is in the City of Bellingham.
Nelson stated he didn't know what the City allows for signage. He asked how
they define what signage is proper.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 38
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 she is hoping for a big sign out front. Maybe the
County could put a sign on Bakerview Road.
Brenner stated it is a business park. She asked how people are going to go
to a business if they can't find it. It's the County's responsibility to have the correct
signage on Bakerview Road or Hannegan Road. They don't need to get into the
details. The term "adequate signage" should be fine. She suggested that as a
friendly amendment.
Caskey- Schreiber accepted the friendly amendment.
Nelson suggested the term "appropriate signage," which means the signage
meets the zoning requirements of the City and County.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the Council needs to
realize that, given the range of substantive amendments proposed to the contract,
they would probably be rejecting the offer made by the vendor, SSP. This would
probably constitute a counteroffer, which the vendor would have to consider. The
Council can't unilaterally make substantive changes to the contract without running
the risk of it being considered a rejection of the proposed contract. They may have
reached that point, although it would depend on how the vendor would interpret the
changes. If the vendor doesn't agree with the contract changes, they won't have a
contract in place effective two weeks from now. The County will have to go through
a request for proposal (RFP) process.
Roy asked if it would accomplish the same thing if the Council's direction to
the Executive to negotiate and work these things through with the vendor, instead
of putting it in the contract. The Council can tell the Executive that the Council
wants good signage and an exercise yard.
Fleetwood asked if the contract expires before the next Council meeting.
Brenner stated it does. She supported that direction. The vendors already
said that they want to work with the County. They can work something out to
make things work better at the facility.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is comfortable with Mr. Grant's suggestion. She
emphasized to the Rustands that, if they want to stay in business, these are the
things she will look for in a year. That is needed for that operation, if the shelter is
going to run at the staffing level that it does. She has heard lots of testimony from
people that she has met with. She's gotten lots of letters on this. She's walked
through the shelter. She's seen a lot of the situations firsthand. The shelter is
doing the best it can with the staff it has. The staff members are hardworking
people, and there is no fault with them. There isn't enough staff. Comparing them
with the Humane Society, the numbers don't add up. When she went through the
two facilities, the Humane Society had nine staff members for each Preferred
Animal Care staff member. She's seen several violations of the Humane Society
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 39
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.
guidelines that they are supposed to adhere to in the contract. Maybe it's an
educational thing. Maybe with the advisory committee, Preferred Animal Care can
work on establishing a viable adoption program that includes newspaper
advertising, being out in the community, adoption goals, and a volunteer program.
PAC has had problems with volunteers who criticize the operation. It's too bad that
they didn't trust the volunteers enough to allow the volunteers to put a program in
place. These volunteers could have done good work in recruiting people and
helping the shelter.
She's also concerned about the ventilation. She walked through the shelter,
and the ventilation system doesn't appear to work. She suggested that they get it
checked out and see if it's working.
Nelson stated that when he came on the Council eight years ago, he got the
most complaints about animal control in this county. The County was contracted
with the Humane Society. If the Humane Society has that entire staff, he's amazed
that there was a problem. He was getting calls from people in the Foothills, the
reservation, Birch Bay, and all over the county. He was hearing concerns on a
regular basis. At that time, the administration decided to try and fix the problem in
the community. He's grown up with animals, and seen the various ways that
animals are taken care of. He's gone through the Rustand's facility unannounced.
He's even adopted pets out of that program. Some of Councilmember Caskey-
Schreiber's statements are highly debatable. They have to be fair and equitable.
He's been impressed with the operation out there. It's amazing that they suddenly
have problems now, after six years.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated he has been working on developing
an animal control advisory committee. He will bring it forward in the near future.
He wants to talk to some of the councilmembers individually to make sure they are
on the same page. The issue of animal control and care in this community is an
important issue. It is high on the radar screen. The goal and objective of this
advisory committee ultimately is to provide for the care and control of the animal
population in this community. That is the first and foremost objective. The other
objective is to bring together all the stakeholders, organizations, and concerned
individuals in the community so they can address the issues in a collaborative and
cooperative way, and not polarize or create adversaries. When they do that, it is
the animals that end up losing.
Caskey- Schreiber withdrew her amendment upon the advise of Mr. Grant.
The Council can give a directive to Executive Kremen. She is confident that
Executive Kremen will come up with a good solution.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER ITEMS
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 40
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.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2002 BUDGET, REQUEST #7 (AB2002-
223)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and stated the substitute ordinance was recommended for approval. The $40,000
for the aggregate mineral study was originally proposed so that $20,000 would
come from the general fund and $20,000 would come from the Road fund. After
legal review, the administration recommends that it would not be appropriate to
take the money from the Road fund. This was moved forward with a 2 -1
recommendation. Councilmember Roy was opposed.
Brenner moved to eliminate the $40,000 for the Planning and Development
Services Department for the aggregate study. They have already satisfied Growth
Management Act requirements with the background data they've already collected.
They've done studies before. The taxpayers will pay for the determination of
aggregate in this county, but the taxpayers have no guarantee that they are going
to get any benefit from this study. Not one ounce of this aggregate has to remain
in Whatcom County.
Fleetwood asked if the Comprehensive Plan requires that this study be done.
McShane stated it does.
Brenner stated they've already done what the Comprehensive Plan requires.
This study is additional.
Motion to amend failed 2 -5 with Roy and Brenner in favor.
Motion to adopt the substitute ordinance carried unanimously.
3. REPORT ON COMMITTEE DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED
2003 -2008 SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(AB2002 -239)
Brenner reported for the Public Works and Capital Projects Committee and
stated the committee recommends approval of the program, with the removal of
the Whatcom Connector from the program. She moved to remove the Whatcom
Connector from the six -year transportation program.
Nelson stated they have to include the connector. If they don't, then they
are neglecting what many citizens have been complaining about over the years.
It's unfortunate that they are doing this late at night without public input. They've
had hearings on this.
Brenner stated this isn't going to interfere with public process. This is a
draft. The public can talk to the Council if they don't like it. They made the change
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 41
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.
during committee, not now at this late hour. They can't hold this in committee,
because staff needs direction. She would repeat Councilmember Nelson's concern.
Motion to remove the Whatcom Connector failed 3 -4 with Fleetwood, Caskey-
Schreiber, and McShane in favor.
Brenner stated that staff will bring the final plan before committee at the
next meeting.
4. REPORT ON COMMITTEE DISCUSSION REGARDING THE REQUEST TO
AMEND WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO EXEMPT PARCELS
WITHIN THE DRAYTON HARBOR STORMWATER SPECIAL DISTRICT
FROM ON -SITE STORMWATER DETENTION AND INFILTRATION
REQUIREMENTS (AB2002 -174)
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side 8.)
McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated
there is no action required, unless they want to exempt the parcels in the Drayton
Harbor watershed. The recommendation was to uphold the Planning Commission's
recommendation. He moved to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation.
Motion carried unanimously.
S. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EVERGREEN WATER -SEWER
DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2002 -228)
McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved
approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE MEMORIAL TO JEFFERSON DAVIS IN
THE PEACE ARCH STATE PARK (AB2002 -215)
McShane moved approval of the substitute resolution, which includes the
changes that Councilmember Roy came up with.
Roy stated the concern in the county is that the memorial creates
divisiveness, and is bothersome to some of the citizens.
Brenner stated they've already done this. The Council already sent a letter
to the legislature requesting that the memorial not be reinstated. She appreciated
the work that Councilmember Roy did on this, but it bothers her to go through this
again, just because someone wanted it done his or her way. She won't support it.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 42
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.
Roy stated she didn't understand that they actually sent the letter. She
wanted to put this in a more positive tone.
Crawford stated he won't support it for the same reason he didn't support it
two weeks ago. He would support a letter or resolution to name the highway after
the other guy, Mr. Stewart.
Brenner agreed.
Fleetwood stated he initially agreed with Councilmembers Crawford and
Brenner. However, he realized that passing the resolution might not be terribly
important to some people, but it is terribly important to many others. It doesn't
hurt.
Motion to approve the substitute resolution carried 5 -2 with Crawford and
Brenner opposed.
7. APPOINTMENT OF RICARDO CAMARILLO TO THE SURFACE MINING
ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2002 -229)
Brenner moved to approve the appointment.
Motion carried unanimously.
8. ORDINANCE CONTINUING A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF
NEW APPLICATIONS FOR SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND INTO PARCELS
SMALLER THAN FIVE NOMINAL ACRES WITHIN THE LAKE WHATCOM
WATERSHED (AB2002 -227)
Caskey- Schreiber moved to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner stated they don't need this ordinance because they adopted the
other one.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Prosecuting Attorney, stated he heard from Planning
staff that this was necessary because the current one expires soon, before the
other one takes place.
Brenner moved to amend the ordinance to sunset 30 days from June 18,
2002.
Fleetwood stated he could agree to the amendment as long as the Council
and the administration commit to having a conversation about the criteria for why
they want to lift the moratorium.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 43
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.
Brenner stated they can't have both ordinances at the same time. They
don't go together. They just passed the ordinance on the zoning. The two
ordinances will contradict each other.
Fleetwood stated they don't contradict.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the ordinances don't
contradict each other, but given that almost all of the zoning in the watershed is
now R5A, there would be few areas where someone could subdivide to a density
less than R5A. There are a few places where someone could subdivide. If they
don't feel like they can have the subdivisions at two acres without further
regulations, then they want to continue it.
McShane stated he agreed that a discussion about this is good. He
suggested that they approve the ordinance as amended by Councilmember
Brenner, and that they discuss it if they feel comfortable with it. If the Council
doesn't want to lift it, they can propose extending it. He's inclined to drop the
moratorium.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated staff is
concerned that if they don't approve the ordinance, there will be a rush of cluster
subdivision applications.
Brenner stated the moratorium and the downzone conflict with each other.
There is no allowance in the moratorium for the R2A zone. It doesn't exist. The
moratorium allowed for R2A zoning.
Fleetwood stated the Council will be voting in a way to agree with
Councilmember Brenner. They need to talk about it.
Crawford stated the moratorium is more restrictive, and would therefore take
precedence.
Motion to amend the ordinance carried unanimously.
Motion to adopt the ordinance carried unanimously.
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A NEW
LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR ABARROTES LA GLORIA, 5974
GUIDE MERIDIAN #B, BELLINGHAM (AB2002 -240)
Crawford moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 44
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.
10. REQEUST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A NEW
LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR SCHNAUZER CROSSING BED
AND BREAKFAST, 4421 LAKEWAY DRIVE (AB2002 -247)
Crawford moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
I. REPORT ON COMMITTEE DISCUSSION REGARDING WHATCOM
COUNTY PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM PROPOSAL
(AB2002 -216)
Roy reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated the committee
heard from staff and the Conservation District. The committee gave direction to
staff to work on this and submit recommendations and an ordinance to the Council.
This will come back to the full Council, which will have a public hearing.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
McShane asked to schedule a discussion regarding appointment to the
Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) at the next Council meeting.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Caskey- Schreiber moved to accept the Introduction Items.
(Clerk's Note: This motion was not voted on. According to Dana Brown -
Davis, Clerk of the Council, who attended the meeting, the Council's intent was to
approve the Introduction Items.)
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 88 -015, ESTABLISHING THE
FERRY PETTY CASH REVOLVING FUND, INCREASING THE AMOUNT BY
$400 FOR A TOTAL OF $800 (AB2002 -241)
2. ORDINANCE RESCINDING ORDINANCE 82 -107, ESTABLISHING A
SOLID WASTE PETTY CASH MANAGEMENT REVOLVING FUND
(AB2002 -242)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 88 -049, ESTABLISHING THE
PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION PETTY CASH REVOLVING FUND,
INCREASING THE AMOUNT BY $100 FOR A TOTAL OF $200 (AB2002-
243)
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 84 -008 (AN ORDINANCE WHICH
AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 83 -99) WHICH AUTHORIZED THE LEVY OF
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 45
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
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.
TAXES FOR COUNTY AND STATE PURPOSES IN WHATCOM COUNTY,
WASHINGTON (AB2002 -244)
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING 2002 UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE ANIMAL
CONTROL FEES (AB2002 -245)
6. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF WHATCOM COUNTY
SURPLUS PROPERTY PURSUANT TO WCC 1.10 (AB2002 -231A)
7. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY SIX -YEAR
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE YEARS 2003
THROUGH 2008 (AB2002 -239A)
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:06 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on July 16 , 2002.
FTIVE021M
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2002, Page 46