Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil November 26 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 47 48 49 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 November 26, 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 ANNOUNCEMENTS Nelson announced that the following items were discussion in executive session during the Committee of the Whole meeting. • Discussion regarding collective bargaining negotiations (AB2001- 390) • Resolution amending Resolution 2002 -029 approving a salary schedule and policies for unrepresented Whatcom County employees for the year 2002 (AB2002 -411) • Resolution approving a salary schedule and policies for unrepresented Whatcom County employees for the year 2003 (AB2002 -412) • Discussion with a representative from the Whatcom County Prosecutor's Office regarding pending litigation (AB2002 -018) • Consideration of an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on APL2000 -0011, filed by Victoria Luhrs, regarding construction of structures and a bulkhead on shoreline property on Lummi Island (AB2002 -348) McShane moved to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision on the appeal. Motion carried unanimously. • Consideration of an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on APL2000 -0011, filed by Whatcom County Planning and Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 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 Services - Land Use Division, regarding construction of structures and a bulkhead on shoreline property on Lummi Island (AB2002 -348A) Crawford moved to reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Victoria Luhrs case as appealed by Whatcom County Planning & Development Services, based on an error of law that the Hearing Examiner misinterpreted the pertinent Shoreline and Whatcom County Code requirements. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion regarding possible land acquisition (AB2002 -421) OPEN SESSION The following people spoke: Mike Kaufman, 1620 Huntley Road, stated the Council would introduce the power line moratorium issue this evening. He needs a little more time on that issue. He would appreciate any help on it he can get to make sure it is right. During the last Utility Planning Advisory Committee meeting, the citizens want an environmental impact statement (EIS) for projects of a certain size or bigger and for substations. The industry wants to be able to carry 320 megawatts on a 115,000 volt line in emergency situations or for maintenance. He is interested in stopping the proliferation of lines and to limit the amount of megawatts. The current system is working fine and can handle growth for the next 20 years. Initiative 490 has not affected any plans that Puget Sound Energy has made. Leonard Lindstrom, Bellingham resident, stated that most people understand that the young and elderly need patience. Open ears will help us all. Dr. Susan Kane - Roning, 3015 Sillvern Lane, stated she took photos of the Savannah Park development off of Britton Road. This site has been in continual violation of building codes. Land has not been covered. Runoff is going into the storm drain. There has been muddy runoff during large storm events. Some violations are over a year old. There is no sediment pond. The silt fence is not accurate or adequate. The County code enforcement personnel have to go to the site several times during large storm events, watch the detention ponds, and then order the owners to pump the water when it gets too high and threatens to overflow into Silver Creek, which is an impaired water body on the 303(d) list. There is no knowledge of what happens after 5 p.m. She submitted information on phosphorous tested by the State Department of Ecology (on file). The level was 425 parts per billion, the normal level is 20 parts per billion. Best management practices are not happening. She submitted information on what the Sudden Valley Golf Course is putting in (on file). Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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 47 48 49 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 asked if County staff has responded. Kane - Roning stated the enforcement steps are very confusing. She's not clear on it yet. Foster Rose, 2663 N. Park Drive, Bellingham, stated there is a ten -year commemoration of the resolution to protect, enhance, and preserve the Lake Whatcom Watershed. He and former County Councilmembers have discussed where the County is at, since the resolution was signed. He complimented the Council on its accomplishments. He urged the Council to take a close look at the goals identified in 1992. Continue to undertake the benchmarking process in the water resource inventory area (WRIA) process, seek input from the public, coordinate the 2003 emergency response plan, pay close attention to zoning in the watershed, and work with the City of Bellingham. He asked for budget support for these water - related issues. Water Resources should be cherished. He submitted a letter, the resolution, and goals (on file). Jon Sitkin, 1500 Railroad Ave, Chmelik Sitkin & Davis P.S., stated a confluence of three events, the Water District #10 utility local improvement district (ULID) in the Geneva area, the lot consolidation relief ordinance, and the downzone affects the proposed interim ordinance that will be introduced today. Taking the Geneva urban growth area zone back to urban residential, three units per acre (UR- 3) provides a greater degree of certainty, but doesn't resolve the question about whether or not people should participate in the ULID. People won't know what the final ordinance will be. The question hinges on whether the lot consolidation relief amendments afford people that relief if they participate in the ULID or if they are also required to purchase a connection. The price of connection tends to force development because an owner has to recoup that price. He discussed this with County staff, which is trying to review that interpretation. It may have to come back to the Council for interpretation. He suggests that a letter of availability, not a paid connection, show participation in the ULID. (Clerk's Note: Beginning of tape two, side A.) Mark Herronkohl, 321 Summerland Road, Bellingham, asked the Council to move the Lake Samish hearing up on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through eight. Brenner withdrew item three. Crawford withdrew item one. Motion to approve Consent Agenda items two and four through eight carried unanimously. 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE AWARD OF BID #02 -92, FOR THE UPGRADE OF THE HVAC SYSTEM IN Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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. SUPERIOR COURTROOM #1 TO THE SOLE BIDDER, EBENAL GENERAL, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $81,356.60 (AB2002 -405) Crawford stated he would abstain from the vote due to the appearance of a conflict of interest. His business does business with the contractor. Motion to approve carried 6 -0 -1 with Crawford abstaining. 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE AWARD OF BID #02 -102 TO RE -ROOF THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING, TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, WESTERN ROOFING, IN THE AMOUNT OF $145,481.57 (AB2002 -406) 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE AWARD OF BID #02 -103 TO REPLACE THE ROOF OF THE CIVIC CENTER BUILDING TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, PACIFIC TECH CONSTRUCTION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,894.48 (AB2002 -407) Crawford moved approval. Brenner stated this is a lot of money to do work on the Civic Center building. She didn't support the purchase of the building. The County is going to keep on spending money on this building. It's never going to be what the County needs, and the building will always require more upgrades. She has asked the administration to come forward with how much money the County has spent on this building so far. She has not yet received an answer from the administration. They should stop wasting money on this building. It is not a good building. Motion to approve carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed. 4. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CANCELLATION OF OUTSTANDING WARRANTS ON INMATE TRUST ACCOUNT (AB2002 -408) 5. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CANCELLATION OF WARRANTS MORE THAN A YEAR OLD (AB2002 -409) 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE NURSES ASSOCIATION COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (AB2002 -410) 7. RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 2002 -029, APPROVING A SALARY SCHEDULE AND POLICIES FOR UNREPRESENTED WHATCOM COUNTY EMPLOYEES FOR THE YEAR 2002 (AB2002 -411) 8. RESOLUTION APPROVING A SALARY SCHEDULE AND POLICIES FOR UNREPRESENTED WHATCOM COUNTY EMPLOYEES FOR THE YEAR 2003 (AB2002 -412) Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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 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. PUBLIC HEARING Nelson asked if the councilmembers are interested in moving public hearing item four to the beginning. Brenner stated she is interested in dealing with item one first. The first three public hearing items will go quickly. Get them out of the way. McShane stated quite a few people in the audience wanted to hear about the mushroom composting issue, item one. I. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.40, ON AN INTERIM BASIS, TO ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL CRITERIA ON FOR THE SITING OF COMMERCIAL MUSHROOM COMPOSTING AS A CONDITIONAL USE WITHIN THE AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT (AB2002 -191F) Nelson opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke: Del Walker, Hopewell Neighborhood Association member, 6838 Goodwin Road, Everson, stated he supports the ordinance. Regulations in Canada assure that these problems won't occur there. Their solution has been successful. It is cheaper to do it the old way, which is why Whatcom County is dealing with Canada's displaced problem. Those seeking a competitive advantage choose to do their dirty work in Whatcom County. Whatcom County should not be a dumping ground that sacrifices its air and water quality because others have taken the healthy steps to preserve their air and water quality. This ordinance is a proper and just solution to an increasingly reoccurring problem. Ken Ryan, 7098 Goodwin Road, Everson, stated that Holland, Belgium, and some Canadian mushroom composting operations have been moving indoors. Three of the largest producers are indoor and operating according to the guidelines. It is more expensive, but it can be done and should be done. The increase is only $.03 to $.04 per pound. Industry -wide regulation changes keep a level playing field. Mushroom composters have to learn to produce indoors. Mushroom composting is different than regular composting. It is rancid. Many concerned neighbors would feel secure in their future and the future value of their homes if this ordinance were approved. Greg Barlean, 6747 Ocean Road, Everson, stated prudence honors a proven path. Mushroom composting is fraught with perils. Mushroom composting must be maintained and operated as designed. The three major British Columbia mushroom compost producers are fine with the regulations they live under. They are happy to have the public, media, and government off their backs. The largest of the three Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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. insists that the compost they produce indoors be as good as the compost they used to produce outdoors. Local composters will adjust to similar regulations. Jane Lowe - Webster, 7102 Goodwin Road, Everson, stated she supports the ordinance. She bought a house near the Ostrom mushroom farm knowing about the effects of the mushroom farm, and is not asking the farm to not do their business. The odor occurs about once a week. The new application by Ostrom's to increase their operation concerns her. Production would increase six fold. The odor would increase. Her property value would decrease. She would not be able to be outside her house at all. Adopt the ordinance, and include expansion activity of existing mushroom farming in those regulations. Kae Lourie, 7369 Goodwin Road, Everson, stated she lives right across the road from the Ostrom mushroom farm. She has a degree in biology from the University of Washington. Her husband works in the water and wastewater industry for British Petroleum (BP). Her property is the original Goodwin homestead. The farm supports her pack llama outfitting company, and she plans to open a Bed and Breakfast. She and her husband toured the facility. The manager admitted that the mushroom plant is rundown and needs to modernize. The manager stated that the odor would not exist because the new technology would take care of any odor. The manager assured her that Ostrom's was sensitive to being a good neighbor. There was no mention of exporting the compost to Canada. The operation would be for Ostrom's onsite use, and any changes made would be to update their current operation. She respects the rights of the agricultural land around her. The expansion plans are not what they were told. She supports the ordinance to set a concrete set of guidelines that they can all live with. Kathryn Hanowell, 3850 Gilmore Road, Everson, stated she has lived on the property since the 1940's. Her family's presence predates the Ostrom operation. It was a dairy for many years. She has not complained about Ostrom's odor, and just put up with it. She supports the ordinance. It would help to control this kind of a facility, and allow them to continue to have this kind of employment for residents while also providing the environment they need to live and preserve the value their land. Now, she is trying to sell property on behalf of her mother. If another facility is built, and Ostrom's expands, it will impact her ability to take care of her mother. Adopt the ordinance. Sharon Craig, 5394 Belfern Drive, Bellingham, stated her neighbors have been dealing with composting at Recomp. The smell is incredibly obtrusive to their life. They cannot go outside their house. It impacts their lifestyle and property value. Charlene French, 5044 La Bounty Road, Ferndale, stated this ordinance would have protected her in her situation of living next to Recomp. It has been the source of unbearable odors for years. She experienced the manager's indifference time after time. Recomp still smells. B.C. has higher standards for odor control than Whatcom County does, so composters come here. She suggested that the Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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. half -mile buffer is not enough. People can smell the odor from miles away. All of her neighbors are very upset about Recomp's stench. No one will buy their homes. That facility is supposed to be indoors. Robert French, 5044 La Bounty Road, Ferndale, stated he supports the ordinance. This is a land use issue that affects everyone in Whatcom County. Whatcom County needs to be less attractive to undesirable businesses. The County Council must see that the citizens of the county have trouble accepting the odor pollution. The reason those companies are here is because they cannot accept the regulations in British Columbia. The laws here do not adequately protect the citizens of Whatcom County. The County needs to make this a priority. Recomp is called an indoor facility, however the odor is still there. Jon Sitkin, Chmelik Sitkin & Davis P.S., stated he represents Ostrom's. He submitted a letter (on file). What led to the original ordinance was not anything going on at Ostrom's, but was what was going on at the alleged worm farm. Now that those have been functionally shut down, controlled, or eliminated, the attention has turned to Ostrom's. They are not opposed to this interim ordinance. He would like County staff to form a task force to look at a compromise to protect all parties involved including the industry. This ordinance does not provide reasonable flexibility for operators onsite to develop alternatives, given a case -by- case or site -by -site evaluation. It doesn't reflect the concerns of the industry regarding indoor composting. The Ostrom facility has been there since 1979. There have been no complaints about Ostrom's. Ostrom came forward, made application, and received the permit for the expansion. Before that, he contacted the County's Health Department, Northwest Air Pollution Authority, and Whatcom County. They conducted site visits for agency officials. They did not hear of any issues from the agencies. It's difficult tonight to hear the majority of the testimony against Ostrom's when there hasn't been a history of concerns being expressed. Ostrom's is installing aerated floors, which was included in the approved proposal before Whatcom County required it to be installed. Ostrom's is trying to work with the community. If the Council adopts this ordinance, then also form a task force to address the issues to resolve everyone's concerns with the ordinance. Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing. Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. Brenner moved to amend Exhibit A, section 20.10.165(2), "The New applications, and any applications for expansion, shall include:" Motion to amend carried unanimously. Brenner moved to amend Exhibit A, section 20.10.165(3), "The facility, and expansion of existing facilities, must be located...." Motion carried to amend unanimously. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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 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 moved to amend Exhibit A, section 20.40.165(3)(f), "All mushroom composting facilities, operations, and expansion of existing a-Rd operations shall...." Roy stated that language is redundant. Operations are operations. Brenner asked legal counsel if the language is redundant. Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated he agreed that it is. Brenner withdrew her motion. Nelson asked if a task force would develop the final ordinance. Brenner stated the language already exists in legal regulations from Canada. She doesn't foresee needing a lot of changes. They don't need a task force. This will be in Public Works Committee to develop the final ordinance. Crawford stated this seems like a siting issue, and asked why it isn't assigned to the Planning and Development Committee. Brenner stated the Public Works Committee used to be called the Public Works and Solid Waste Committee. Public Works Committee deals with solid waste issues. McShane stated this might have to go to the Planning Commission. Crawford stated the Planning Commission timeline is about nine months. This interim will probably have to be renewed once. Motion to adopt the ordinance as amended carried unanimously. Nelson commended the Hopewell Community for their attendance at this meeting. 2. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF A PORTION OF COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY (AB2002 -377A) Nelson opened the public hearing, and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Crawford moved to approve the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 16.20, WHATCOM COUNTY SHELLFISH PROTECTION DISTRICT (AB2002 -394) Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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. Nelson opened the public hearing, and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP FROM RR2, R2A AND 115A TO R2A, R4A, RF AND CF WITHIN PORTIONS OF THE LAKE SAMISH WATERSHED AND AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION FROM SUBURBAN ENCLAVE TO RURAL FOR AREAS WITHIN THE LAKE SAMISH WATERSHED (AB2002 -084F) McShane moved to accept the substitute ordinance, the findings of fact, and to accept all items in the file as part of the official record. Motion carried unanimously. Brenner stated she is not comfortable with the substitute. McShane stated the findings of fact have not been changed from what is in the packet. It is from the Planning Commission findings of fact. Brenner stated the findings of fact is missing language about the transfer of development rights (TDR). (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: Gary Reid, Building Industry Association (BIA) of Whatcom County President, stated he is opposed to the downzone of Lake Samish. He is angry about recent criticism of Planning Department staff at a Planning Commission meeting for doing an inadequate job of preparing that ordinance and its State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) report. The Planning Department staff is hard working and doesn't deserve the criticism. They work overtime on nights and weekends to prepare and complete the workloads that the County Council requires them to complete. They have not had sufficient time to prepare reports, leaving the public with insufficient time to review the reports. The BIA does not agree with staff all the time, but the BIA can work with staff on issues and reach a reasonable consensus. The BIA can also help clarify language for consistent enforcement. The resulting process circumvents reasonable public review. Policy and law is being created without adequate time for thought, necessary research, or legal review. This creates devastating financial impact on some property owners and a negative effect on the community. Staff has not had sufficient time to digest the avalanche of legislation Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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. that has come down in the last few months. There are better ways to achieve responsible development, preservation, and protection of water resources and compliance with the Growth Management Act. These goals are not worth sacrificing the professional credibility of County Planning Department staff in an unnecessary race to meet these deadlines. Jeffrey Teichert, 217 Prospect Street, Bellingham, Teichert Law Office, stated he represents the Building Industry Association of Whatcom County and submitted comments for the record (on file). If imposed, the regulation will be imposed on everyone but may only be appropriate in certain places. Government has to study the environmental consequences of its actions using sound science. Government has to provide adequate disclosure of those consequences to the public. The Growth Management Act is an environmental statute within the meaning of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The objectives of orderly and comprehensively planned growth and development fall squarely within the definition of environment and SEPA. Both statutes require adequate science and public disclosure of the results. The County must plan, through an integrated and holistic program, including provisions for infrastructure, services, housing, and all elements of the projected population. The County has made an enormous investment and commitment to properly managing water resources through the water resource inventory area (WRIA) process. The study may show that this proposal forces a false choice between the County's commandeering the people's private land and living with water pollution. The County has failed to determine that there is a sufficient land base and proper infrastructure to accommodate the projected population growth over the next 20 years, with the lost density in the Lake Samish and Lake Whatcom watersheds. Mike Kent, Whatcom County Association of Realtors Member, asked the Council to take as much time to carefully consider and evaluate this downzone as it would take to consider a developer who wants to develop a piece of undeveloped land. The realtors in the community are gravely concerned about affordable housing. What happens on Lake Samish can affect other areas of the county. If growth is taken out of one area it will go somewhere else in the county. They have not seen what could happen to housing costs for first -time homebuyers in Whatcom County. They are under an artificial situation in that they have the lowest interest rates in 40 years. If interest rates increase, people will continue to move here because of the locale, but more and more people will not have an opportunity to buy a home. As they eliminate the potential for single - family residential properties, consider the impact on first time homebuyers in Whatcom County. Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County Executive Director, stated he is opposed to the downzone. It revisits two issues. One issue is fixing a problem. Downzoning is proposed as a solution to pollution. The fact is Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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. that homes that have not been built yet do not pollute Lake Samish or Lake Whatcom. The runoff of both existing and public and private development drains into both lakes daily without passing through any control devices. To withhold future development potential is not responsible or equitable. Squandering resources and trampling the rights of property owners, without first fixing the real problem, is irresponsible at best. The BIA is also concerned about where to put development if not here. This is a community concern and legal question. The impact of reducing the land supply is usually not felt until someone tries to afford a house. GMA requires the accommodation of densities to achieve its mandates. The BIA's concern is not in the financial stake of its members. A builder's margin of profit is not significantly different than a house built any other place. The greater concern is seeing the community denied the mix of housing that meets the needs of everyone and seeing the legitimate expectations and financial plans of innocent property owners trampled by political expediency. The Whatcom County BIA is leading the state in training certified erosion control supervisors to assure that land development is done responsibly. Low impact development techniques, new runoff containment technology, and innovative cluster designs can help maintain and even improve the integrity of both rural and urban communities, and can actually protect our water supplies. The product of the recent seasonal land clearing working group demonstrated the BIA's concern for good stewardship and sensitive land development, and their ability to develop options. The BIA is ready to work with the County Council and Planning Department to craft other ways to be good stewards of the watershed, if the County Council will say no to downzoning as the only option. Jean Freestone, 3200 Vallette Street, stated she is submitting background documents in support of her written testimony (on file). The Lake Samish community is well- served by road connections with two freeway exits on Interstate 5, placing residents within easy commute of employment in Bellingham to the north and the Skagit Valley Casino to the south, which employs 420 people and is an area underserved with housing. This proposal would eliminate an estimated 900 dwelling units, with no indication of where the lost housing stock would go. The idea that current zoning will incur unchecked low density sprawl seems unlikely in an area hemmed in on three sides by commercial forestry, much of it held by the State Department of Natural Resources. Commercial forestry makes up about two - thirds of the watershed land area, with large tract buffer zoning surrounding the residential zoning. The finding of fact that ten percent imperviousness is a threat to water quality would be hard to support as relevant, given that only about 15 percent of the land area is in residential zoning, especially given the overlay regulations that apply to building in the watershed. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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. This proposal converts a sizeable area in the current utility local improvement district (ULID) of the Samish Water District from two per acre zoning to rural, one unit per five acres (R5A). The staff report admits it will place a cost burden on the water district. Since the Health Department and Department of Ecology object to direct lake water withdrawals, actions that inhibit bringing in another water source seem counterproductive. Studies indicate that erosion and sedimentation are closely associated with the forestry activities in the Lake Samish watershed. Fish populations in the streams have shown an impressive recovery of fish stocks. When exercising the police power, the evidence should be clear and compelling, not speculative and unsubstantiated by facts. Kurt Denke, Seattle, stated he represents Cal Leenstra. The County Charter requires the Council to consider the impact of proposed regulations upon those who may be unduly burdened by those regulations, and to provide compensation to those who are unduly burdened. That hasn't been done in this case. There has been no consideration of economic impacts. If this ordinance is adopted, Mr. Leenstra would lose 90 percent of the zoned density of his land. He would lose the right to use sewer service, for which he's paid tens of thousands of dollars in assessments. No one has studied the impact on Mr. Leenstra or any of his neighbors and fellow landowners. For that reason, this action is in violation of the County Charter. They can study it through litigation, after the fact, if they neglect to address these issues at the outset. He has sued the County in the past over Growth Management Act and due process issues. He and his clients have taken more than half a million dollars from this County as a result of those suits. Look at the economic impact of this before taking action. Richard Emerson, Building Industry Association (BIA) Government Affairs Officer, stated he is opposed to the downzone. The process to gain approval for the downzone has been convoluted. At the Planning Commission meeting, it deadlocked on a decision. The issue was raised again when a transfer of development rights (TDR) program was promised to accompany the rezone. The Planning Commission reversed its earlier decision, recommended the approval of the downzone and the TDR program, and sent it to the County Council. However, there is to TDR program. The County Council sent it back to the Planning Commission, which sent back a proposal to recommend the downzone with a TDR program that comes six months after downzone approval. That is like buying a home, sight unseen. There is no way to replace the land lost in the downzone because no receiving areas have been designated by the County, as required by the Growth Management Act, and Lake Samish is not a sending area. Even if land were identified, they don't know if it will be of comparable value. The proposed downzone violates the State's Growth Management Act. The downzone is proposed as an amendment of a Comprehensive Plan. He read the definition of "comprehensive." Approving a change to the Comprehensive Plan to satisfy a small group of property owners sets a dangerous precedent. There is no reallocation of land for persons who are being downzoned. There is no compensation for lost land Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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 value. The information presented by the Lake Samish organization contains little 2 science, numerous inaccuracies on population growth in the area, fish populations, 3 the source of increased traffic, quality of water, and how it got that way. 4 5 Cal Leenstra, 315 Lakeway Drive, stated there is no justification for this 6 downzone. He bought the property 25 years ago based on a zone of three lots per 7 acre. He supported the sewer based on a density of three lots per acre. He made 8 his payments on that sewer for more than 20 years. By supporting the sewer, he 9 bailed out his neighbors from polluting the lake by their septic tanks. The property 10 is right on Interstate 5, and equidistant between Bellingham and the Skagit County 11 casino. The property is served by sanitary sewer, and can be served by water. 12 This is the type of property that the Growth Management Act says should be 13 developed. He is surrounded by high- density land uses, including a mobile home 14 park. The Concerned Neighbors of Lake Samish cite impervious surface concerns 15 as a reason for downzone. If all the land were developed at the current density, 16 less than one percent of the land in the basin would be impervious surfaces. The 17 threshold of concern is ten percent. With new restrictions and new development 18 techniques, the runoff from new development will be substantially less than the 19 current runoff contribution from existing residences. 20 21 Sandra Cahoon - Simon, 1820 Samish Lane, stated she supports the rezone in 22 the Lake Samish watershed. The Bellingham School District has developed an 23 educational curriculum to meet the strict standards of the Washington State 24 Essential Academic Learning Requirements. The Bellingham and Whatcom County 25 students are taught early to conserve natural resources and care for the finite, 26 fragile environment. They are stewards of this world, and are expected to act as 27 such. The students are asked to apply science, knowledge, and skills to solve 28 problems and meet challenges. Science and technology are human endeavors. For 29 the past several years, the Concerned Neighbors of Lake Samish have been 30 gathering scientific information, facts, and figures, to address the academic learning 31 requirements. They have applied the scientific knowledge and skills regarding the 32 delicate balance of the watershed, user groups, logging, traffic, and many other 33 concerns. Demonstrate to students that the community leaders are willing to do 34 the right thing based on what they know and have learned. Protect the quality of 35 environment around Lake Samish to model to the children. Vote for the rezone. 36 37 John Bremer, 542 W. Lake Samish, stated he has lived there since 1972. He 38 has family members who live and own property on the lake. All of his family is in 39 favor of the downzone. He is an officer of the Lake Samish Association. He is a 40 representative to the sewer district. The Lake Samish Association is working on a 41 project to enhance and facilitate extended protection of the lake and its watershed, 42 through the conservation district or through collaborative resource management out 43 of Washington State University. He has a background in biology. He has a letter 44 from Joan Ellsworth, a resident of the lake. He read the letter of support for the 45 downzone into the record. Blue green algae blooms have been happening in the 46 last couple years. Blue green algae blooms are toxic. 47 Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, Page 13 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 Bob Gertz, 426 W. Lake Samish Drive, stated he is in favor of the downzone. 2 He's been in the construction industry for over 30 years. There is no guarantee of 3 profit on real estate speculation. He is not willing to trade dollars to damage the 4 environment. Lake Samish is a beautiful place and a treasure of Whatcom County. 5 Protect Lake Samish from excessive development, which would irrevocably damage 6 the lake. 7 8 Gordon Nolan, 1377 Roy Road, stated his family recently moved to the Lake 9 Samish neighborhood because it is very peaceful and calm. They can't support 10 more vehicles on roads that can't be widened. 11 12 Rebecca O'Brine- Willson, 921 W. Lake Samish Drive, stated her acreage 13 would be affected by the downzone, but she supports it. In recent years, the 14 County Council recognized that there are non - renewable resources that must be 15 preserved. Preserve Lake Samish as a non - renewable source of forestry land, 16 recreational land, and its existing drinking water source for the residents at Lake 17 Samish. 18 19 This was first proposed to the Whatcom County Council 18 years ago as a 20 recommendation resulting from the extensive inventory of scientific facts, entitled 21 Chuckanut /Lake Samish Subarea Background Document and Inventory and 22 Analysis of Existing Conditions, authored by the Whatcom County Planning 23 Department. The zoning that should have been adopted then is very similar to the 24 current Planning Department proposal. The findings were based on goals that 25 urban development should occur within or adjacent to existing urban areas. Future 26 development in rural areas should be low density. Conserve agriculture and forest 27 lands for the continued production of food, forage, and timber crops. There are 28 issues regarding the slopes in Lake Samish, which are very steep. Heavy 29 equipment would be needed to excavate the southern area. One recommendation 30 is that certain areas be developed at a residential -rural use. 31 32 Sue Parrot, 121 Bear Creek Lane, stated the decision is clear. Vote to 33 support the ordinance. The proposal is supported by extensive research by the 34 Planning staff and concerned neighbors. The proposal has followed the public 35 process. The proposal puts the County in a position of compliance with the County 36 Comprehensive Plan, Growth Management Act, and decisions by the Growth 37 Management Hearings Board. The proposal is the one that is forward - looking, and 38 is in the best public interest of all of the Whatcom County residents. She asked 39 where the documentation is that shows that the zoning should stay as it is or be 40 rural, two units per acre (R2A). She asked where the documentation is that shows 41 that property owners who have not developed property around the lake will lose 42 thousands of dollars. She asked where the documentation is that shows the costs 43 of not changing the zoning, such as the costs of added services and irreparable 44 harm to the environment. The County's proposal is the most cost - effective. Public 45 interest is defined not by thinking of the private interests of a few, but by thinking 46 about the broader interests of a majority of Whatcom County residents. Public 47 interest is the significant majority of Lake Samish residents who support the County Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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. proposal. Public interest is protecting wildlife; preserving Whatcom County's most popular swimming beach; ensuring that roads are safe, and; puts development and affordable housing where it belongs, where the housing is truly affordable and where there is public transportation. Public interest is not five or six property owners. It is everyone. Sam Maassen, 122 Bear Creek Lane, stated he has lived at Lake Samish for the last 12 years. He thanked the Planning Department staff for their hard work and effort on the recommendation. The findings are within the guidelines of the Growth Management Act (GMA) and Comprehensive Plan. That is what makes this recommendation legally sound. Lake Samish is a rural area. Building out to its full density at the present zoning would devastate the lake, environment, and the quality of life. They can't reverse the damage once it is done. People oppose the rezone for monetary reasons. There was no guarantee of water when he bought his property. Buying land is speculation. As a taxpayer and registered voter, he asked the County Council to vote in favor of the recommended rezone. Cynthia Maassen, 122 Bear Creek Lane, stated she has resided at Lake Samish for 13 years. She thanked the Planning Department staff for their hard work on the rezone plan. She thanked the Council for the time spent reading letters and asking questions. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B.) Cynthia Maassen continued to state that they should look at each other's point of view, and then make the tough decision to approve the rezone. If they feel the rezone is so radical that they can't vote for it, there are other options. The time is now. The rezone must be done because they can't go back once development has occurred. Madeleine Smith, 618 W. Lake Samish, stated she is not against the downzone, but the rural, one unit per five acres (R5A) zone is improper. Downzoning to that extent is poor stewardship of the land. Half -acre lots are large. Many of the residents live on smaller lots. Some of the land is too steep. Much of the land between Summerland Road and West Lake Samish Road has a gentle slope. The sewer was planned for that land. That area would make ideal residential sites. Summerland Road could be widened and handle more traffic. John Thibault, 1263 Roy Road, stated he supports the downzone. Once that land is taken away, they can't go back to the way it was. Leave a legacy to Lake Samish by voting for the downzone, so the land can be protected as much as possible. Stewart Thomas, 370 Shallow Shore Road, stated he bought 90 acres in the 1960's along the Milwaukee Railroad. Interstate 5 came along and went through Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, Page 15 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 middle of his property. He was able to develop on the west side. The 45 acres 2 on the east side was eventually declared as wetlands. The property was industrial 3 property when he bought. It was suitable for building. Legislation came along to 4 make the land unfit for building. He has empathy for people who invested in 5 property and will lose value. He has an undeveloped lot at Lake Samish that he 6 doesn't know what will happen to. There are many safeguards for building, keeping 7 the water clean, and protecting fisheries. 8 9 James Willson, 921 W. Lake Samish Drive, stated this issue has been before 10 the Council since some of the councilmembers have been in office the past year. 11 The election races last year were hard fought. The Bellingham Herald editorial staff 12 listed its election endorsements. The newspaper endorsed Laurie Caskey- Schreiber 13 for her views on watershed protection; Seth Fleetwood for his perspective on 14 environmental protection and understanding of water quality, land use, and 15 jurisdictional issues, and; Sharon Roy for her understanding of the importance of 16 preventing urban sprawl and preserving community character. The primary 17 contributors to their campaigns included the Washington Conservation Voters, 18 Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, and numerous other environmental supporters. 19 Endorsements for their opponents came from the Washington Association of 20 Realtors, the Builders United Legislative Development, and the Affordable Housing 21 Council, which is the political action wing of the Building Industry Association. He 22 hoped the councilmembers remember what they stood for last fall, and why the 23 majority of citizens who voted in that election voted the way they did. 24 25 Bruce Preszler, 483 Summerland Road, distributed information (on file). A 26 lot of consideration has gone into this process. He is a member of Concerned 27 Citizens of Lake Samish. A lot of work has gone into this ordinance by the citizens, 28 Planning Department staff, Planning Commission, and County Council. 29 30 Based on the work of soil scientists, the basic document is the Soil Survey of 31 Whatcom County Area, Washington, which was published in 1992. It is the 32 reference document that the Planning Department uses for the Chuckanut /Lake 33 Samish Subarea Background document. The soil can't support the development. 34 The soil conditions require special procedures to build on them. These lots will not 35 contribute to the affordable housing supply because they are lake view property 36 zoned for half -acre lots with expensive construction that has to handle these soils. 37 This is not property that most first -time homeowners will be able to buy. 38 Downzone this area so it is at a density it can support without damaging everything 39 else. 40 41 Bart Thompson, 625 Summerland Road, stated he supports the downzone. 42 He moved here from Issaquah because of the excessive development there. He's 43 been in the construction industry for 20 years, and understands both sides of the 44 issue. If they allow development, it doesn't matter how many safeguards are 45 required. The lake will end up looking like Lake Stevens. They are trying to save 46 the resource for recreational use. 47 Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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 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. Eric McHenry, 644 W. Lake Samish Drive, asked the Council to please listen to all the facts of the issue. Local soils and grades are not suitable for development, run off water and what it carries will hurt existing habitat, there are no sidewalks for pedestrians, and the infrastructure cannot support this growth. The community supports the downzone. Listen to the Planning Department staff, which researched the issues and made the zoning proposal to comply to the Growth Management Act and Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. Clearly, there were oversights in the past. The Planning Commission resoundingly approved the rezone. Do not listen to the few who want Lake Samish to be their cash cow at the expense of many in the local community. Protect the habitat and natural beauty of the lake before it's too late. Gary Simon, 1820 Samish Lane, Concerned Neighbors of Lake Samish President, stated he's heard people testify tonight that they have not presented the facts, so he will present them. One of the issues that has continued to be a main concern is traffic. He prepared an extensive review of the facts, presented it to the County staff, and it is in the public record. One fact is that the number of average daily trips on West Lake Samish Drive has increased by over 70 percent in the last seven years, according to the Whatcom County Engineering Division. The Institute of Traffic Engineers calculated that a single - family dwelling creates seven and a half daily trips on average. Seventy additional homes would double the number of average daily trips on West Lake Samish. The proposed build out is for 1,000 homes. It is hard to imagine 9,500 average daily trips on West Lake Samish Drive. He read a portion of a letter into the record from former County Engineer Ed Henken, which said that the draft report incorrectly assumes that the concern for traffic impact is due to the increased volume congestion, and in reality the concern all along has been traffic safety. The increased volumes contributed by development are not contributing to congestion as evidenced by the reduced level of service, but are reducing safety, a concern of the Engineering Division. The significant increase in traffic volumes on West Lake Samish Drive since the filing of this application dramatizes the increased safety problem. He read a portion of a letter into the record from the Mt. Baker Bicycling Association President, which said that conditions have changed considerably for cyclists due to increased numbers of commuter drivers. There have been increased numbers of conflicts between cyclists and motorized traffic in recent years. Proposed increased density development around the lake will lead to degraded conditions for cyclists. One other issue, as a property and as a landowner in the area, much of the property may be affected by this downzone has been, and could again, be valuable for forestry purposes. While the proposal would lessen the density by which the land could be developed, the ordinance would not diminish the economic value of the property for such other uses. Adopt the staff report. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Dave Hewlet, 295 Shallow Shore Road, stated he's lived at Lake Samish for over 30 years. The lake quality has deteriorated drastically over 30 years. He jogs on the roads every day. He can't imagine the impact of the amount of traffic that could come with the zoning. He supports the downzone. (Clerk's Note: The Council took a ten - minute break at 9:15 p.m.) Heidi Alford, 1251 Roy Road, stated she supports the downzone. There are a number of people who have property that could be subdivided. They are willing to give up that right in the interest of the greater good of the community. Lake Samish is a community with support and neighborhood activities. They want to continue the quality of life in a controlled way. They want limits and controls so the quality of life is preserved. She agreed with all the technical information that was prevented. Crawford asked if the staff reviewed the map displayed in the courthouse rotunda. He doesn't know who put the map up. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated she looked at the map. The red squares look too big. Each square couldn't represent a house. It might represent the house with a driveway, garage, and entire disturbed area. It is not a County - produced map. Ken Dahlquist, 473 W. Lake Samish, stated he owns 11 acres at Lake Samish. He supports leaving zoning as it is. If the zoning stays where it is, there will be growth, but they will also get public water out there so they can quit taking water out of the lake. They can't get water at Lake Samish without the population. They are only using one - quarter of the sewer's capacity. In the 1980's, they planned for the growth at Lake Samish. There is easy access to a freeway. If the developments go through, Summerland Road will be widened and take traffic off West Lake Samish Road. He's never heard of an accident or conflict between cars and bicyclists and residents. Things are being exaggerated. If developed, properties will have retention ponds and proper controls. Existing development produces runoff. Al Needler, 779 N. Lake Samish Drive, stated he's lived there for 22 years. He's witnessed many changed conditions. He is a member of the Concerned Neighbors of Lake Samish. There's been a major increase in the I -5 corridor traffic, which has lead to an increase in traffic to Lake Samish, given its visibility and accessibility. There has been significant residential growth to the south. Visitor numbers to the Lake Samish park have increased dramatically from 1976 with an average annual use of 18,000 to an average of over 50,000 from 1980 to 1998. There has been a high increase in the number of watercraft on the lake. The Department of Fish and Wildlife says there are 25,000 people using watercraft over a six -month period. A number of organizations use the lake on a regular basis. A recent tourism market analysis indicates a high rate of increase in outdoor activity by visitors, placing an increased demand on Lake Samish. Lake Samish offers a Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. broad range of recreational resources that meet the needs of the visiting and local population. That use is increasing. Continued residential growth on a high- density basis will inhibit and degrade the healthy existence of recreational resources. Achieve a balance by maintaining low- density residential growth on a scale that allows the natural and priceless qualities of the area to flourish. The value of existing surrounding properties will only go up. Quality resources, such as the Lake Samish environment, are rare and deserve sound preservation efforts. It is in the spirit of preservation that the request for significant downzoning of the Lake Samish area is made. Ruth Holbrook, 244 Appaloosa Road, stated the County Council has a responsibility to choose what is in the public's best interest. She supports the version of the downzone proposed by the Whatcom County Planning Department staff. It meets the requirements of the Growth Management Act and complies with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The materials presented are thorough. The research is thoughtful and well delivered. This proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan because of the preservation ethic that runs all through the entire document. The rural, one unit per two acres (R2A) zone is for the purpose of infill, which is about the existing development in the area. The area is rural. It should stay rural. Jim Malin, 244 Summerland Road, stated he has lived there for approximately 20 years. He supports the downzone because there is no infrastructure at Lake Samish to support this intensive development. Summerland Road is not wide enough to accommodate two full size trucks, side -by -side. They can't have intensive development, including pedestrians, on the road and be safe. Not one developer has offered to widen that road. They've had an extreme pollution problem in Lake Samish and Lake Whatcom in the past year. Non- residents of the area should not determine what happens in the basin. Corporate bullies and greed should not determine the future of this region. The residents overwhelmingly support this downzone. They don't have to live with the problems that their developments will bring, but the residents do have to. Bill Vanderboom, 1800 Samish Lane, stated he has lived at Lake Samish for 17 years. The question seems to be whether or not they should build. That's not what they should focus on, which is to preserve and protect the watershed at Lake Samish. He doesn't want Lake Samish to become a dead lake. Focus on the legacy of the Whatcom County Council, and whether or not the decision will be to save Lake Samish. Ed Roe, 1806 Samish Lane, stated he's enjoyed the lake for 30 years. The lake is drastically different from last summer. This year's blue algae bloom lasted from August 15 until a couple of weeks ago. Lake Washington had a similar bloom recently that consumed the entire north end of the lake. His main concern is the quality of the lake water and preserving it for the children. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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. Tom Noel, 180 Bear Creek Lane, stated he lives at Lake Samish. The Building Industry Association (BIA) does not live there. They just want to develop and get out. He supports the downzone. Purchasing land for development is speculation. It happens. Things change. This downzone is what's happening. He's in favor of the downzone. They should not base their decisions on zoning in the past. He's sorry they put that many houses there to begin with. It should have been zoned one house per two acres anyway. It should never have been ruined that way. Education happens. Future generations will want to recreate there. Don't listen to the corporate bullies who threaten lawsuits. Fight the good fight. Steven Harper, 121 Bear Creek Lane, distributed a chart (on file). He asked the Council to make the responsible choice to make sure the proposal complies with State and County plans and policies for planning and zoning. He asked if the councilmembers, as public officials, are willing to take the responsibility to ensure that the proposal will be in the best interest of the public and will withstand any scrutiny that may arise in the future. This document lists many of the compliance issues, most in the Growth Management Act (GMA), Comprehensive Plan, and other policies. The chart shows that the County Planning Department proposal is the only one that complies with the GMA, Comprehensive Plan, and other policies. The first requirement in the GMA is the goal to reduce sprawl in rural areas. The GMA requires planning and zoning by counties to reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling low- density development. The County Planning Department proposal clearly achieves this goal as it concentrates any new development within the suburban enclave boundaries, and limits the number of new lots outside the boundary to approximately 100 lots. The alternate proposal allows in excess of 300 new lots outside the proposed boundary, in areas not yet characterized by any development. The increased sprawl would accelerate the need for expensive road widening and other costly services, funded by county residents. This is contrary to the GMA according to a GMA Hearings Board Case, Dawes vs. Mason County. Limited areas of more intense rural development are allowed in rural areas by GMA, in accordance with the revised code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A. The GMA Hearings Board has noted in the past that Whatcom County did not use any systematic criteria to determine the suburban enclaves in the county. In this proposal, the Planning Department used the criteria recommended by the GMA, and determined a logical boundary, characterized by the built environment on July 1, 1990. They have designated lands within the boundary to be rural residential, two units per acre (RR2), and have changed the previously designated RR2 zoning to R5A to fit the rural and undeveloped environment that remains. (Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side A.) Harper continued to state that the designation of R5A instead of R2A for rural lands is clearly supported by cases from the GMA Hearings Board. R2A is only to be used for infill, and not for rural areas. Support the downzone, and make the choice that gives the County the best opportunity to comply with the regulations. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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 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. Kathy Ploeger, 631 E. Lake Samish Drive, stated Lake Samish is a treasure worth preserving for the entire Whatcom County community. It is one of the most popular recreation destinations in the area. The current zone of RR2 on 50 acres of undeveloped slopes around Lake Samish is inappropriate and goes against all historical zoning recommendations. This zoning could allow up to 1,000 additional residents. When coupled with the existing 500 homes, it would put the Lake Samish population at over 3,000. That is the size of a small town, but there are limited roads and public services. The Planning and Development Department staff examination of the proposed rezone proposal, and the recommendation to rezone to the rural zone of (R5A), was thorough. She submitted a sensitivity analysis done by a competent real estate assessor to estimate the loss some people might experience. The profit scenarios are not much different between the RR2 zone, R2A zone, and R5A zone. She supports the downzone. Kim Herrenkohl, 321 Summerland Road, stated her family owns six acres on Summerland Road. She asked for the County's support of the proposal to rezone the Lake Samish watershed. She distributed a map showing where Skagit County borders Whatcom County at the bottom of Lake Samish (on file). Skagit County has designated all of that area as a rural reserve area, which has a minimum lot size of ten acres. The Skagit Comprehensive Plan has a special provision to allow one house per five acres in rural reserve areas. To qualify, a property must qualify as a conservation and reserve development area, which is similar to a cluster ordinance. A property owner would have to go through a subdivision process, which includes open space requirements. Skagit County is doing its part to preserve this important watershed. The part of the watershed in Whatcom County borders requires equal or greater protection because of the slopes, inflow of the water into the lake, the lake itself, and the density of the homes that already exist around the lake, which they can do nothing about. She hopes the County Council will consider the County's role in protecting the watershed within Whatcom County's borders and will think of the greater regional context to preserve the entire watershed. The Council has the opportunity to do the right thing and to right a wrong. The suburban enclave designation should never have been applied to Lake Samish. Therefore, they get into the non - compliance that other people talked about. The science is clear that Lake Samish is a sensitive watershed. The evidence is clear that Lake Samish has a unique geography. Don't sacrifice the lake for the short - term gain of a few residents or investors. Christy Austin, 250 Shallow Shore Road, stated she also owns property across the street. She bought the property with the intention of subdividing it to make some money off of it and to give some of it to her children. This downzone would be a financial burden. She is in the lending business. Appraisers call the Lake Samish area a suburban area rather than a rural area. She supports the environmental protection of the lake, but going from RR2 to R5A is a huge change. She suggested they find a compromise. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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 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. Albert Timmer, 1398 Roy Road, stated he's lived at Lake Samish for 17 years. He supports the zoning change. He is in the growth industry, and is pro - property rights and pro - growth. This is a very small watershed. It is valuable to County residents and future residents. The health of the lake is what the lake has going for it. Pollution will follow population, no matter what they do or how they contain it. People will fertilize lawns and have pets and animals. Jim Claborn, 1434 E. Victor, Bellingham, stated he represents a lot of people in Whatcom County who view Lake Samish as a rural recreational area. He supports the downzone. Steve LeCocq, 673 N. Lake Samish Drive, stated he agrees with what a lot of people have said on both sides of the issues. Please don't do the right thing the wrong way. There are three major issues. One issue is a goal to maintain the rural character of the neighborhood. There is a goal of a majority of the people to protect the water by downzoning the property. The rural character is something everyone wants. It doesn't matter where people are, they prefer the rural character. It is an individual want, but possibly not a community need. It's up to the appointed public servants to sort it out and make the right decision. They only have one planet. They have to take care of it. Three things are most critical: water, air, and farmland. They can't recreate those three elements. He doesn't know how many houses would be appropriate in Lake Samish. This is something that affects more than a few people at Lake Samish. It may be a bigger community issue that Whatcom County needs to look at. He does not support the downzone. It is the wrong method to do the right thing. Paul Isaacson, 204 Shallow Shores Road, stated he owns several properties around the lake. He's been involved with it since he was a child. He has given away more free property around the lake to the government than anyone else in the room. He does not support the downzone at all. Someone testified earlier that watersheds are important, and stewardship is taught to the children in the schools. This watershed is no more important than those people drink from, swim in, live in, and are used by animals. Whatcom County's only area not designated a watershed is Lummi Island. All the other areas are watersheds too. When voting tonight, the County Council may send a message to all the other people in the county that their watershed is not important. He questioned whether the Nooksack watershed, for example, is less important or if this is a no- growth agenda being used in Lake Samish. People who have testified in support of the downzone have critical areas on their property or have horses on their property. It's basic watershed management knowledge that people should not have large animal units in the watershed. They all expect to be able to have expectations with reasonable playing rules. Regarding soils, the only good soils for building are in the agricultural land, but they don't want to do that, either. They don't want great soils for houses. They want great soils for farming. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, Page 22 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 3 Mark Herrenkohl, 321 Summerland Road, stated he has six acres that would 4 be affected by the downzone. He supports the downzone. One fact is that the 5 water quality in Lake Samish is degrading. Blue green algae concentrations are 6 increasing. The algae covers a large part of the lake during late summer and early 7 fall months. The likely causes of increased algae blooms are due to pollution in the 8 lake with nutrients through the use of fertilizers by residents. The degradation of 9 the ecosystem is through land clearing, agriculture, and human development. 10 Reduced flows of water are due to increased use of water for domestic supplies. A 11 combination of drought, high summer temperatures, reduced water flow, and 12 increased turbidity all play a part in creating conditions for algae growth in Lake 13 Samish. Large amounts of blue green algae increase the changes of producing 14 toxins that can harm humans as well as people. Rotting algae use up the oxygen in 15 the water. As a result, fish may die. He received water quality data from the 16 Samish Indian Nation, Skagit County Public Works Department, Samish Water 17 District, and the Skagit Fisheries Enhancement Group on Lake Samish and its 18 tributaries. From this data, they can conclude that fecal coliform was detected at 19 higher levels at the south end of Lake Samish during the summer months. Fecal 20 coliform concentrations are increasing in Friday Creek and Bear Creek, which are 21 outflows of Lake Samish. Levels are unsafe for drinking without water treatment. 22 Turbidity levels are increasing in Friday Creek, which has impacted fish spawning in 23 the wild and the success of the salmon hatchery that is downstream. There has 24 been a decline in salmon spawning in Lake Samish. In December 2001, an 25 estimated 90 percent of the spawning beds were destroyed by stormwater 26 generated erosion and sediment deposits. He asked who is to blame for this 27 degradation. For one, he is. He cleared a portion of one acre for a pasture for his 28 horse. Anyone with property on the lake who has significant impervious surfaces, a 29 lawn, uses pesticides, uses fertilizers, or clears property of vegetation is responsible 30 for the degradation of the lake. Even those landowners who have not laid a brick 31 on their property, but who have cleared their property for a profit, are also 32 responsible for the degradation of the lake. Recent scientific studies have shown 33 that increasing impervious surfaces increases the water degradation in the 34 watershed. The Concerned Neighbors of Lake Samish supported the overlay for 35 Lake Samish, but its not enough. Without a downzone in the area, the potential 36 build out of 1,000 new homes will cause irreparable harm. He asked the Council to 37 support the downzone of Lake Samish. 38 39 Julie Barr, 270 Shallow Shore Road, asked the Council to support the 40 downzone for the Lake Samish watershed. Sufficient evidence has been presented 41 by the Planning Commission, scientific experts, and concerned citizens of Lake 42 Samish regarding the potential for devastating and irreversible impacts upon the 43 watershed, wildlife, safety, and quality of life in the Lake Samish community if the 44 zone continues as it is. She asked the Council to uphold the best interests of the 45 citizens of Lake Samish, the citizens of Whatcom County, and future generations by 46 voting for the downzone. 47 Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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. Judy Thibault, 1263 Roy Road, stated she supports the downzone. She can't imagine doubling or tripling the number of people on Roy Road. That's what would happen. Someone testified about what would happen with the 406 houses that wouldn't be developed at Lake Samish for those first -time home owners. However, she doubts that the speculators who are talking about building these houses would sell them for less than $200,000. Affordable housing is not the issue. The lake is the issue. They can have reasonable growth, but they don't need to be so packed in that they can't get around the lake. Joseph Sy, 7231 Belair Drive, Richmond, British Columbia, stated he owns property at Lake Samish. He read a letter sent to the County Council on October 3 (on file). He is opposed to the downzone. This property has a vested water permit for nine residential units. The owner intended to use the RR2 zoning for development purposes. This proposal will limit the total residential units to five or six units on 28.5 acres. That is not acceptable. He asked the County Council not to proceed with approval because of the economic loss. He expects a zoning density of one unit per two acres for his property, which equals 14 units. This alternative proposal is more acceptable. Mary Teesdale, 281 Friday Creek Road, stated the water quality of the lake has degraded this summer. The Council has a chance to make a difference in how the water quality of Lake Samish will be in the future. The Lake Samish watershed is a very high rainfall area, more than in Bellingham. There are many steep slopes. The soils are unsuitable for building in most of the area. Because of these conditions, the eventual current density will be very detrimental to the lake water quality. There will be runoff during the development period, and it will continue forever. Because of the topography and infrastructure needed, the cost of the eventual population will be prohibitive to many of the current residents. She asked the Council to support the downzone. Winston Renoud, 486 W. Lake Samish Drive, submitted information (on file). He's lived at this location for 30 years. During this issue, he contacted the people in the Planning Commission about having his property continue to be zoned RR2. Everyone said that was okay. In preparation for this meeting, he looked at a map and realized that his land is split in half by the proposed zoning. He'd like all his land to be zoned the same at RR2. Fleetwood asked if they are including the property on the west side of West Lake Samish Drive. Renoud stated he starts from the water and goes all the way over to the west. It is coded as being RR2. However, the boundary dividing his property is a mistake. That boundary has gone around another lot to the south, and he hoped that is the intention for his property as well. Nancy Zimmerman, 1424 E. Victor, Bellingham, stated Lake Samish is one of the true treasures that Whatcom County has. She hoped they can keep it that way. She supports the downzone. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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 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, Ferndale, read the County Charter section 1.11, Citizen Rights regarding compensation to those unduly burdened. GMA goal six regarding property rights address the same issue. Goal four addresses affordable housing. Even though affordable housing may not be built in these areas, it will affect affordable housing throughout the county. Restricting the availability of lots moves that demand elsewhere. It is humorous that most of the people who support the downzone want to retain the rural character, yet live on some standards lots or in homes that were below standards when they were built. If there is a water quality problem on the lake, it is a result of the people who live there now. The downzone will not result in an improvement in water quality. If the County Council goes through with the downzone, this area should get further consideration, such as making it a demonstration zone for the future. He is opposed the downzone. The lake is not a safe drinking water source today. The County could condemn the water source and make those citizens put in an adequate water supply at their cost. Craig Cammack, 500 W. Lake Samish Road, stated his folks have owned ten acres of undeveloped property at Lake Samish for 34 years. He recreates in the lake in many ways. He doesn't want to see increased traffic or pollution, but those are arguments that can be made against development anywhere. He opposes the rezone because density brings benefits. The lake has a sewer system because the density finally reached the point where the lake residents could do it. The water was cleaned up. It was a benefit. He paid about $50,000 in 1970's dollars for that ten acres to buy into the sewer system, based on a density of two lots per acre. Now the rules are going to change, and that investment will have been based on the County's assessment of two lots per acre. Everyone talks about rural character. This is not an area of pristine habitat or rural character. It is a suburban sprawl area already. He doesn't want to see Lake Samish grow, but it is a good place for development. He'd rather see it on Lake Samish than push it somewhere else in the county that has true pristine property. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to decide where it makes the most sense to direct growth. That decision, when looked at globally across the county as a whole, it was decided that Lake Samish was a good area for growth. If they start gutting the Comprehensive Plan piece by piece, they are defeating the global perspective it was intended to have. He agreed with Mr. LeCocq that the rezone is the right idea, but the wrong way to do it. Tom Crow, 589 Summerland Road, stated he supports the downzone. He's lived there since 1986. It doesn't make sense for one side of Summerland Road to be zoned one house per five acres, and the other side to have hundreds of houses crammed in. They could widen Summerland Road, but people aren't going to go that way. It's a lot faster to go around the lake. That's the way everyone is going to go. There is no public transportation out there, so everyone will be driving. The development will happen all at once. A zone of one house per five acres is still a lot of houses. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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. Sandy Hunt, 460 W. Lake Samish Drive, stated that if you remove the personal financial interest, most people would be in favor of the rezone. Joseph Zlotek, 1254 Roy Road, stated he has lived there for 17 years. He supports the downzone. He is concerned about the traffic situation and the road safety. Realtors are talking about 900 extra homes, two cars per home, seven trips per day per car. That's over 12,000 cars per day added to the traffic around Lake Samish. Safety from the cars and protecting the environment from the cars is a big issue that should be considered. Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing. McShane moved approval with inclusion of all items in the file. McShane moved to amend to readjust the zone boundary line to go around Mr. Renoud's property if that parcel is one single parcel. Adjust the zone boundary line to be contiguous with Mr. Renoud's property line. Amy Pederson, Planner I, stated the intent was to include that one -acre parcel in the RR2 zone. It looks like the zone is RR2, yet the zoning line cuts the property in half and puts it in the rural zone. The original intent was to leave it zoned as RR2. Motion to amend carried unanimously. Brenner moved to amend the area between West Lake Samish and Summerland to R2A, not R5A. According to staff, the slope is more moderate. It would lend itself to the R2A zone. The R2A zone does comply with the Growth Management Act for rural designation. She supports a downzone, with a few tweaks that may provide a little bit of flexibility for people. Not everyone opposed to the downzone is a sleazy developer. The County Council is not supposed to consider their motives anyway. The County Council is supposed to look at the entire picture. Goodwin stated the motion encompasses the entire area between West Lake Samish Road and Summerland Road. Brenner stated the neighbors of Lake Samish proposed R2A, not R5A. Roy asked if Councilmember Brenner's interest in changing this is based mainly on the soil, and whether the soil can accommodate the growth. Brenner stated she visited the area a number of times. While on the tour, she asked why so much of the area was going to be zoned R5A instead of something that recognizes patterns of growth. They are supposed to have some predictability for people. At the time, she was told that almost all the area zoned R5A has steep slopes. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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. (Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side 8.) Brenner continued to state that some of the area included in her motion doesn't have steep slopes. It has more moderate slopes. McShane spoke against the motion. This is frequently being referred to as a downzone, and a downzone needs to go along with it. However, the proposal was a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change this from a quite large suburban enclave that is isolated to a rural area. In doing that, the Comprehensive Plan says that one unit per two acre zoning is limited to previously developed areas or as infill development only. It goes to the impacts of providing infrastructure and services to that area, which includes Sheriff service and transportation issues on West Lake Samish and Summerland Road. Those roads would be very difficult to widen. Nelson spoke in favor of the amendment. He went through the Lake Samish Subarea Plan that was done in 1986. Work had begun on it in 1970, with grave concerns about all the issues that have been brought up tonight. The County Council took that in consideration during the Comprehensive Plan process. They did not want to increase densities in Lake Samish, based on that subarea plan done in 1986. The issue of steep slopes is illustrated as an environmental constraint in the subarea plan. Between the areas of West Lake Samish Road and Summerland Road is an area free of those steep slopes. The area to the west of Summerland Road also does not have steep slopes. Brenner stated she is shocked that the traffic volume averages seven trips per day with three or four cars. There has got to be some personal responsibility, too. Her family doesn't average that many trips per day. She was surprised at the average. Whatever they do, they should reduce the average number of trips. Roy asked if the staff has calculated the difference in the number of housing units between an R5A zone and an R2A zone in that particular area. Goodwin stated she doesn't know right now. From the map, it looks like they are talking about 100 -200 acres. At 100 acres, the difference would be 80 houses. Brenner stated that in the grand scheme of things, that number of houses is not a huge impact in the watershed. She asked Ms. Pederson if 80 houses in the watershed would make any significant difference in the water quality. She recalled that it wasn't a significant difference. Motion to amend failed 3 -4 with Brenner, Nelson, and Crawford in favor. Brenner moved to amend the ordinance by adding another statement, "BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that an exemption may be administratively granted in R5A zoning in the Lake Samish watershed, where it can be shown that adequate building sites exist that do not exceed a 15 percent slope. In such instances, density shall not exceed one building site per two acres." When she went on the Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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. tour, she was told that the reason for the downzone to R5A was mainly because of the steep slopes. She assumed that there won't be that much difference in the build out with this amendment, but at least it will allow people to be able to have some flexibility. Fleetwood spoke against the amendment. He looked at the slope map. It seems that so much of the land is subject to the amendment that it will overcome the general rule. It might as well be R2A. He doesn't see a difference between the amendment and the original amendment calling for an R2A zone. Brenner stated that most of the area has steep slopes, according to the Planning Department staff. The only area without a steep slope is the area between Summerland Road and West Lake Samish Road. Even some of that area could not be developed because of the slopes. A little flexibility might ward off a lot of disgruntled people. It seems like they are talking about a significant downzone either way. It would be nice to have a little bit of flexibility. Caskey- Schreiber spoke against the amendment. This is still a correction from a suburban enclave designation to a rural designation. With the R5A zone, it addresses the rural designation goal for this area, which is essential. If the Council allows a denser development, every citizen in this county will subsidize it. The infrastructure out there is not designed to handle that kind of density. The roads cannot grow wider. They are surrounded by homes. They are poor quality. Brenner stated there are areas being zoned R2A instead of R5A, based on the ability to do that. It is a rural designation. They are not talking about doing anything major, just tweaking the downzone. Motion failed 3 -4 with Brenner, Nelson, and Crawford in favor. Brenner moved to continue the hearing until they set a deadline for residents to apply as a transfer of development right (TDR) sending site and until they designate Lake Samish as a TDR sending zone. A lot of people have acreage, and are willing to take the hit to downzone their property because they care about the bigger picture. Other people aren't willing to take the bigger hit, and have more to lose than other people. Allow the people who are disgruntled to hold on to TDR's until the Council creates the ordinance. It gives them an alternative. Don't approve this until they find out how many people are disgruntled with the way it is. They need to give people alternatives. If they are going to protect the environment, the Council is supposed to provide compensation or else it's a taking. She would support the downzone if the Council gives people alternatives. Motion failed 2 -5 with Brenner and Nelson in favor. Brenner moved to continue the moratorium until a workable TDR program is developed. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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. Roy stated they currently have a TDR program on the books. She asked if the Council must hold its decision on this Comprehensive Plan amendment. They budgeted for someone to get started working on a program. She asked if they could include Lake Samish folks in that planning process. Goodwin stated that is what the Planning Commission recommended. Designate the Lake Samish area as a TDR sending area, and allow those people to certify the density they have now, and use those as sending TDR's for the purposes of transferring them out of the watershed. She would have to work with the legal counsel to write up an ordinance for it, but the Council can do that. The only danger is that there are not enough receiving areas, so they are creating artificial sending areas that will have to sit there until the County can designate areas that can be used. The sending areas can be certified and held until a market is created for them. Roy asked if the Council could accomplish what Councilmember Brenner is talking about and still approve this Comprehensive Plan amendment tonight. Her concern about supporting the motion is that they aren't ready, and the County will be setting people up in a program that isn't ready. Goodwin stated they can go back by adding a section to the ordinance by saying the downzone properties would be designated as sending areas for the purposes of the transfer of development rights. The staff would need to bring forward an ordinance to put it into the code. Brenner asked how many transfers have happened since the TDR program started. Goodwin stated there are almost 200 units that are certified as sending areas. None have been purchased yet. Brenner stated the TDR program does not work at all. Whatever TDR program they come up with, there will be problems. It won't be everything to everyone. She'd like to include the people who feel they've been impacted. Continuing the moratorium until they have a workable TDR program will give people an alternative. Brenner restated her motion. Crawford stated there is a motion on the table to approve this rezone. He asked if Councilmember Brenner's motion is to amend the motion or asking to rescind the motion. Brenner stated her motion is to not adopt the rezone tonight, and wait until they have a workable TDR program. Continue the moratorium. Nelson stated they can't do that. Councilmember Brenner wants to maintain the interim zoning. Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated the Council would need a different ordinance to do that. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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. Brenner stated she doesn't want to wait until they vote on this. Goodwin stated there is no interim zoning. The moratorium doesn't expire until February. Brenner withdrew her motion. Nelson moved to amend the ordinance to allow for the downzone areas to be incorporated into the TDR program as sending area at the pre - downzone density. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County would be obliged to make that a viable offer and would be liable if it can't get a TDR program going. Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated there is a TDR program now. The effectiveness is debatable, but a program exists. The answer to the question is no. Brenner stated that if the County ends up in court, the court will look at whether the Council has a workable program. It's about what the County really has, not what it says it has. Roy stated the County is a way away from having a good TDR program. She doesn't want to see this particular Comprehensive Plan amendment unduly influenced by that, even though they need to get a TDR program going. If all this means is that these people would be eligible at the time they get this new person on board, get going on this, and actually get a workable program, then she could support it. If the Council is obligating itself to promise someone to be able to give them a receiving area, then she can't do that. Nelson stated there aren't any promises regarding TDR programs. It depends on a willing buyer and a willing seller. It's like a real estate deal. They are just eligible when the County develops this program. Brenner stated she is not interested in opening it up to everyone, just to those who feel they've been impacted. The other people seem comfortable with it. They should have gone through the voluntary downzoning before they even did this. Whatever TDR program the County sets up, it will have a limited effect. Nowhere do TDR's just work miraculously. They need to limit the TDR program to those who feel they've been damaged by the downzone. Nelson stated they can't do that. Brenner stated they can if the Council approved her previous amendment. Goodwin stated they want to make sure to specify whether the motion establishes the TDR sending area at pre - downzone densities. Nelson stated that is his amendment. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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 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 his concern about creating a TDR sending area for this entire zoning change puts at risk TDR programs where they may want to do in places where there really is a known impact. There are places around Lake Whatcom where they can only go so far to fix messes and problems that were created in the past, and that weren't anticipated. By giving out TDR's every time they feel a little uncomfortable, they've watered down the time when they are really going to need it. They can only go so far with zoning before it truly does start getting unfair. That's when the TDR's are going to work. He is not comfortable going beyond R5A in Lake Samish. In Lake Samish, he's more concerned about traffic impacts and rural character. If the Council doesn't do anything, the County is creating a large suburb quite a distance from work places. At Lake Whatcom, there are places where the drive might be to protect water quality. In the agricultural zone, they may need TDR programs to protect farmland. They don't want to use zoning as the only tool. Watering down a program by just giving away TDR's takes away the properties they are going to need it on. Fleetwood stated the amendment is premature. It's too early to say whether Lake Samish will be an appropriate sending area. The Council is committed to look at the TDR program closely in the next six months to see if it can work. He doesn't want to make that promise at this time. Nelson stated that if they begin to select certain areas, they will end up in violation of the Growth Management Act. They have to fair with all the property owners regardless of where they live. He doesn't believe this motion would negatively impact everyone who would be impacted, since people testified that they are willing to live with a downzone. The TDR program is dependent upon someone willing to sell and someone who is willing to receive TDR's. It's just like any other real estate transaction. They are starting to micromanage the real estate market. Brenner stated the program will be there for people to use. They can't do what they need to do in the other areas of the county where the density is going to be dumped. People aren't going to like that either. Motion to amend failed 2 -5 with Crawford and Nelson in favor. Nelson asked the reason for the Planning Department to accept this downzone. Goodwin stated the citizens brought an application forward. The County Council initiated it. The Planning Division looked at the locational criteria in the original subarea plan. These areas meet the criteria for R5A zoning, and do not meet the criteria for R2A in the initial subarea plan. In the Comprehensive Plan, the rural areas should be two acres, five acres, or ten acres, with ten acres being the preferred parcel size. The two -acre zoning should be reserved for infill in areas that are already developed. This area is a substantially undeveloped area. They meet the criteria in the existing County Comprehensive Plan for R5A zoning. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, Page 31 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 Nelson asked if those areas have an urban level of services available. 2 Goodwin stated they have sewer, which is considered an urban level of service, but 3 they do not have water. 4 5 Nelson stated he is concerned about why they would change course mid - 6 stream regarding the style of development. Goodwin stated no one is proposing 7 that. They have a citizen proposal for a downzone, the Council initiated, and the 8 Planning Department staff looked at the criteria in the current subarea plan and 9 Comprehensive Plan. It meets the criteria for an R5A zone. 10 11 Nelson asked if a lot of the rural areas in the county would qualify. Goodwin 12 stated a lot of the rural areas in the county that are zoned R2A would meet the 13 criteria for R5A. There was a different philosophy when the County adopted the 14 zoning in 1997, which was to not downzone. 15 16 Pederson stated one changed condition that should be considered is that the 17 County did not have certain GMA legislation when the Comprehensive Plan was 18 adopted in 1997. In July of 1998, the legislation regarding limited areas of more 19 intense rural development was adopted. That allowed the counties criteria to 20 evaluate specific areas that existed from July 1, 1990. There are specific criteria in 21 the Growth Management Act. That's why the County was able to revisit this 22 situation in Lake Samish. When the Concerned Neighbors brought their application 23 forward, the staff had to evaluate it according to the new criteria. 24 25 Nelson stated there are densities in certain areas of the county. Many people 26 live in an area because their families are there. He asked where the people are 27 going to go if the County removes all the densities. He asked if the Planning staff 28 has planned for that. Goodwin stated the Planning staff did an analysis of all the 29 buildable lots and all of the zoning capacity in the different subareas of the county 30 when they did the Lake Whatcom downzone. If all of the zoning in the county 31 developed according to the current zoning, they would have 81,000 potential lots in 32 the county. They only need approximately 30,000 lots to accommodate the 33 growth. They aren't in the Lake Samish area. Many of them are in Bellingham, 34 Ferndale, and the Ferndale urban growth area (UGA). There is a huge capacity in 35 Bellingham's and Ferndale's UGA. The potential build out in the Lake 36 Samish /Chuckanut subarea is 6,000 dwelling units. Now, there is only 1,672 units. 37 There could be 4,352 additional houses built in the Chuckanut /Lake Samish subarea 38 if everything developed to the maximum capacity of zoning. However, it wouldn't. 39 They can assume that it is only going to develop half that or less than half that. 40 There may be 2,000 dwelling units. The people who really have grandmothers can 41 move into one of those 2,000 houses. The rest ought to be in the Bellingham UGA 42 where there is transit and public services. 43 44 Caskey- Schreiber stated this line of question is very strange. This is a 45 correction of the zoning. It was a suburban enclave before they had the rural 46 information. It is clearly a rural area. It will never grow into a high- density area. 47 She doesn't want it to grow into a high- density area because it doesn't ever have Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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 potential to be a town. Everyone else in the county would subsidize growth out there. The County can't always accommodate every extended family and where they might want to live. Most people don't even want to live near their family. Brenner stated it seems they are talking about one extreme or the other. There needed to be a downzone. She's disappointed that none of her amendments passed. She wanted to support a downzone. This is too extreme. There was wording in the GMA about current uses. The area has sewer and will have public water. Because of the geology, it should not be intensively developed. There are a lot of constraints to development, but they can't view this as a completely rural area. It isn't. The County is supposed to try to reduce impacts and recognize what has already happened. She hoped the residents take responsibility for the pollution that's already been created there. Crawford stated he is against the ordinance. There's a perception that a few large- parcel property owners are threatening the quality of life for the rest of the people at Lake Samish. He didn't understand what that threat is. There are mechanisms within current development standards to address the possibility of worsening the pollution problem. It is the County's responsibility to take appropriate and measured steps to protect Lake Samish. He's committed to that. He's for good science -based environmental protection that works. A mass scale downzone is overdoing it. Fleetwood stated he is in favor of the ordinance. There are authorities found in the Growth Management Act, Comprehensive Plan, and original subarea plan. The staff report was informative, authoritative, and persuasive. When identifying limited areas of more intensive rural development, they consider certain criteria, which he read into the record. In this case, the mistake has also been alluded to, which was the size of the original suburban enclave designation. He supports maintaining the rural character. Nelson stated he is opposed to downzoning because it is erroneous. It's not possible to condone it without looking at other mechanisms. That's one thing that has not been done in this process. He warned this Council during the Lake Whatcom interim downzone process that other groups would come forward, including Lake Samish. McShane stated they came forward before Lake Whatcom. Nelson stated he predicts that the Council will next see the Chuckanut area come forward with the same arguments. People from Birch Bay and Ferndale will also come forward. That's why they have comprehensive planning. They are opening Pandora's box and throwing out things that have gone on for 20 years. McShane stated the subarea plan for the area was put out 18 years ago, with proposed recommendations of that plan. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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: End of tape 4, side A.) McShane continued to state it took 18 years for the County Council to have the courage to carry out what a subarea plan has to do. The map in that plan is almost identical to the one they are looking at today. Brenner asked if there is any other place where the County downzone someone's property 90 percent, without providing any alternatives or compensation. Grant stated he did not know of any, but the Council has not faced this issue since the Comprehensive Plan has existed. Motion to forward to the concurrency hearing carried 4 -3 with Nelson, Crawford, and Brenner opposed. THE WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL CONVENED THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COUNTYWIDE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE FOR THE FOLLOWING FOUR ITEMS: 5. RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE CURRENT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT (WCFZD) FUNDING MECHANISM (AB2002- 397) Jeff Monsen, Public Works Department Director, gave a staff report and stated this staff report covers Public Hearing items five through eight. They are nearing completion of a number of planning exercises regarding implementation. They will need to discuss and prioritize revenue structures. The Department needs a one -year extension of the current fee structure to complete that work. They will be hard pressed to accomplish this in one year. Nelson opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke: Jean Freestone, 3200 Vallette Street, Bellingham, stated she recently protested a letter from Dan Warner regarding the Water Resources Division staff endorsing a downzone of Lake Whatcom. The flood control money should not be used for behind - the -scene deals outside the public process. However, she received a phone call and letter from Dr. Roll that assured her the Water Resources Division staff has made no such recommendation or taken a position on downzoning. She is concerned that the County is wasting its money because it is going forward with actions that are independent of the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) Lake Whatcom modeling work. Use the flood tax for best available science before taking further action on various watersheds and other matters. The Water Resources Division staff has been very helpful. She submitted Dr. Roll's letter (on file). Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing. McShane moved approval of the resolution. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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. Brenner stated she is against the resolution. She's talked to several lawyers. This is not a fee. It's a tax. A fee is for service. Fees aren't based on assessed value. This is loosely based on assessed value. Just because someone hasn't challenged it doesn't make it any more legal. She's asked the administration in the past to come forward with a fee schedule that treats everyone the same. It hasn't happened. The new councilmembers should ask the County attorneys if they are confident that this is a fee. It's not a legal thing to do. Motion to approve carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed. 6. RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE CURRENT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT (WCFCZD) FUNDING MECHANISM AND LEVELS, ACME /VAN ZANDT SUBZONE (AB2002 -398) (Clerk's Note: See Public Hearing item five for the staff report.) Brenner asked Jeff Monsen if these are based on assessed values. Monsen stated they use the rate structure of the countywide district. The only distinction made is that those who are truly within the subzone floodplain pay a much higher rate than those contributing drainage into those areas. Nelson opened the public hearing, and hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Crawford moved approval. McShane asked if Saar Creek is part of the Sumas /Nooksack /Everson subzone. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Department Director, stated a portion of Saar Creek is part of that subzone. However, the work they've been doing on Saar Creek is associated with the drainage district, not the subzone. Motion to approve carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed. 7. RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE CURRENT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT (WCFCZD) FUNDING MECHANISM AND LEVELS, SUMAS /NOOKSACK /EVERSON SUBZONE (AB2002 -399) (Clerk's Note: See Public Hearing item five for the staff report.) Nelson opened the public hearing, and hearing no one, closed the public hearing. McShane moved approval. Motion to approve carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, Page 35 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. 8. RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE CURRENT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT (WCFCZD) FUNDING MECHANISM AND LEVELS, LYNDEN /EVERSON SUBZONE (AB2002 -400) (Clerk's Note: See Public Hearing item five for the staff report.) Nelson opened the public hearing, and hearing no one, closed the public hearing. McShane moved approval. Motion to approve carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed. THE WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ADJOURNED THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COUNTY -WIDE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE AND CONVENED AS THE WHATCOM COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH FOR THE FOLLOWING TWO ITEMS: 9. ORDINANCE PROPOSING REVISIONS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 24.07, ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE PROCEEDINGS, CIVIL PENALTIES AND ABATEMENT (AB2002 -368) Chris Chesson, Environmental Health Supervisor, gave a staff report and stated the intent is to be consistent with State law. This was discussed at the July Board of Health meeting. The Board of Health approved having staff draft proposed revisions. The administration's intent is to assure that the assessment of civil penalties is consistent with civil penalties in State law and provides criminal penalties for repeat violators. It also assures that due process exists prior to the issuance of the administrative notice of violation. During the review of the existing code, he noted that additional revisions were necessary to update the existing code and allow for immediate action by the Health Department in emergency situations dealing with cease and desist orders. There are other minor administrative changes. They noted that the Hearing Examiner does not have authority to make a final decision on Health Department administrative decisions regarding civil penalties and administrative notices. Brenner asked why the Health Department name was changed from the Health and Human Services Department. Chesson stated the director made the decision when she became the director. Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated the name of the department "Health and Human Services" was never changed in the County Code. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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. Nelson opened the public hearing, and hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Caskey- Schreiber moved to adopt the ordinance. Crawford asked for an example of how a cease and desist order would apply. Chesson stated one example is if someone discharges a hazardous waste from a facility directly into a water body. Crawford asked if it is up to the Health Department Director to determine an emergency. Chesson stated it is. Crawford questioned the fine. Chesson stated that, once convicted, it would be a misdemeanor. Fleetwood stated the Board of Health was told that a violator wouldn't be subject to a misdemeanor until a third or fourth violation, which hardly ever happens. Chesson stated a violator would have to be convicted by a court. Motion to adopt carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed. 10. ORDINANCE PROPOSING REVISIONS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.92, HEARING EXAMINER (AB2002 -369) Nelson opened the public hearing, and hearing no one, closed the public hearing. McShane moved to adopt. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER ITEMS 1. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON SALE OF COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY, REQUEST NO. 02 -02 (AB2002 -378) Roy reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated the committee recommends approval. She so moved. Caskey- Schreiber stated that if any surplus to the back taxes owed is received when property is sold, the surplus goes to the taxing districts. Motion carried 5 -2 with Brenner and Caskey- Schreiber opposed. 2. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON SALE OF COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY, REQUEST NO. 03 -02 (AB2002 -379) Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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. Roy reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated the committee recommends approval. She so moved. Motion carried 5 -2 with Brenner and Caskey- Schreiber opposed. 3. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON SALE OF COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY, REQUEST NO. 04 -02 (AB2002 -380) Roy reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated the committee recommends approval. She so moved. Motion carried 5 -2 with Brenner and Caskey- Schreiber opposed. 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2002 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, 11T" REQUEST (AB2002 -395) Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and recommends approval of the substitute ordinance, with a correction to the typographical error under the heading 'total general fund." Motion carried unanimously. S. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 99 -053 AUTHORIZING EXCESS CASH IN CERTAIN FUNDS TO BENEFIT THE SAME (AB2002 -393) Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and recommends approval. Motion carried unanimously. 6. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) EXTENSION REQUEST FILED BY AYERS CONSULTING, LLC ON BEHALF OF ANGUS AND PAULA MCEACHEN FOR GENEVA HILLS (PUD1997- 00001) (AB2002 -376) Crawford announced that he would recuse himself from this issue due to a conflict of interest. McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated the committee recommends approval with two amendments, that they must follow the critical areas ordinance (CAO) and any new development standards. McShane moved to amend to not require the new development standards be followed, but that the land clearing and impervious surface codes be followed. Nelson asked if this would not occur anyway. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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 48 49 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 they would have to comply with the CAO anyway. It won't make any difference, given what they did with the planned unit development. They are already in compliance with the CAO, but he wants the condition to make sure. If the Council conditioned the PUD on following all the design standards, the application would have to redesign the entire plat. Bruce Ayers, Ayers Consulting, stated the confusion lies in the zoning. Under the urban residential (UR) zone, lots larger than 10,000 square feet, 60 percent of the lot is restricted from impervious surfaces. Under the rural zone, there is a 90 percent restriction. With that restriction, they will not be able to proceed. McShane stated there is an out to that requirement, given the size. In two weeks, the Council will look at interim zoning that will apply to UR3 zoning. Ayers stated he is fine as long as they are held to the UR level of impervious surfaces. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that if there were open space reserve tracts, stormwater, or critical areas set aside on the plat, they are prorated amongst the lots and counted as part of the pervious surfaces. Ayers stated this is a PUD, not a cluster subdivision. The ordinance does not allow for that proration on reserve tracts and open spaces for non - cluster projects. As long as it is clear that the zone is UR, he doesn't have a problem. Brenner stated she would like staff to produce an ordinance that, if an application is challenged in court, the five -year clock should stop for the applicant. McShane restated his motion to amend to follow the critical areas ordinance, land clearing interim rules, and impervious surfaces, using those regulations designated for UR3 zoning. Motion to amend carried 6 -0 -1 with Crawford abstaining. Motion to approve the extension as amended carried 6 -0 -1 with Crawford abstaining. 7. APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 12.3 ACRES FROM RURAL ONE DWELLING /TEN ACRES (R10A) TO RURAL ONE DWELLING /FIVE ACRES (RSA) AT 8443 KICKERVILLE ROAD (AB2002 -392) McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated the committee recommends upholding the Planning Commission recommendation, which was to deny the rezone. McShane moved approval of the rezone, to get it on the table. Motion to approve the rezone failed unanimously. 8. APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT APPLICATION FOR INTERIM WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF (AB2002 -415) Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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 48 49 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 moved to approve the application submitted by the administration, including the proposed changes he submitted to the councilmembers earlier. He asked if the administration is willing to incorporate his changes, and if that application can be distributed in the morning. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the administration is willing, and can distribute the amended application tomorrow. Motion carried unanimously. 9. YEAR END APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS IN PREPARATION FOR THE YEAR 2003 (AB2002 -338) Board of Equalization, District 2 Nelson nominated Sonja Merk. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Equalization, Alternate Brenner nominated Marlene Dawson. Crawford nominated David Simpson. McShane nominated William J. Marratt. Crawford voted for Simpson. Caskey- Schreiber voted for Marratt. Fleetwood voted for Dawson. Nelson voted for Dawson. Brenner voted for Dawson. McShane voted for Marratt. Roy voted for Marratt. There was a tie between Dawson and Marratt. Crawford voted for Dawson. Marlene Dawson was appointed. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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 47 48 49 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. Planning Commission, District 1 Nelson stated there are five applicants for two positions in this district. He nominated all applicants. Caskey- Schreiber voted for David Pros and Rabel Burdge. Crawford voted for Pros and Williard Purnell. Fleetwood voted for Pros and Roderick Burton. Nelson voted for Pros and Purnell Brenner voted for Burton and Purnell. McShane voted for Pros and Burdge. Roy voted for Pros and Burdge. David Pros was appointed. There was a tie between Burdge and Purnell. Crawford voted for Purnell. Caskey- Schreiber voted for Burdge. Fleetwood voted for Burdge. Nelson voted for Purnell. Brenner voted for Purnell. McShane voted for Burdge. Roy voted for Burdge. Rabel Burdge was appointed. Portaae Bav Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee Roy nominated Justin McKay. Motion carried unanimously. Sewage Control Appeals Board McShane voted for Robert Kloc. Motion carried unanimously. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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 47 48 49 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. Solid Waste Advisory Committee, Citizen McShane nominated Robin Robertson. Motion carried unanimously. Solid Waste Advisory Committee. Public Interest Grou McShane nominated Carl Weimer. Motion carried unanimously. Solid Waste Advisory Committee, Waste Collection Industry Brenner nominated Edward Nikula. Motion carried unanimously. Solid Waste Advisory Committee, Waste Recycling Industry Crawford nominated Troy Lautenbach. Motion carried unanimously. Solid Waste Advisory Committee, Solid Waste Disposal Facility Fleetwood nominated Larry McCarter. Motion carried unanimously. ADDENDUM 10. RESOLUTION INITIATING AN EMERGENCY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2002- 422) Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated this is to make the comprehensive plan remain consistent with the zoning maps. If the Council doesn't approve the zoning change, then it would vote no on the Comprehensive Plan maps. Nelson moved approval. Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed. INTRODUCTION ITEMS Brenner moved to accept the Introduction Items. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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 46 47 48 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. Nelson moved to accept Introduction Item nine. Motion carried unanimously. 1. ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR POWER TRANSMISSION LINES (AB2002 -224A) 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2002 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, 12TH REQUEST (AB2002 -416) 3. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A NEW FUND, THE WHATCOM COUNTY LOW INCOME HOUSING FUND (AB2002 -417) 4. ORDINANCE IN THE MATTER OF GRANTING A NON - EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO PEACE ARCH FACTORY OUTLET FOR A PERIOD OF 25 YEARS PURSUANT TO STATE LAW AND SECTION 9.30 OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER, TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN WATER MAINS AND WATER DISTRIBUTION LINES ALONG CERTAIN ROADS WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2002 -418) S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP FROM URM12, UR3, RR1, RR2, RSA, RF AND CF TO RR1, RR2, RSA, RF, CF AND ROS TO REDUCE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DENSITY AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION FOR THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2002 -226B) 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.71 — WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.80 — SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS (STORMWATER AND CLEARING), CHAPTER 20.85 — PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, AND CHAPTER 20.97 — DEFINITIONS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REGULATORY PROTECTION FOR SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS (AB2002 -222B) 7. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) (AB2002 -419) ADDENDUM: S. ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN INTERIM ZONING MAP FOR THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2002 -423) 9. ORDINANCE (INTERIM) IMPOSING AMENDMENTS TO WCC 20.71 (WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT) WCC 20.80 Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, 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 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. (SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS) WCC 20.85 (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) AND 20.97 (DEFINITIONS) TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REGULATORY PROTECTION FOR SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS (AB2002 -424) OTHER BUSINESS Brenner reported for the Public Works Committee to draft a resolution to change Haxton Way to Lummi View Drive, south of Mackenzie Road. She so moved. (Clerk's Note: End of tape four, side A.) Motion carried unanimously. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Department Director, stated that motion is a request to the Public Works Department to come back to the Council with a resolution for that name change. The Council is not making that name change now. The Council concurred. Brenner reported for the Public Works Committee and moved to request that Public Works Department staff continue to explore alternatives to opening Frost Road. Fleetwood stated that discuss does not preclude a future decision to close the road. Crawford stated there would be some cost in labor and effort to study these alternatives. That is why the Public Works Department staff is coming forward. If the Council were to close the road, staff would not do that study. McShane stated it is time to close the road. Motion carried 6 -1 with McShane opposed. REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS There were no reports. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m. Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, Page 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 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. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription These minutes were approved by Council on January 14—, 2003. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair Whatcom County Council, 11/26/2002, Page 45