HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil September 10 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
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
September 10, 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 there was discussion with a representative from the
Whatcom County Prosecutor's Office regarding pending litigation (AB2002 -018)
and discussion regarding a personnel matter (AB2002 -018) in executive session
during the Committee of the Whole meeting. The Council provided the prosecuting
attorney with some direction regarding the pending litigation.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. RESOLUTION IN COMMEMORATION OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
(AB2002 -330)
Pete Kremen, County Executive, read the commemoration.
Brenner moved approval of the resolution.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. PRESENTATION BY GEORGE BOGGS REGARDING THE WHATCOM
COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT'S PROGRESS TOWARD CRITICAL
AREAS ORDINANCE PROGRAMS (AB2002 -017)
George Boggs, Conservation District Director, reported on the progress made
this year on critical areas protection afforded through the conservation planning on
agricultural land, and offered suggestions for 2004 when the critical areas
ordinance has to be updated and implemented.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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
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.
Best management practices (BMP's) coupled with smart buffers deliver the
protection that they look for. There are a lot of watercourses in the community.
They manage those watercourses with smart buffers to have the desired effects.
He provided a hand out to the Council (on file).
There are not 291 farm plans in Whatcom County, representing 56,000
acres. Protected watercourses total 431 miles. They are achieving the bacterial
total maximum daily load goals for the Portage Bay closure response for the
Nooksack Basin.
Planning Efforts include a new computer program with information on the
expectations to offer as a part of these plans for Endangered Species Act
compliance. They are implementing that information. He has five resource
planners who are working through it and refining it. The final version should be
available in October. After that date, there are two full -time equivalent (FTE)
employees available to provide non -dairy farm plans to citizens until December
2003.
The benefits of conservation planning for agricultural lands (CPAL) protect
critical areas from bacteria, sediment, and nutrients. The planning respects
property rights. A default buffer on a salmon bearing stream has been 100 feet. In
many cases, they've been able to relax that buffer down to 25 feet. Limited County
funds have been leveraged to obtain federal funds from the Farm Bill. Whidbey
Island's critical areas ordinance passed muster with the court. It is modeled on
Whatcom County's critical areas ordinance.
For 2004, they might consider doing conservation assessment to determine
whether to continue the CPAL option. Funding came from a lot of State and federal
sources. With the funding crunch in Olympia, he's not sure that funding will
continue beyond June 2003. They could use some assistance to continue that
program. The Council will consider a farmland protection program tonight. They
need people to staff that program and to capture federal dollars for the purchase of
conservation easements on agricultural land. Continue landowner watershed
initiatives. The Conservation District is sponsoring the Ten Mile Creek project
where landowners are working and making improvements. Those things can be
supported through this program. There are other shellfish and salmon recovery
efforts in Whatcom County that are in need of resources. It's fiscally responsible.
A cost of $5.00 per parcel per year would allow them to have people in place to
capture those funds outside of the County and bring the funds in to continue the
progress towards improving their environment.
Brenner asked the percentage of total farms out of all working farms that
have farm plans. Boggs stated that 100 percent of the dairies have farm plans.
The larger livestock operations have farm plans. Some non - commercial farms have
small farm plans. There are no farm plans for raspberry farms, seed potato farms,
and other types of agriculture and hobby farms.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner asked what EQIP stands for. Boggs stated it stands for
Environmental Quality Incentive Program. With the new Farm Bill, $1.3 billion will
be available. Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, Island, and San Juan counties have
been allocated about $1 million per year for the practices of putting in lagoons,
downspouts, fencing, and similar things.
McShane asked if Whatcom County is being represented by anyone in
addition to Mr. Boggs at the meetings of the northwest counties in the State.
Boggs stated there was a local work group meeting. Mr. Kremen's made the
County's concerns known. He's carried those concerns forward. It would be helpful
to have a representative attend the next meeting of this multi- county local work
group. He's been providing information to the County administration through the
Water Resources Division.
McShane would like to show support for this to have a County administrative
staff person attend.
Nelson asked the administration if they would put a delegation together of
County and city representatives to attend the meeting.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated she attended a meeting of
county planners regarding critical areas. Whatcom County is the only county that is
not either in court or has been invalidated by the Hearings Board and that allows
farming within the critical areas buffers. A lot of the other counties is spending
millions of dollars in legal fees fighting this. It felt good to be ahead of the game
for a change.
MINUTES CONSENT
Brenner moved to approve the Minutes Consent items.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JULY 30, 2002
2. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — EVENING, FOR AUGUST 13,
2002
3. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JULY 30, 2002
4. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR AUGUST 13, 2002
S. SPECIAL WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION FOR JULY
23, 2002
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, Page 3
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 6. SPECIAL COUNTY COUNCIL — INTRODUCTION ITEM, FOR
2 AUGUST 27, 2002
3
4
5 OPEN SESSION
6
7 The following people spoke:
8
9 Mike Kaufman, 1620 Huntley Road, there was an article this summer about
10 Williams Cooperation and its economic troubles. It gets back to the issue of
11 running the right -of -ways through the county and selling off our land to land that
12 could be tied up in bankruptcy with these big corporations. They need the
13 protection of the County against these right -of -way actions.
14
15 Regarding Sumas Energy 2 (SE2) decision, the Governor just took the SE2
16 brochure and just signed it. He expected more leadership than what the Governor
17 showed.
18
19 The Utility Committee has been dissolved. The electric moratorium has a
20 way to go, but the Council agenda is extremely full. He would like to work on this
21 through the fall, and come to a reasonable conclusion. They can do it without a lot
22 of cost in both time and money. He would like to be involved with it. There are
23 two things they need to do. They need to limit 115,000 -volt power lines to 165
24 megawatts. When they do that, they need to also say that anything above 165
25 megawatts with a single source generation or load needs to be default to the
26 language of initiative 490. Without it, there will be a proliferation of power lines
27 throughout the county. The Utility Committee was extremely close to reaching an
28 agreement. There is going to always be a fundamental difference between a
29 citizen's vision of the world and Puget Sound Energy's vision. That is what the
30 County Council will have to decide what to do. Tom Anderson has a lot to give to
31 the Council. He can bring the debate close, so a consultant would be needed to
32 answer a few specific answers.
33
34 Eleanor Morgan, 3449 Redwood Ave. #9, Bellingham, stated the Sheriff's
35 Office is having problems with their data. Three and a half weeks ago, two
36 deputies from the Sheriff's Office came to her home looking for the previous tenant.
37 She cooperated fully and provided them with her identification, proving she was not
38 the person they are looking for. On August 29 at 3:30 a.m., two deputies from the
39 Sheriff's Office came to her house looking for the previous tenant. The deputies
40 were unable to tell her why they were there, other than they were doing an
41 investigation. They were unable to tell her why they did not know that the Sheriff's
42 Office had been there before. The deputies told her that they needed her to prove
43 that she is not the person they were looking for. She was very upset by this. The
44 deputies also did not address her questions about her rights at 3:30 a.m. She
45 asked them to leave. At 8:00 a.m., she started to call around to find out what her
46 rights are. In her frustration, she called the Sheriff's Office. A deputy told her that
47 the records department is behind in its data entry by two to three weeks. She
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
realized this is a data problem. Rather than try to seek a legal remedy, she chose
to find a way that she could be of service and help solve the problem. She
provided information from the Sheriff's Office (on file) and a copy of her resume.
She has the background to work on this problem, and she has taken the time to do
the initial work for this report. The records department has four clerks that do data
entry. These clerks average about 80 hours per week doing data entry. Their
workweek is eight hours per day, five days per week. The deputies are working
three shifts, 24 hours per day, and seven days per week. The number of deputies
has increased from 48 to 74 over the last several years. The number of staff has
not increased. From January through July 2002, there was an average of 2,159
reports turned into the records department. This is an overall increase of 20
percent from the same period in 2001. The statistics in her report are based on the
average of the deputies work schedule. They do not reflect the nature of the
reports, nor do they take into account the staff's working hours. The statistics
provide a distorted view of what is taking place in the record department. At her
request, the Records Division is taking a hand count of the reports so she will have
actual numbers to work with. There are long -term solutions to the problem, but
there is an immediate, short -term need that needs to be resolved. The Records
Division needs two full -time data entry personnel to solve this data backlog. The
future solutions would eliminate a need for these additional personnel. The timeline
for those solutions is so far out, there would be an intolerable amplification of the
data problems in the interim. Currently, the Records Division is two to three weeks
behind in its data entry. As a result, the information that should be available to the
deputies for investigations is not available. This data affects the lives of the
individual citizens. It is critical that this data be as current as possible. Solve this
data problem now, not next year or in five years.
Rita Foley, Blue Canyon Road, stated the Park Road project has extended to
South Bay Road. They have rearranged the area and blacktopped a huge area in
front of the biker's shop. The taxpayers paid for it. The shop is not even in
compliance with the zoning law, and the County is doing favors for them in the
amount of about $2,000. The taxpayers have a right to know what is going on out
there. They are up to over $5 million on a 2.8 -mile long road that goes nowhere.
They've destroyed a lot of the valley. The road is still sinking. She can't believe
what is going on out there. She asked how the County can install blacktop and
charge it to the public.
CONSENT AGENDA
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through 12.
Brenner withdrew items five and seven.
Motion to approve items one through four, six, and eight through twelve.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #02-
72 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, NC MACHINERY CO., FOR
THE PURCHASE OF AN ARTICULATED WHEEL LOADER FOR PUBLIC
WORKS MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $
177,649.01
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
AND MOSS ADAMS ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR NECESSARY AUDIT
AND CONSULTING SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000 (AB2002-
319)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND FRIESON
ELECTRIC INTERNATIONAL FOR WAREHOUSE SPACE TO STORE
ELECTION EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,100
(AB2002 -320)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SUDDEN VALLEY
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION FOR THE PLACEMENT OF PERMANENT
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ON 47 SUDDEN VALLEY LOTS PURCHASED
BY SUDDEN VALLEY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION DURING THE 2001
TAX FORECLOSURE AUCTION, OR IDENTIFIED SUBSTITUTE LOTS,
FOR PARTIAL REIMBURSEMENT OF THEIR ASSOCIATED COSTS FROM
THIS PURCHASE IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,466 (AB2002 -321)
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
HALVORSON & SANDERS, PLLC, FOR LABOR LEGAL COUNSEL
REPRESENTATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,500, WITH A TOTAL
AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $39,000 (AB2002 -322)
Nelson restated Crawford's motion for approval.
Brenner stated she has a problem with paying for this legal counsel.
They've paid for it before. She won't support it anymore. The County should do
this in- house.
Motion to approve carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
JUVENILE SERVICES AND WHATCOM DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER
TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS AND HIGH -RISK
GIRLS IN THE AMOUNT OF $46,745 (AB2002 -323)
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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.
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CENTENNIAL CLEAN WATER
FUND TO BE USED TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF A LONG -TERM WATER QUALITY MONITORING
PROGRAM AS REQUIRED IN THE WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
PLAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000 (AB2002 -324)
Brenner asked if the services from Public Utility District (PUD) 1 will make up
the entire match and, if not, where the rest of the match will come from.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the matching money is the work
that is ongoing as part of the project. There are no additional expenditures
because of this grant.
Brenner asked if the match will come from in -house services. Monsen stated
that is correct. The PUD 1 is doing work for the project that qualifies as matching.
Nelson restated Crawford's motion for approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS AND THE
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CONSERVATION
CORPS FOR SALMON RECOVERY ACTIVITIES WITH AN EMPHASIS ON
THE TEN MILE CREEK WATERSHED IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,000
(AB2002 -325)
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC
WORKS, AS GRANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE MARINE RESOURCES
COMMITTEE, AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM FOR FORAGE FISH
HABITAT AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS - THE CITY OF
BELLINGHAM WILL ACT AS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR COORDINATING
THE FORAGE FISH INVENTORY IN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
COORDINATE THE 2002 MARINE SUMMIT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$21,500 (AB2002 -326)
10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO THE
WHATCOM CHIEF FERRY INSURANCE RENEWAL FOR POLICY YEAR
9/30/02 THROUGH 9/20/03 IN THE AMOUNT OF $27,915 (AB2002-
327)
11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES AGREEMENT, IF APPROVED IN
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET REQUEST #9, BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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.
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND PALIDOR, RADIO COMMUNICATIONS
CONSULTANTS, LTD. TO ACT AS PROGRAM MANAGER FOR THE
WHATCOM COUNTY EMERGENCY RADIO SYSTEM IN THE AMOUNT OF
$65,000 (AB2002 -328)
12. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A RETIREE HEALTH SAVINGS PLAN
WITH ICMA RETIREMENT CORPORATION'S VANTAGE CARE
RETIREMENT HEALTH SAVINGS PROGRAM AND CORRESPONDING
AGREEMENTS (AB2002 -329)
PUBLIC HEARING
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 2002 -034
AMENDING WCC, TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.80 — SUPPLEMENTARY
REQUIREMENTS TO ELIMINATE SEASONAL LIMITATIONS ON LAND
CLEARING ACTIVITIES WITHIN WATER RESOURCE SPECIAL
MANAGEMENT AREAS (AB2002 -314)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated
this ordinance would repeal a small section of the interim zoning regulations
regarding Lake Whatcom, Lake Samish, and Drayton Harbor. The County Council
adopted a full package of ordinances in June 2001 that were interim ordinances.
They expire on January 7. One of those items was the seasonal land clearing. A lot
of other provisions for the ordinance will remain in force as the County works on
the final regulations.
The section before the Council tonight restricts land clearing over 500 square
feet in the Lake Whatcom, Lake Samish, and Drayton Harbor watersheds between
October 1 and April 30 of the year. It would affect this building season through the
time the ordinance expires in January.
Staff is working on a permanent ordinance. There will be a Planning
Commission public hearing on that permanent ordinance on October 24, it will be
introduced to the Council on November 12, and is planned for adoption on
November 26. All final ordinances are to be adopted before the end of the year,
before the interim ordinances expire.
The proposal tonight is to strike section 20.80.735(2)(x) regarding seasonal
land clearing restrictions. The rest of the provisions would remain.
Each year, there are only six to eight single - family housing building permits
issued per month during the winter months. They are not talking about a large
volume of houses. Those houses are important to the people who are building
them. Staff is trying to come up with an ordinance to encourage people to build
during the summer, and would create disincentives for people who want to build in
the winter while including extra environmental protection.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, Page 8
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 Nelson stated the Council is only dealing with the seasonal portion of the
3 ordinance. Goodwin stated the final ordinance will be for additional seasonal
4 restrictions on land clearing, but will provide some exemptions. They may do that
5 based on slopes, critical areas, or additional design standards or inspectors.
6
7 Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
8
9 Barbara Kitchens, Whatcom County Association of Realtors, 503 East 14th
10 Avenue, Olympia, Washington, asked the Council to vote in favor of removing this
11 portion of the ordinance. Her association is in favor of addressing seasonal clearing
12 by using other scientific -based best management practices. She provided a paper
13 produced by the Washington Association of Realtors on methods and guidelines to
14 address stormwater issues and environmental preservation while addressing
15 building concerns (on file). The County staff has been wonderful. Staff members
16 have gone above and beyond to work with the association.
17
18 Allen Jewell, 1265 Sudden Valley, stated he is not a member of the building
19 industry or real estate industry. He is in favor of eliminating the seasonal limitation
20 on land development because there isn't clear and convincing evidence that it is
21 now necessary. On the other hand, it's clear that, if this is not passed, it will be
22 detrimental to the local economy and many local families. The County should be
23 cautious in the way it takes away the various rights of the people. There is a gross
24 violation of due process. It needs to be addressed.
25
26 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
27
28 Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association (BIA), stated there are hardships
29 that would be caused by suddenly reducing any business operating on a 12 -month
30 schedule to a five -month schedule and making that change in the middle of the
31 year when customers' supply and financial commitments have already been made.
32 There would be a loss of jobs. Businesses that are unable to make a living under
33 severe restrictions would go bankrupt. This would be an enormous burden on the
34 County Planning and Development Services Department during the allowed land
35 clearing season as the staff attempts to process the permits and squeeze in all the
36 inspections in an already busy schedule. He is also concerned about the revenue
37 loss to sales and salaries for the construction - related trades and professions on-
38 site, in addition to the lenders, title insurers, building materials suppliers, and
39 furniture suppliers. There would be a resulting loss of tax revenues to the County.
40
41 This is more than an inconvenience to builders. Builders are business people
42 who serve people with the products they want and need. The need for homes and
43 other structures results from significant financial planning and realizing goals and
44 dreams. A builder is hired to produce those goals and dreams. It is not just a
45 builder issue, it is a community issue. The question is whether consumers will be
46 constrained in the marketplace because of overly- severe regulations on the venders
47 they would choose to employ.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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.
One mitigating suggestion was to augment the supervision wet season
construction sites with certified erosion control supervisors. The BIA has been able
to organize a training session, the first of several of this kind. As demand grows,
they will offer more training sessions as warranted. There are other concerns the
BIA has with the ordinance. The BIA hopes to be a member of the stakeholder
committee.
Gary Reid, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County President, 3323
Northwest Ave, Bellingham, stated there is an impact on the community by this
seasonal clearing restriction. No one wants to drink polluted water. The building
industry has made many suggestions on ways to reduce pollutants that are
entering the lakes and streams. To date, no action has been taken to make any of
these improvements. He wants to bring a balance to the discussion and seek
solutions that maximize the benefit and minimize the consequences. The
watershed ordinance and the seasonal clearing ban does not meet this test. The
watershed has been downzoned without consideration of where building lots will be
placed and the environmental and economic impact of the alternate sites. Seasonal
clearing would be devastating. No one can make a living on five - months worth of
work. The phased clearing aspect has little benefit, and can even result in more
environmental impact. Reducing the impervious areas from twenty to ten has a
major impact on lots of a half -acre or less. This reduced percentage appears to
have been selected by the little scientifically - developed impact analysis. On the
other hand, it has a great impact on design, artificially limiting housing sizes that
could violate covenants and conditions. It could otherwise deny entirely the
otherwise legal use of a lot. He asked the Council to carefully consider these items.
Grace Purpura, Horizon Bank Loan Officer, 1500 Cornwall Avenue, stated she
supports the building community. As a lender, she's concerned about a couple of
items. Because of the short window for land clearing, the availability of fixed -rate
funding would go away. A borrower typically has six months to complete a home.
This land- clearing band would draw out the construction to a much longer time
frame. If the length of time for land construction had to be increased, it would
create interest rate risk that lenders would not be willing to assume. Therefore, the
borrowers would only be able to get adjustable rate financing. Another concern is
that the short window for construction would put undo pressure on the labor pool.
The community is finding it difficult to provide affordable housing. This action does
not bode well for those who are trying to meet the needs of those who need low -
cost housing. As a community lender, she works with small builders who build two
to three homes per year. With the land- clearing ban in effect, the loan- carrying
costs would go up substantially. It would also limit the amount of homes the small
builders can complete. It would make it difficult for the small builders to make a
living.
Brenner stated that someone told her that the builders could just get an
extension. She asked if the builder could get an extension. Purpura stated the
single - family homes borrowers come in to get financing. The rates can change
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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.
considerably in six months. At this time, most lenders will lock the interest rates in
up front, they cannot lock that money for up for more than six months.
Chuck Westfall, Coast Construction, stated he is a contractor and landowner
in the Drayton Harbor watershed. He is concerned about the restriction. His
concern is about the economical impact on Whatcom County. The families that are
supported by construction will be put under extreme stress during the winter
months when they cannot work. Also, the builders will need their permits right
away during construction season. He asked if staff would be adjusted to handle the
extreme number of permits they would need in a short amount of time. People will
have an extreme difficulty in finishing these projects.
Alternatives in place now include a required erosion control check before the
job is started. They have to have erosion controls in place and approved by an
inspector. There is a watershed checklist for builders to use at their sites. They go
through that checklist with the County staff ahead of time so they know what they
have to do. Training is available now for erosion control. There are many
programs in place to allow the building industry to work through the winter.
Chris Weitzel, 66 Sudden Valley, Bellingham, stated the decision to remove
the land clearing regulation is a good one. The regulation would create a hardship
in the community and on the property owners who own property in the watershed.
He submitted a packet of information on the flood of 1983 (on file). Hundreds of
tons of mud went into Lake Whatcom. A house also went into the lake. Twenty -
three acres of debris went into Lake Whatcom. Within four months, the Bellingham
Public Works Director said there was no problem with the drinking water in Lake
Whatcom. There was mud in the water, but they took the mud out and the water
was pure to drink. Prohibiting someone from clearing property that is a mile away
from the lake will not have any affect on the water quality in Lake Whatcom.
The County Council ordered a study that was done in 1985. The study took
21 months of monitoring of the lake and nine months of analysis. At the end of the
study, the conclusion was that the drinking water is fine, and there is no problem.
That was after a flood of unbelievable proportion. There is not current scientific
data that proves anything different than that report.
In addition, the 300 -foot buffer from water bodies in Sudden Valley will
eliminate construction, or make construction so expensive that people will not want
to develop their properties. That buffer is too much.
Rob Olson, Olson Construction Inc., 3920 Sweetwater Road, Bow, stated he
is a Sudden Valley area developer. He's been building in the Sudden Valley area for
eleven years. As a builder and property owner, he asked that the clearing and
building limitation in the Lake Whatcom watershed be removed. Now, they have
the most stringent and protective building regulations in any watershed in the
state. Out of 25 large water reservoirs in the United States, Lake Whatcom has
tested to be the third cleanest. These land clearing regulations add $4,000 to
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, Page 11
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 $6,000 per home built, which will eliminate the possibility of affordable housing in
2 the Sudden Valley area. These proposed changes rob people of their property
3 rights without knowing about it. There is no data to support the regulations.
4 Remove the interim ordinance and any regulations.
5
6 Dan Bolster, 6740 Custer School Road, Custer, stated he is a real estate
7 broker and property owner. He has six parcels in Custer for which he has already
8 installed the infrastructure. He's tried to make it pretty affordable. He's about 12
9 miles from Drayton Harbor. He has a manmade irrigation ditch through his
10 property, which has been plugged by beavers. It goes nowhere. He asked how his
11 property would get into Drayton Harbor and impact the clams. There are
12 thousands of acres of blueberries and strawberries in the area. Those farmers turn
13 their soils every winter. The impact from that must be a thousand times more
14 devastating than any kind of clearing that would be done to build houses. This is
15 illogical. The Drayton Harbor area is a large area that involves a lot of commerce.
16 A lot of people will be put out of business. He requested that the limitation be
17 removed.
18
19 Andy Lohrer, 652 Sudden Valley, stated they need to do away with the
20 seasonal limitation, and more. They've learned that the interim rules will impact
21 Whatcom County more than the Council realized. It will affect many jobs and many
22 people who want to live in Whatcom County. The regulation will affect the cost of
23 homes and the economy. The interim rules should not be rushed through without
24 thorough examination. Community input should not be driven by certain political
25 agendas. Enforce the rules they have. All studies of Lake Whatcom conditions say
26 the lake is in excellent condition. Government spending to buy land is wrong.
27 Arbitrary downzoning is wrong. Arbitrary restrictions on private land use are
28 wrong. Taking away property rights is wrong. The Council has taken away the
29 property rights for 2,000 to 3,000 building lots. The Council should do what's right.
30 Take the time to do it well.
31
32 Leo Wegner, 3570 Haney Road, stated he lives in the in Drayton Harbor
33 watershed. There is nothing but sand out there, which is the best filter. He read
34 from the platform of a political party, which says that the party honors and respects
35 the rights of all people. He wasn't respected regarding his rights on Drayton
36 Harbor. When Councilmember Roy ran for office, she talked about affordable
37 housing. There is some affordable housing in the Blaine area. That's where they
38 get their cheapest lots. However, she voted in favor of this regulation. One can't
39 build in five months. The Council has listened to its experts, who lead them badly.
40 Those people should be fired.
41
42 John Lee, Coach Corral Homes Site Development Manager, 4942 Pacific Hwy,
43 Ferndale, submitted a copy of the Snohomish County winter grading ordinance (on
44 file). He doesn't love that regulation, but it lets him work during the winter. The
45 people who regulate it are very helpful. He would like Whatcom County to come up
46 with a pragmatic plan, and provide non - adversarial assistance, inspection, and
47 reasonable enforcement. Don't provide disincentives for construction during winter.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
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's not a pragmatic approach. Provide good management practices for winter
grading. Perhaps they should require training if contractors don't know how to
install erosion control. He asked that the limitation be removed. Both sides are
important. Set aside egos and agendas.
Bill Purnell, citizen, stated he has a degree in geology and foundation
engineering from the University of Washington. He is professionally registered in
all the geology disciplines. He's practiced in Whatcom County since 1959. He's
owned a civil engineering and geology company and practiced environmental and
geo- technical engineering, engineering geology, hydrogeology, wetland geology,
and many other disciplines. He asked the Council to delete the seasonal portion of
the ordinance. Off - season work is necessary in this climate. There are many
safeguards that follow the present State and County laws during inclement
weather. They are building a society in Whatcom County where only the rich can
afford to purchase homes. Environmental laws are a necessity within reason.
However, a cost - benefit ratio must be performed to see the dollar cost to society
before it is passed. The question is whether the environmental benefit would
outweigh the cost. He urged the Council to delete the language. Evaluate the cost -
benefit value before making a decision on environmental issues. The cost of the
environmental laws to the public is far too great in relation to what they spend on
school and health issues at this time.
Robert Blow, Custer, stated he wants a bigger place and now is shut down
due to the seasonal limitation. There is no work in the area. Intalco shut down.
There's no work at Georgia- Pacific. The only work that pays anything is the
refineries and the college. If someone doesn't have a college education,
construction is the only way someone can make a decent living.
Marion Beddill, 3600 Seeley, stated she is in favor of the restrictions on land
clearing during the winter seasons in the watersheds. Land clearing, not
construction, is the issue. One question is whether there is a problem with water
quality, and whether silt gets into the water and causes harm. There is ample
evidence that shows that is the case. She discounts the allegations that silt doesn't
do any harm. Protection against silt is an essential part of maintaining the quality
of watersheds and streams. It is not just about drinking water. It is about water
for swimming, drinking, and fishing, according to State law. Of course they can
have clean drinking water if they build a bigger water treatment plant.
People have talked about time and planning. This bill has been before the
Council for six to eight months, when there was a sudden call at the previous
meeting to raise this issue. She challenged these people, who say they are
threatened by last minute legislation, for bringing up this problem at the last
minute while this issue has been sitting idle for months. They could have discussed
it rationally earlier.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
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.
People say they can't make a living five months out of the year. Ask the
Alaskan fishermen how long they work. There are many industries that live on
work during limited seasons.
People talk about being put out of business because they can't do anything,
according to this regulation. That's not so. All this say is that they cannot clear
large parcels of land. The regulations say they can do everything else related to
building. Planning ahead is the point.
Someone proposed hiring a bunch of foxes to watch the henhouse. That
doesn't sound too good to her. She asked the Council to maintain the protections
for the environment.
Art Anderson, 2211 Rimland Drive, stated he is the Associated General
Contractors (AGC) of Washington Executive Director. He submitted information on
a soils and erosion sediment control certification course. The Washington State
Department of Transportation (DOT) adopted that course. AGC has been working
with erosion control systems since 1990. Professional contractors, with appropriate
training, can work year around. The classes are available to anyone. The Public
Works Director sent five employees to these classes.
Nelson asked about the cost and if the general public is invited. Anderson
stated they encourage anyone to go. The cost is $250 for a two -day course. The
last half -day is a field trip. It is also supported by the State Department of Ecology.
Myron Wlaznak, 4215 East Oregon, stated he is a board member for People
For Lake Whatcom. Land clearing is the initial and most significant aspect of
development in the Lake Whatcom watershed. His comments are regarding the
watershed only. Land clearing forever changes the natural structure of the land. It
imposes unproven manmade substitutes, which then endure for decades with little
or no change or improvement. Based on past experiences, further degradation to
water quality inevitably follows. Mr. Anderson stated they established controls in
1990. However, there were no erosion controls in mid - December last year from the
Hillsdale development. They must draw a line in the sand and no longer allow
further degradation to the water quality at Lake Whatcom. The water in Lake
Whatcom is some of the purest in the state. It is also extremely sensitive to any
change and pollutant loads to the water. His group is not opposed to the majority
of the provisions of this ordinance. The history of land clearing, lack of
enforcement, and inability to treat stormwater runoff from these developments are
legitimate concerns that cannot be lightly dismissed or put off indefinitely. There is
no natural vegetation process that can occur after October 1 to mitigate runoff from
a development site. One cannot grow anything that will effectively control runoff.
All they are left with are systems that are proven to not work. A representative
from his group will attend Mr. Anderson's seminar. His group is committed to
working with any group to find legitimate solutions to the myriad of problems that
they've encountered to preserve and protect Lake Whatcom. They are committed
to participating as stakeholders in reviewing the ordinance. They are committed to
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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.
evaluate all provisions of the ordinance and establish a process to review the
estimated 42 individual hardships that may occur in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Some of the councilmembers may be offended by the fervor or rhetoric expressed
by individuals or groups, regardless of position. However, the Council should be
gratified. This process is what makes this country so great. Each time citizens
participate, they reaffirm their commitment to this experiment called democracy.
Brenda Iverson, 2326 Birch Bay Lynden Road, stated she is in the Drayton
Harbor watershed. There is a lot of talk about whether or not erosion controls
work. That is something that the County Council must sort out. She asked that
they do so intelligently, in terms of take issues. Know what is going on with the
construction sites that are going on around here. She believes that erosion control
does work. She requested that the seasonal limitation be taken away. She
represents employees of companies that this limitation would shut down. It will
create hardships for families. They would be shut down for seven months out of
the year. Take a good look at all ordinances and see what is going to happen to
the everyday people out there.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Roger Almskaar, 3610 Meridian Street, stated he is a member of the
Whatcom County Realtors Association. He supports what Barb Kitchens said. He is
not a member of the BIA, but he supports what Mr. Quehrn said earlier. Most of
the people who he works for are not big developers, but they are ordinary people
who want to only do one project in their life. Those people hire him because they
can't understand the complicated collection of regulations. He supports the
ordinance that is before the Council. The seven -month ban on seasonal land
clearing was a big mistake. It was well intentioned. They need to be flexible.
Listen to the people who are out there doing the work. A rigid rule does not allow
for the use of common sense or good judgment from the County staff and the
people who want to do the construction. Good rules are flexible as well as firm,
and consider the economic and social impacts, as well as potential environmental
benefits. This rule had many direct and indirect adverse affects on people. They
have to look at what things cost to everyone. Under these conditions, housing
becomes more costly. Business has a harder time creating good jobs. Public
agencies and nonprofit organizations have a hard time accomplishing what they are
trying to do.
Bruce Kraig, 1904 - 18th Street, Bellingham, stated they should keep the
ordinance the way it is. It's not the best possible ordinance that they could create,
but it's the best they have for now. Especially focus on Lake Whatcom. He's not an
environmentalist or ecologist. He doesn't make a living doing anything that has to
do with the lake's quality. He's not a builder. Keep the water clean. He can't
believe that recreational boating, float planes, and other such activities are allowed
on the lake. He comes from an area where 500,000 people are dependent upon a
water supply where there is no building, logging, boating, or anything else. It is
fenced off.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
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.
Bill Geyer, 3039 Berkley Grove Loop, Bellingham, stated he is in favor of the
ordinance. He has 25 -years experience in the planning and development field. In
the public sector, he was a planner. He is now a private developer, investor, and
builder. He manages several projects throughout Whatcom County. One of the
first things that needs to be assessed is the risk. Look at the total number of
building permits that Whatcom County has issued and that have resulted in a
clearing violation or water quality violation in these watersheds. Look at the total
percentage of the watersheds this ordinance attends and that is under construction
at any one time, particularly during the period this month addresses. When they
look at both of those factors, they'll see that it is a very minimal amount. The
response of having a seasonal moratorium is a draconian measure that is not
necessary.
As a past manager and director of a planning agency, he can say that
moratoriums have a behavioral impact on the staff. Staff tends to forget about the
permits during the period they are not being administered. The ordinances tend to
get relegated to the most newly appointed staff person, which breaks the
consistency of the professional resources they are relying on. A moratorium, in
that case, is a dysfunctional effort that does not provide for the proper
administration of land clearing in Whatcom County.
From the perspective of homeowners, people have testified that a seven -
month moratorium on clearing will take projects out of an immediate construction
cycle. It is very difficult to complete a house, if one is a family trying to build their
own home. This moratorium would add $3,000 to $7,000 per year for the cost of
that home.
If this moratorium stayed in place, the companies that would suffer are
Whatcom County companies that service homeowners throughout the area. They
cannot live on a five -month cycle. They will be at risk, and that vacuum will be
filled by companies outside of Whatcom County that will come here to work. Vote
in favor of the ordinance to delete the moratorium.
John Hjelmseth, 239 Sudden Valley, stated he is a builder in Sudden Valley.
He builds two or three homes per year. He's never seen silt leave any of his sites.
He has a marine biology background. He lives and plays in the water. He cannot
sustain a seven -month shut down.
Jamie Henifin, 3857 Hannegan Road, Bellingham, stated they need to be able
to keep working in the rain. They can use the best management practices that are
already set up. Enforce them. He encouraged people to take the class that Mr.
Anderson mentioned.
Tom Pratum, 2241 North Shore Road, Bellingham, stated he represents the
North Cascades Audubon Society. The society is opposed to the amendment that
would delete the seasonal clearing restriction. These restrictions in the county's
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, Page 16
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 most sensitive watersheds should remain in place unless and until other language
2 that is similarly protective can be developed. No one can say that a protective
3 clearing ordinance isn't needed. No academic experts have said that. Erosion and
4 sedimentation control problems exist in all of these watersheds. These problems
5 need to be addressed. The seasonal clearing restriction, which was developed by
6 staff, is nearly identical to Bellingham's Silver Beach ordinance. It addresses these
7 problems in the most straightforward manner. It is possible that there are some
8 questions of fairness in the way this thing was brought up. If there are questions of
9 fairness, he prefers that the Council delay the implementation of the ordinance for a
10 short period of time, but leave the underlying language in place. That would allow
11 people to adjust to the ordinance. The proposal to allow the building industry to
12 police itself can't be taken seriously. County personnel who don't have any conflict
13 of interest must do any oversight in the final ordinance. If the Council drops this
14 language and does not replace it with any other protective language, there will be
15 vesting issues. People will submit building permit applications. If the Council is
16 serious about implementing protective language, that language will not cover these
17 building permit applications. Don't drop the seasonal clearing language. It is good
18 language. Deal with any fairness issues by delaying implementation.
19
20 Rick Dubrow 2523 Utter Street, Al Builders and Adaptations Owner, stated
21 he has everything to gain financially from seeing the regulation struck down.
22 Upholding the regulation strengthens his personal health and community
23 sustainability. With the amount of community growth, they are at the point where
24 there should be seasonal limitations. There is not any other issue with as much
25 agreement from the general community. The City of Bellingham went through an
26 extensive ordinance design, which became the Silver Beach ordinance. It
27 emphasizes the prevention of water quality deterioration over treatment strategies.
28 He agrees with the BIA's conclusion that the impairment of Lake Whatcom is now
29 not a result of future homes. Part of the solution needs to address water quality,
30 runoff, and treatment from existing roads, neighborhoods, and developments. Just
31 looking at the future doesn't address what has led to the current impairment of the
32 water quality. It has to go both ways. He is in favor of a case -by -case review if a
33 number of details are ironed out. The Planning Department would have to do this
34 case -by -case review in- house. Don't let the building industry police itself. There
35 should be enforcement to it. There's a general rule of thumb in the building
36 industry, especially in Lake Whatcom, that it's cheaper and easier to ask for
37 forgiveness than permission. That has to change if something like this has teeth.
38 Over the last few months, he's watched the Council go from a six to one in favor
39 vote to a unanimous rejection of this. Human nature is such that they reject what
40 is true but unpleasant, and tend to embrace what is obviously false, but comforting.
41 Given the pressure, the comfortable thing to do is reject this ordinance. Sometimes
42 they have to do what is required.
43
44 Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated every once in awhile, someone
45 comes along who gets it right. He agreed with Mr. Rich Dubrow.
46
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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
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.
Bill Henshaw, 2653 North Park Drive, stated he is concerned about the
economic impact of having seasonal limitations. They have some industries that
are mature. They've gone through some scares this year with Georgia- Pacific and
Intalco shutdowns. That situation is still far from over. All of the subcontractors
who worked for Intalco scraped by. There are a lot of small business that were hurt
by Intalco's hiatus. The construction industry is about 20 percent of the economy.
To cripple the industry by a seven month moratorium is disastrous for the local
economy. They need to look carefully at how they structure something that is this
important to the overall good of the entire citizenry.
Joan Casey, 1015 West Toledo, Bellingham, stated the Department of
Ecology has listed Lake Whatcom on the 303(d) list as an impaired body of water.
There are two lakes in this state that are very pure. Lake Whatcom is one of them.
It is not capable of purifying itself. A heavy sediment flow into the lake could
seriously degrade the quality of the lake. She understands that there are some
hardship cases. People should be able to apply for a variance. That process should
be identified right up front. No one is ever talked of putting an industry out of
business for seven months. They are talking about only the land clearing. Retain
the original ordinance as written. Initiate the review process to fine tune, evaluate,
and determine the details of this ordinance.
Jon Wolfe, 32 Parlane East, Sudden Valley Community Association President,
stated he represents about 3,600 property owners. The Board of Directors is
against the application of this proposal on lands within Sudden Valley's jurisdiction.
He and his neighbors are environmentalists. In the early 1990's, Sudden Valley
members voiced support for a density reduction program. They embarked on an
aggressive and expensive program of density reduction, before other jurisdictions
discussed it. To date, 1,000 lots have been removed from development by
permanent covenants, lot line erasures, and other means. Sudden Valley has borne
the expense of this. It has also suffered dues reduction in the process. The
Association appreciates the partnership with Whatcom County and Water District 10
in this purchase program. Many taxpayers in Sudden Valley have been subject to
a sewer moratorium for years. The effect has been to render their lots
undevelopable and worthless. The association opposes the proposed seasonal
limitations. It is ill- conceived and would overly burden lot owners. They have
regularly and widely observed that the already- required erosion control measures
for home construction sites are not being installed or maintained correctly. Sudden
Valley has coordinated with Whatcom County staff in an ongoing attempt to bring
these sites into compliance. The County lacks adequate field monitoring staff to
enforce it at a level needed to put developers on notice and effectively reduce
stream habitat degradation and drinking water quality impacts. He welcomes more
enforcement. Provide adequate funding in the County budget for more monitoring
staff. Recognize Sudden Valley's aggressive efforts in protecting the watershed,
and exempt Sudden Valley from this proposal. Apply hard science to whatever
rules they adopt.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, Page 18
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1 John Watts, 1015 West Toledo Street, Bellingham City Council Member,
2 stated the City passed its Silver Beach ordinance, it was done so on an interim
3 emergency basis, which brought people to the meeting. They had at least two
4 meetings with this amount of people. The City did face this problem two years ago.
5 They went through the pain of adopting an ordinance and trying to make it fit.
6 They had the same concerns that he is hearing tonight. That's not to say that the
7 concerns aren't real, but the problems are also real. Resolve the problems and
8 concerns as well as they can. The City kept the ordinance in place as it is until they
9 conditioned it with citizen input. The City introduced measures that made the
10 ordinance more flexible and fairer. At the same time, the City wanted to maintain
11 the effectiveness of the ordinance. They were successful in doing that. The
12 ordinance seems to be working quite well. It would be a mistake for the County to
13 easily backslide. There are concerns on seasonal construction limitations. That
14 might be resolved by keeping the ordinance in place, and surgically delay the
15 implementation of that portion of it that is troublesome, until the first of the years.
16 That might allow them the time to put the fairness and flexibility into the ordinance.
17 The City Council passed resolution in favor or the original ordinance.
18
19 Geoff Menzies, 988 West Laurel Road, stated he represents the Drayton
20 Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee. This committee has not
21 had the opportunity to study this particular ordinance in a lot of detail. There was
22 quite a bit of work that went on in the Drayton Harbor watershed to develop the
23 watershed action plan. It is a community -based plan. They identified those
24 sources that pose a significant threat to water quality in the harbor. He read from
25 that plan, which says that stormwater and erosion is a significant source of
26 pollution in the watershed. Move forward with a group of stakeholders to fine tune
27 this a bit. Given the projected growth in the watershed, the urban growth areas,
28 and the short -term impact from site disturbance and the long -term impact to water
29 quality from stormwater runoff, the watershed management committee determined
30 that land conversions are a significant source of pollution in the watershed. This
31 plan was approved by the Department of Ecology in 1995. There are specific
32 recommendations in this plan. The recommendations addressed things such as
33 groundcover being established as soon as possible to reduce erosion. He read
34 other recommendations from the plan. Consider the Blaine ordinance on seasonal
35 closures. It has been effective. The wet season is a critical period for water quality
36 problems in Drayton Harbor. They can't afford to have continued problems.
37
38 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated he supports dropping the seasonal
39 land clearing regulations. The construction industry affects a tremendous number
40 of other businesses. He's worked on the issue of providing good jobs in Whatcom
41 County. All they seem to be able to do is pick at the ones they've got. Take care
42 of the jobs they have.
43
44 Roger Ellingson, 3033 Alderwood, Bellingham, stated he supports the
45 Council, which has made a good effort at trying to establish good clearing
46 restrictions in a very sensitive watershed. He does oppose the repeal of the
47 restrictions. He is here to ask the Council to take into account what it's done. If
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, Page 19
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 Council repeals the regulation, it will create a window. At avalanche of people
2 will apply for permits. Those people know that the Council will continue to protect
3 Lake Whatcom and the other watersheds. Those building permit applicants will not
4 have any clearing restrictions on their property. It won't matter what the Council
5 does in November. He encourages the Council to inquire about this with the
6 Council's legal counsel. Delaying the effective date of this ordinance will still create
7 the same vesting window. The simplest thing is to repeal it, but make the repeal
8 effective upon implementation of the new, amended version. If they don't want to
9 do that, they can make a provision in this repealing ordinance that says anyone
10 who brings in an application for clearing or other building permit will be subject to
11 the amended version down the road when it is adopted. The building, real estate,
12 and banking industry constitute a small minority of water consumers in this county.
13 They are necessary players. This town, including those industries, has to come
14 together to solve the problem. Those three industries need to realize that
15 something is going to be done, and move toward a solution instead of opposing
16 anything.
17
18 Ron Reimer, excavating contractor, stated he works a lot in the Lake
19 Whatcom watershed. They've gotten reports back that the water quality is fine, but
20 here are some problems with dirt running into the water. It happens whether or
21 not there are people around. This issue is irrelevant. He never sees a job site
22 where more than a five - gallon bucket of dirt ever makes it over the silt fence. The
23 issue doesn't reside with the building industry. The dust on the trees around Lake
24 Whatcom is ten times worse than the silt from the buildings.
25
26 Ginger Essex, 1540 Franklin Street, stated there was testimony that there
27 would be an avalanche of permit applications for vesting purposes. For single -
28 family residences, one can apply for a building permit on two days each week. It's
29 done by appointment only. It takes one to three weeks to get an appointment.
30 Only two staff members take in building permits. She had six site visits from
31 someone regarding the silt fence and work on a site. There are people out there
32 who are looking and watching.
33
34 Doug Campbell, 1401 Astor Street, Bellingham, stated he agreed with Roger
35 Ellingson that this ordinance should be repealed. It's arbitrary, capricious, and
36 discriminatory. It lacks the science to back it up. He asked why it applies to
37 Drayton Harbor if it's a drinking water ordinance. No one drinks out of Drayton
38 Harbor. The ordinance provides exceptions to agricultural and forestry operations.
39 It is discriminatory because it picks on three watersheds, and does damage to the
40 folks living in those watersheds. He questioned why this does not apply to the
41 Nooksack River if they are serious about drinking water.
42
43 Rita Foley, South Lake Whatcom, stated she is for logging, not houses.
44 Loggers excavate, so she is not against excavation. She likes the law as it is.
45 Lake Whatcom can't be that clean, or else they wouldn't need a treatment plant.
46 Lake Whatcom is not that clean. The diversion has run into it for many years.
47 Sewers leak. Lake Whatcom is a delicate ecosystem. Protect the lake.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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.
Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance.
Fleetwood moved to amend section 20.80.735(2)(b).
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Fleetwood continued to amend section 20.80.735(2)(b), ° ... Construction
activity and land clearing activities ffhay shall be phased to limit..."
Crawford stated they are only going to deal with seasonal clearing tonight.
Brenner asked if the entire ordinance is open for amendment, or just the
seasonal clearing part.
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated they are only dealing with
seasonal clearing.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that, given the notice
provided to the public, Councilmember Fleetwood's change would go beyond the
allowed scope.
Fleetwood withdrew his motion.
Brenner stated there is a need for stronger penalties for violators. They all
agree on that. It's frustrating to hear about things not working because the
penalties aren't enough. She's seen sloppy silt fences and other types of erosion
control. Everyone in the building industry and residents of an area want the County
to have better enforcement. It's important. This isn't about enforcement.
There was also a comparison between this and the Silver Beach ordinance.
This is much more restrictive than the Silver Beach ordinance. It covers more area
and affects more people. She would like to reduce the months to the wet, rainy
months. At least two or three of these months are not rainy months.
It was said that the language has been sitting idle for months. That's not
true. The Council has been working a lot on this during the late spring and early
summer. They got it done really fast. She voted for it. She would be surprised if
councilmembers change their votes because they are intimidated. She's not
intimidated. The councilmembers got new information after the Council voted on
this. If the Council can create something that is just as protective, and does not
create an undue burden on other people, they are supposed to do that.
There was a comment about not being able to grow anything after October 1.
In the winter, they are supposed to put down hay bales, silt fences, and other
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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.
measures. Those things can work during winter months if they are done right.
There is a problem with people doing the right thing.
No one is talking about having the building industry police itself. She would
like to hear from County staff about that. The only thing she heard about it was
that the County could certify the people who are in the industry so they would be
better qualified to do what they have to do. Councilmember McShane did a lot of
consulting work in this county. Not everyone in private business is a scumbag who
only cares about the almighty dollar. This idea that government is pure and the
private sector isn't is strange to her. She sees as many problems within
government as she sees outside of government.
She wants to do whatever they can do to retain restrictions in the truly wet
months, and do it on a case -by -case basis. She thought they were moving towards
that. If the Council deletes this section of the land- clearing ordinance, something
will come back to the Council that is more reasonable and works better for
everyone. She doesn't intend to not have more restrictions in the rainy months.
That's important. She hoped the Council would support this ordinance to delete
this section, and wait for the final ordinance to be ready.
She moved to amend the ordinance so that they don't allow vesting. She
wants restrictions for the truly rainy months and to do restrictions on a case -by-
case basis. If people can meet those restrictions, then they should be able to work
during those months to do the clearing.
McShane stated the way one could achieve that would be to put in language
delaying the implementation. This is the interim ordinance. If they delay the
implementation beyond the date the interim ordinance stops working, it would
supposedly be replaced by a final ordinance. This ordinance is to amend the
interim ordinance, not to repeal the ordinance.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that they could simply put
in a date when the ordinance shall become effective.
Brenner stated that even if they postpone implementation date, banks aren't
thrilled about working with people on this stuff if the language is there.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Natural Resources Committee discussed this
today with the Planning Department staff at length. If they remove this one
section, they still have all the other extremely restrictive measures to address
clearing in watersheds. She read the other measures that are required.
Brenner withdrew her amendment.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council could give direction to the Planning
Department to get the two factions together. There is a light at the end of the
tunnel. She will support this amendment because there is a vast amount of
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
misinformation out there. If there is this much confusion, they've missed some
people in the process. That's a flaw the Council needs to address. At some point,
the Council needs to assess whether the benefits outweigh the costs. There is a
cost to the polarization of the community. That cost is not worth it. It's a
community problem and they need solutions from the community.
McShane stated he hesitates supporting this. However, he will support it
because the Council has made it clear to the Planning staff that seasonal
restrictions are a good idea. The problem is that they need to have some variances
and flexibility for those who want to get out of the seasonal restrictions. They don't
have that flexibility in place in the interim ordinance. During one trip to Lake
Whatcom last winter, almost every construction site that he saw had muddy water
coming off of it. Some of them were actually sites that were done in the summer
time and following the City's ordinance. He's seeing pollution all the time. He
doesn't put a lot of credence in those who say there isn't a problem. There is a
problem. They need to have the flexibility to address it in an appropriate manner.
The interim ordinance doesn't give options to those who are willing to behave
themselves and go the extra mile to protect the water quality.
Fleetwood stated he would support an ordinance that gives builders an
opportunity to excavate this coming winter season. He also has serious concerns
about the vesting issue. He asked if there is a way to enact this amended interim
ordinance and deal with the vesting issue. Grant stated there is not.
Fleetwood stated they've talked about the staff, Planning Commission, and
BIA working to come up with something that would be a compromise for November.
People who vest today would not be subject to that. He's concerned about it.
McShane stated the only thing those builders wouldn't be subject to would be
seasonal restrictions and exceptions to a seasonal restriction. There may be some
people between now and then that will get a land- clearing permit and be able to
clear in January without doing any of the extra things they might need. It won't be
that many people.
Caskey- Schreiber stated those people would still be subject to the other
sections of the land- clearing ordinance.
Crawford stated he sees bad law. He's prepared to vote in favor of the
ordinance.
Brenner stated she hoped that everyone who said they would work on this
will actually work on it, so the councilmembers won't get anymore mail claiming
that the Council is getting rid of this whole ordinance. She hoped people take the
time to read the other sections of this ordinance.
Roy stated they do need seasonal limitations, however people were
broadsided by this, which created a lot of problems for a lot of people. That was
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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.
not the Council's objective. She hoped they can work it out. She has a 2000 -2001
report on the monitoring of Lake Whatcom. It has scientific evidence from Western
Washington University. It is the latest information on the health of the lake.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a break.)
1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN AGRICULTURAL PURCHASE OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
(AB2002 -312) (RELATED FILE IS AB2002 -216)
Nelson stated the Council would discuss this item and the next item together.
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, gave a staff report and an overview of the
program. The purchase of development rights (PDR) program is a voluntary
program for the acquisition of development rights, for sale by owners of agricultural
land. The PDR program participants continue to own the land with a conservation
easement for preserving the land for long -term agricultural use.
A development right is an interest in the right to use and subdivide land for
any and all residential, commercial, and industrial purposes and activities that are
not incidental to agriculture and open space.
There are many benefits to doing this. There is $250 million in annual sales
in Whatcom County. They are rated well in the country. Whatcom County is
ranked 12th nationally for dairies. They are the largest producer in the west and
ranked 95th in the country for counties with agricultural commodities. They also
produce 50 percent of the raspberry crops.
Population growth has been an issue for them in dealing with agricultural
needs in the county. Competition for land threatens to convert much of the
agricultural properties. Growth has been high over the last 25 years. Reports show
that 10,000 acres went out of production from 1992 to 1997. There are increasing
nuisance complaints from people moving into agricultural areas.
Farmland keeps taxes low. Studies show that farms require fewer services
because there are more acres with fewer people. Farms receive about $.37 per $1
paid in taxes. Residential uses require $1.15 in services per $1 paid in taxes.
Farmland is a net gain for local governments. Farmland provides other benefits
also. Habitat is important. Endangered Species Act (ESA) issues require that they
address habitat issues. Benefits include local food availability, security for land
available for food production, open space, rural character, and resource
management.
The local match for the PDR program would come from the conservation
futures fund, which identified agricultural lands among the lands to be purchased
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
with those funds. The Comprehensive Plan requires a strategy to protect
agriculture. This would be one element of that strategy. An action plan developed
by a farm futures task force advocated for the development of a PDR program. The
Whatcom County Agricultural Advisory Committee identified this as their number
one priority. A lot of local farm groups and farmers support developing this
program.
Last year, the County Council approved a resolution that directed
expenditures to be provided from the conservation futures fund, a steering
committee to be created to develop a proposed PDR program, and that adequate
staffing and funding be provided to assist in the preparation of that program. Staff
provided the product to the Council. The committee, which was made up of a
group of local citizens, farmers, and conservation organizations, produced a product
in April. Staff presented it to the Council in June. The Council then directed the
staff to develop an ordinance. The conservation easement is a key component of
the program.
They also have a guidelines document, which would be adopted through a
resolution. The reason they have two documents is because the ordinance
authorizes the establishment of the program and sets up the general nature of the
program. The guidelines provide procedural requirements of how they are going to
do the program. Changes to the guidelines will be done less formally, but still
reviewed by the County Council. They will occur more frequently as they do the
first couple of rounds.
This program is one of several items that the PDR committee brought to the
Council's attention. A key component of the program is that it is voluntary.
Potential sellers participate in an open application round. A PDR oversight
committee will rank the properties and make recommendations to Council for
purchases. The County will make a final offer. If the offer is not acceptable, the
seller may withdraw. It is totally voluntary.
As proposed, the program is based on partnering. The Whatcom Land Trust
will provide negotiating and ongoing monitoring of the easements. The program
rates parcels against a series of criteria and uses target areas to establish program
eligibility. The committee determined that targeting areas is the best method to
use the limited available funds. The remaining items they need to address, if this is
approved, include a third -party contract with the Whatcom Land Trust. The
Planning and Development Services (PDS) Department is listed as the
implementing agency. Funds for the program and implementation need to be
added for PDS to carry out this program.
Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
John Robinson, Birch Bay Lynden Road, stated he lives across the street from
a raspberry farm. He enjoys living in the pastoral setting. They cannot put a price
on this type of setting. He doesn't agree with the Lynden Mayor. It's not a matter
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, Page 25
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1 of development versus agriculture. It's a matter of keeping what they have, which
2 is priceless. They need to put reasonable limits on growth. There has to be some
3 limits on cities' growth. Growing to the east and a little bit to the west can happen,
4 rather than south or north. Farmland is irreplaceable. There is only so much
5 farmland, and once it's not there, it's not there. People cannot eat houses. They
6 only have so much land to support agricultural. He supports this ordinance.
7
8 Roger Van Dyken, 145 E. Cedar, Lynden, stated he is a member of the
9 County's Agricultural Advisory Committee. He has worked on this issue for 30
10 years. During that time, he's witnessed the constant erosion of the farmland base.
11 He has seen tens of thousands of acres lost locally, which is just about a quarter of
12 their agricultural land base. Whatcom County is on an agricultural goldmine. It has
13 shaped the nature and heritage of the communities, the character of the people,
14 and the way of life that they have. Many other communities around the nation
15 have enjoyed that same way of life. However, the pressures of land prices in the
16 market place cannot sustain agriculture. Communities have recognized the need to
17 protect agricultural land. Unfortunately, it has been mostly unsuccessful. Zoning is
18 not enough to prevent erosion of farmland. They must draw a line in the soil so
19 they don't become like Orange County or the Green River Valley.
20
21 Percy Hoekema, 7448 Emerson Road, Everson, stated that if his purchased
22 rights were purchased from him, he would sell his place tomorrow and move away.
23 He asked the kind of opportunity they are giving the children. Children won't have
24 an opportunity to do anything but invest money. They are limiting the value of land
25 to what they can produce on it. Whatcom County's number one function has been
26 and will be dairy. The economics of scale for dairies will continue to get bigger.
27 They have to work harder today just to make a living. He can't get a water right
28 for the land. The bureaucracies won't go away unless they can make an
29 opportunity to buy out all the property rights in the entire county, zone it
30 agriculture, and raise it for posterity. Come up with a better proposal that has to
31 have more financing so they can protect the future.
32
33 Randy Kortus, 450 West Main Street, Lynden, stated he has a dairy farm.
34 Even though this program is voluntary, it is very targeted. It is difficult for him
35 since the city limits is less than a half -mile away. On the other side of him, they
36 have allowed a lot of development. It becomes difficult when his neighbor sells his
37 land for $100,000 per acre. The County will not be able to reach that amount to
38 offer to purchase that land. He asked if the councilmembers believe that the future
39 leaders won't be able to make decisions on zoning restrictions and changes to
40 maintain a viable agricultural community.
41
42 Henry Bierlink, 9713 Double Ditch Road, stated he has been a proponent for
43 this for many years. Adopt the ordinance and let them try it out the way it is
44 drafted by the committee. The draft allows for making adjustments as needed.
45 This needs to be done to protect farmland. There is not enough public money to
46 make a difference, but this sets a tone for a transfer of development right program
47 that lets a market take care of this so they don't rely on public dollars. He urged
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, Page 26
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 Council to move onward, try it, and make adjustments if needed. He is more
2 interested in the program itself than exactly where those boundaries are. They are
3 going to have to draw those boundaries somewhere and at some time. Don't think
4 of agriculture as a holding patter for development, or else they won't have
5 agriculture. Think of the agricultural zone as another city or industrial area. Do
6 this now so they can apply for federal money.
7
8 Lyle Rader, Rader Farms, 1270 East Badger Road, stated he used to be from
9 Pierce County, where they went through this urban pressure. They mean well by
10 trying to buy development rights, but they are not facing the issue of what is
it causing the demise of agriculture, which is economics. It's not the land.
12
13 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B.)
14
15 Rader continued to state that the article said the County bought the
16 development rights. They were transferred in later years to environmental groups,
17 which told the farmers how to farm. Most of the farmers aren't farming anymore.
18 The environmental groups have made it impractical to farm. These kinds of
19 restrictions, such as the ones in the packet, made it impractical to farm in later
20 years. He and his wife farm 300 acres north of Lynden. They are in the target area
21 north of the Lynden city limits. He has no intention of developing. He wants to
22 farm as long as it is economically viable. He asked what they are going to do with
23 the land, if they can't make a living off of it, when it is no longer economically
24 viable. They have to have an option. Agriculture is capital- intensive, which means
25 the farmer has to borrow money all the time to operate. They can borrow off the
26 land. If the farmer sells the development rights today, the land would not
27 appreciate anymore. The value would be based on agricultural use, not other
28 surrounding things that force the value higher. The minimum wage is now indexed
29 to inflation. Land is indexed to inflation. If the rights were sold, the land would not
30 index to inflation. The value would be frozen. His ability to borrow money in the
31 future to operate the farm is inhibited.
32
33 Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, stated he hoped they are doing the right
34 thing. The most significant fact they've heard tonight is that a farmer pays out $1
35 in taxes, and uses $.38 in services. This is not the fault of inefficient government.
36 The farmer is taking care of himself, his family, and the rest of us. Houses on five -
37 acre lots are not farms, but they demand services. These are the things that are
38 driving up the costs for farmers. For some reason, other countries can grow the
39 cities densely and preserve farmland. He doesn't know why they can't do it here.
40
41 Jack Louws, City of Lynden Mayor, 323 Front Street, submitted (on file) and
42 read a letter into the record. The City of Lynden is concerned to preserve the
43 agricultural economy in Whatcom County. The City of Lynden is opposed to the
44 PDR proposal as presented and questions whether the purposes will be
45 accomplished, while complimenting the State - mandated goals of the Growth
46 Management Act. They are concerned with targeted areas around Lynden's urban
47 growth area, and the impact they would have on Lynden's future growth. He
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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.
suggested alternate courses of action. The City wants to work with the County to
find a balance of growth and protection.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated he is concerned about turning the
administration of the program over to the Land Trust. This has caused problems in
how farmers can manage the lands they've turned over to the control of these
trusts. If they can't make it economically viable for the farmers to stay in business,
there will be other problems.
Jake Frizen, 1501 Lilac Court, Lynden, Lynden Airport Long -Range Planning
Committee, stated his committee is concerned about the proposed PDR program.
His committee agrees with Mayor Louws and the Lynden City Council. Immediate
concerns are for the west side of Benson Road. It is the only open avenue for the
future development and safety zone for the airport. The airport is surrounded in
the other three directions by homes and commercial buildings. They need to keep
land open for the airport expansion.
Colleen Evans, 1501 Camellia Court, stated cutting off development to the
north and west restricts development of Lynden to the east and south. If they
extend it to the south, they get into the flood plain of the Nooksack River. That will
put tremendous pressure to develop the land to the west of Guide Meridian, which
is also protected farmland. It is the only area that is within reasonable access to
services. It also borders the Lynden airport. She's concerned about development
there for the safety issue. This proposal will greatly increase the land value for
development in this area. That gives a windfall gain to anyone who is already
holding that land, at the expense of people who have already heavily invested in
the airport.
Dorrie Belisle, 231 Ten Mile Road, stated many of the councilmembers
attended the Farm Friends reception last month. She heard many people say that
they support the agricultural community and the agricultural industry in Whatcom
County. Do something about it. The PDR program is a tool. They can discuss
boundaries. What several people have said makes a lot of sense, but it's a tool
they can use now. She knows of farmers who would like to participate, so their
farms can stay farms. She knows farmers who would like to purchase farmland at
farmland prices, instead of at speculative development prices. Get going on this.
Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated this is an important issue. Every one
of the councilmembers cares about agriculture in Whatcom County. They still have
decided the best way to protect their agricultural land and industry. That is what
they are here to try and do. They are here to work collectively with the community
that they serve. The City of Lynden has a valid request. They want to work more
closely with the County. This measure will have a significant impact on that city.
He asked the Council to consider making an amendment to remove target areas 9,
10, 11, and 12 for the first round, and to work with the City of Lynden and the
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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
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.
agriculture community on this. There is no other city in Whatcom County that is
more dependent on agriculture than the City of Lynden.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if these are the areas that Councilmember McShane
spoke about earlier today.
McShane stated Mr. Kremen is talking about a bigger area than he
mentioned.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that if the Council removes those areas, it is with
the intent of working with the City of Lynden to address where their vision is for
their community. Kremen stated that is correct. Keep in mind the Growth
Management Act. As the State approved that measure, it had significant impacts to
all counties in Washington State. They can learn from what the State legislature
did.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Executive would be dedicating staff to work
with the City of Lynden to address this issue. Kremen stated they won't dedicating
additional staff. He understands they are going to hire one more person for the
PDR program. They also would be well served by incorporating the PDR program to
work in conjunction with the transfer of development rights (TDR) program, which
they will have a meeting on later this week.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how many acres this area is.
McShane stated the proposed area to be removed is eight square miles.
Olason stated the City of Lynden would basically not be considered in the
first round at all.
Nelson asked if the resolution has to be done tonight. There are significant
issues addressed during the committee meetings. He'd like to get more information
on secondary transfers. Olason stated the ordinance defers to the guidelines. They
can adopt the ordinance tonight, have a further study session to adopt the
guidelines.
Nelson stated that is what he preferred to do. He'd rather not spend a lot of
time on the resolution now.
Fleetwood asked if eligibility, for the purpose of grant writing, only requires
the ordinance. Olason stated they need a program in place, and they need offers in
place. In order to determine the offers, they need the guidelines to guide the
oversight committee and the administrator. A reasonable timeline would be to
discuss some of the issues outside of the Lynden issue, which may take months.
The first round will take until next spring. The goal is to have the Lynden issue
resolved before they take applications for round two. Through round one, they
want to make sure they have enough guidance as a committee and as an
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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.
administrator to make those offers and to have a deal in hand they can take
forward to get matching funds.
Crawford moved to approve of the ordinance. They are talking about
conservation futures fund dollars. He asked if there is any other money issue,
besides that. They are not talking about taking general fund dollars. This boils
down to an issue of how they want to spend conservation futures fund dollars. To
him, it is a matter of prioritizing the use of those dollars specifically.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the acquisition of development
rights could be a legitimate issue that can be dealt with from the conservation
futures fund. It can be used as matching money for federal funds. The issue they
talked about earlier is how to pay for the process and planning. There is an
administrative cost to this ordinance.
Crawford asked if they could use conservation futures fund dollars for
administration. Desler stated they want to try and explore all the ways they can
use the conservation futures fund. There are some tight limits on it. They want to
make sure they use the fund to the extent they can for the things that are
appropriate to acquire the property. If the issue is that they have to find general
fund money, the program will have to compete with a lot of other issues.
Nelson asked if there are limitations on the expenditure of federal matching
funds for this program.
Caskey- Schreiber stated federal funds typically allow for an administrator.
Olason stated he would have to check on it. He assumed the federal funds
would be a match to the funds for the actual offer.
Roy stated she is not sure she wants to support this ordinance if they are
going to strip it of the entire point of doing it, which is to have a critical mass of
land. They are talking about removing eight square miles from consideration. It
may or may not come back into the program. Then they are left purchasing a
development right where they don't have a real program. The only way they have
a real program is to have a critical mass of land. If they start messing around with
removing areas from consideration, she can't support it. It's not the same
program.
Brenner stated she liked the idea of working with Lynden to develop better
areas. They still have a lot of critical mass available. To not support this all
because of a delay on the Lynden issue, it would hurt the County's chances for
getting federal money. She wants to make sure they can get some matching
dollars.
Roy asked why they can't approve it and work with Lynden after the fact.
There has been no negotiation. People in the community worked very hard to
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
develop this plan. If that becomes part of the resolution, she can't support the
ordinance.
Crawford stated this discussion is centered around the guidelines, which is in
the resolution. All he moved approval on is the ordinance itself. He doesn't think
there is any harm in establishing the program. They are not going to spend a
penny or give any direction other than a program now exists. After that, they can
move into a discussion on the guidelines. He agrees that they need a couple of
more weeks to deal with the Lynden issue.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council could approve the ordinance, the PDR
oversight committee can work with Lynden to refine the target area, and the PDR
committee could then bring it back to the Council. The Council can move forward
with the ordinance, and not include Lynden in the first round. Olason stated a
number of parcels are outside of this area. He understood that they would try to
come up with something that is acceptable to the City. If the Council wants
additional constraints on how far they will go, it's fine. For the purpose of this, the
idea was to say that the City has legitimate concerns, and the County will work with
the City because there are plenty of other properties to buy in other target areas
for round one.
Roy stated she is uncomfortable with pinpointing specific parcels and
removing them. That should be up to the oversight committee working with
Lynden. The Council should not do that tonight. The oversight committee and City
of Lynden need to do that.
Brenner asked if Mr. Desler believes they will be able to use conservation
futures funds for limited administrative expenses. Desler stated he thinks so. The
administration will check it out.
Motion carried unanimously.
1A. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY'S AGRICULTURAL
PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (PDR) PROGRAM GUIDELINES
(AB2002 -337)
Roy stated the committee recommends the resolution without appendix B.
She so moved.
McShane moved to amend the resolution to remove from the first round:
• Township 39N, Range 1W, Section 13, which is the south half of area
10, west of the Guide Meridian, and;
• Township 40N, Range 1E, Sections 8, 9 and 10, which are the areas to
the north of the current Lynden city limits, across the Badger Road.
Those areas are currently zoned agriculture. There is no immediate threat to
create this as an urban growth area. Ultimately, it's an area where they might be
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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 able to take advantage of Lynden's desire to grow, and it would be included in a
2 Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. The properties located in that area
3 would have a purchase or transfer of development rights so they can protect
4 agricultural land elsewhere, instead of receiving a windfall profit when they are
5 converted from agriculture to urban densities. Agricultural lands elsewhere could
6 be protected in areas where there is not a city that is trying to grow. They could
7 take advantage of Lynden's desire to grow in that manner. They shouldn't drop the
8 entire area around Lynden.
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
Roy suggested dropping those areas for the first round. Her concern is that
she would like to give the committee that has worked on this the opportunity to
work with the City of Lynden. There has been a lot of people in the community
working on this. Lynden should have been included. Now, they have a chance to
include Lynden. She hates to predict what they are going to decide ahead of time.
She would like to give Lynden that option. She asked if the amendment is to keep
these areas out of the first round only.
McShane stated that is correct.
Roy stated she is not wedded to any of the target areas. Her concern is
about the process. People have worked very hard on this. She is uncomfortable
arbitrarily deciding to change all the work they did. The City of Lynden should have
a chance to work with this group to come up with something. She's not sure the
County Council should do that.
Nelson stated he has been raising concerns that have not been legitimately
answered. His concerns are about making sure they have adequate protection to
actually enhance agriculture instead of just creating open space. Those concerns
still have to be resolved. He'd like to delve into the legitimate issues that have
been brought forward, specifically the actual impacts of purchased development
rights and reducing the capability of future farmers to get loans. He cannot support
this resolution without getting this work done. A significant issue was raised about
providing assurance to the public that the Council will provide a mechanism to
preserve these areas. They should create something that they won't have to revisit
later. He moved to refer this to committee to allow time to get an adequate
document that the Council and the community agrees with, which addresses the
issues.
Brenner asked that the motion be held so they can have discussion.
Nelson held his motion.
Brenner asked what it means to the farmer if an environmental organization
administers this program. She asked if the farmers may be told how to farm.
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated that when U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) funds, the USDA requires a farm plan. The Natural Resource
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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
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.
Conservation Service, which works with farmers all the time, draws up a farm plan.
The other conditions of the easement would spell out what else the farmer could
do. At some point in the future, there may be a potential for people to argue over
definitions in the conservation easements. When they talk about conservation
easements, they can discuss that issue further and decide how much detail they
want. The testimony received tonight helped flush out how this will affect people.
Fleetwood stated he is not going to support the motion to refer this to
committee. They can leave tonight with an ordinance and guidelines in place. They
can have a PDR program. Whether the Council tweaks it by extending the
boundary along Badger Road, it is window dressing. There is not going to be
pressure that will require that kind of relief in the next year anyway. However, if
that's what it will take to pass it tonight, then he will support it. They need to pass
the full program this evening. They have the power to tweak it later.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she agreed with Councilmembers Fleetwood and
Roy. The PDR Committee worked very hard on this. They've all heard the
testimony that this is a living document, which will change as they go through the
first round. The PDR Committee would be an excellent group to work with the City
of Lynden. She's received information from Lynden residents who feel differently
than Mayor Louws. The community of Lynden might need to go through its own
process to determine its vision for growth and work with the PDR Committee. In
the meantime, get the program going and don't holdup everyone else who wants to
use it. The program is a tool for the County to use if it is serious about committing
to agriculture in this county. It's a $225 million industry. If the County doesn't
start helping the industry out, it will disappear during this lifetime.
Nelson stated that would be making a mistake. The issues pending are
larger than things that need tweaking. The pending issues will impact them in the
future. He restated his motion to refer to the Natural Resources Committee.
Motion to refer to committee failed 3 -4 with Nelson, Crawford, and Brenner
in favor.
McShane restated his motion to amend the map by removing areas for the
first round.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape 3, side A.)
Motion to amend carried 5 -2 with Roy and Caskey- Schreiber opposed.
Motion to approve the resolution as amended carried 5 -2 with Crawford and
Nelson opposed.
Nelson stated the ordinance they adopted tonight regarding the purchase of
development rights included the substitute exhibit that was distributed that day
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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.
during Natural Resources Committee. The substitute ordinance corrected several
scrivener's errors.
The Council concurred.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.83.070, LOT
CONSOLIDATION (AB2002 -282)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated
this ordinance would amend the lot consolidation rules for Whatcom County to allow
those areas in the Bellingham urban growth area (UGA) and Lake Whatcom
watershed to apply for lot consolidation relief. It applies to areas that were recently
downzoned if they have public water and sewer. One of the conditions of lot
consolidation relief is that the property owner also has a site that is at least 40 -feet
by 40 -feet and is not in a critical area. It would exclude the areas with steep slopes
and wetlands from lot consolidation relief. Lot consolidation relief is an
administrative process. A property owner has to meet the other criteria of the lot
consolidation relief. The purpose of this is intended to allow certain areas, which
are within Water District 10's sewer area and need to decide on sewer, to know
how many lots for which they need sewer. The sewer will be in by November. The
staff recommendation is for approval. By the end of the year, staff will provide final
zoning recommendations for those areas.
Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Renee Roberts, 1005 Lakewood Lane, stated she supports the ordinance.
She is unintentionally adversely impacted. She purchased her property in 1988. It
totals 1.25 acres, with one house on it. She purchased an adjoining parcel three
years later as an investment opportunity or a place to put her aging parents. It is a
half -acre lot. She would like to keep that opportunity available.
A neighbor purchased his house more than 30 years ago. He also purchased
an adjoining half -acre to hold as an investment property for retirement purposes.
Support the amendment. Return the properties to their previous status. She and
her neighbor have been paying taxes on the properties all along. They are now
being asked to make decisions about purchasing water and sewer rights from Water
District 10.
Rich Emerson, Building Industry Association (BIA), stated councilmembers,
planning staff, and members of the BIA met a number of months ago. At that time,
they agreed on the changes to the ordinance. He read the language from section
20.83.072(2) that they had agreed on.
McShane stated that language was a draft he wrote. It has since been
changed based on a better, cleaner approach that staff came up with. It is more in
keeping with what they spoke about. The goal hasn't changed.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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.
Emerson stated the draft he has specified the urban growth area within the
Lake Whatcom watershed. In the proposed ordinance, the language specifies the
Bellingham urban growth area within the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Nelson stated it is the same thing.
Crawford stated Bellingham's is the only urban growth area in the watershed.
Brenner stated Sudden Valley has a provisional urban growth area.
McShane stated the lots in Sudden Valley were created after 1955, so lot
consolidation doesn't apply to them anyway.
Scott Wesley, 3206 Eagle Ridge Way, asked the Council to adopt the
ordinance. He has property in Geneva that was affected by the recent downzone.
The property is just shy of an acre. The zone is urban residential, three units per
acre (UR -3) with public water and sewer. Without public water and sewer, the zone
is rural, one unit per five acres (R5A). He has water. The sewer is in the road.
The roads are there. All the services are there. The lot has been cleared. The only
thing preventing him from getting sewer was the moratorium and capacity issues.
He bought the lot in 1998, and was on a sewer waiting list. An adjoining neighbor
built out his property with three houses with the sewer permits being awarded to
him from the sewer waiting list. He had a reasonable expectation of getting sewer
permits and having the ability to build. Shortly after that, the sewer list was done
away with, and 500 permits were sectioned off for Sudden Valley. Any excess ones
were to be given to people in Geneva who were on the sewer waiting list.
Shortly after that was put into place, it was eliminated. Then it was a
question of waiting for the second sewer line, which was held up due to multiple
lawsuits. With the sewer line being planned and the lawsuits being done, he got a
land clearing permit in October. He cleared the land with the expectation that
sewer would be in later this year, he would get his UR -3 zone, and he could build
the three houses on his property. The rezone came in the meantime. He spoke to
Councilmember McShane and Hal Hart. Councilmember McShane's intention on the
rezone was to avoid properties like his because it was spot downzoning. All the lots
around him are already developed at 12,000 square feet per lot densities. He is an
island of land that is in a developed neighborhood.
He asked the Council to adopt the ordinance to provide lot consolidation
relief. In his case, he was spot - downzoned. It would be simple to create criteria to
accept his property because of the sewer waiting list clearing and because he has
all services in place already. Nothing has to be extended to him.
Ginger Essex, 1540 Franklin Street, asked the Council to support the
ordinance. Her client is Mr. Wesley. Mr. Wesley put in the water and sewer lines to
his property in 1994. At that time, he was required to also put in phase II by Water
District 10. Sewer and water are installed to the sites.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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
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.
Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
McShane moved approval of the ordinance.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend Council packet page 277, section
20.83.072(5), "...if the site is serviced by public water and sewer, not by onsite
water and sewage disposal systems; provided that...." Someone cannot put in a
septic system and get it. The property owner has to have public water and sewer.
The Council recently ruled on something because language wasn't specific that
something wasn't allowed. The language here does not say that septic won't work.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the language in the other
case that they recently ruled on included the term "including, but not limited to...."
That language means that a list of items can be expanded.
Brenner stated she needs assurance that another septic system won't be
added to the watershed because of this. Grant stated they are okay.
Motion to amend fails 3 -4 with Roy, McShane, and Caskey- Schreiber in favor.
Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
McShane stated they've dealt with a lot of impatient people in the last
month. He commended Mr. Wesley for staying calm, rational, and helpful despite
the fact that some things he did really messed up Mr. Wesley's life.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2002 WHATCOM COUNTY UNIFIED FEE
SCHEDULE (AB2002 -298)
Nelson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
hearing.
Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend Unified Fee Schedule line item number
2777, Land Disturbance Application, to amend the proposed fee from $20 to $50.
Brenner stated staff will come forward with a recommended increased fee.
The Council should let the Planning staff recommend a fee.
Crawford stated the Council can't be arbitrary.
Caskey- Schreiber withdrew her motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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.
OTHER ITEMS (COUNCIL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN)
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2002 BUDGET, 9T" REQUEST (AB2002-
311)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford moved that the administration bring forward the documentation
from the Law and Justice Committee evaluation of the law and justice projects.
Administration indicated they could bring that evaluation forward in two or four
weeks.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON THE ADDRESS & ROAD NAME
CITIZEN APPEALS COMMITTEE, APPLICANT, ELAINE SENN (AB2002-
316)
Brenner moved to appoint Elaine Senn.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON THE OPEN SPACE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, APPLICANT, CLAYTON WRAY (AB2002 -317)
Roy moved to appoint Clayton Wray.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. APPOINTMENT OF RANDY J. PRESTON TO THE SALMON HABITAT
RESTORATION CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2002 -331)
Brenner moved to confirm the Executive's appointment.
Motion carried unanimously.
5. APPOINTMENTS OF DONALD P. AUPPERLEE, DVM AND JOANN
TIMMERMAN HOLLSTEIN, DVM FOR THE TWO LOCAL VETERINARIAN
OPENINGS AND SYLVIA THORPE AND BUNNY SCHNEIDER FOR THE
TWO CITIZEN OPENINGS ON THE ANIMAL CONTROL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE (AB2002 -332)
Brenner moved to confirm the Executive's appointments.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. RESOLUTION REGARDING REDUCING MERCURY IN OUR
ENVIRONMENT (AB2002 -333)
Brenner moved approval.
McShane thanked Councilmember Nelson for bringing this forward. He asked
for background on why Councilmember Nelson brought this item forward. He is
interested in exploring going beyond this resolution.
Nelson stated the resolution shows the Council's intent to support whatever
endeavor necessary to alleviate concerns of the citizens regarding mercury
contamination. The County must separate fact from fiction and work in conjunction
with many health care providers to reduce risk in the community. The Public Health
Advisory Board recognized this as an issue to evaluate.
McShane stated the Solid Waste Advisory Committee has had some
discussions about mercury. There have been communities around the country that
have banned mercury products. It has to be done carefully.
Motion carried unanimously.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Caskey- Schreiber moved to accept the Introduction Items.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2002 BUDGET, 10TH REQUEST (AB2002-
334)
2. RECEIPT OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER'S
RECOMMENDATION ON A SITE SPECIFIC REZONE OF A 36.2 ACRE
PARCEL OF LAND INTO A SHORT TERM PLANNING AREA, AND THE
PRELIMINARY LONG SUBDIVISION, " "BAY CREST LONG PLAT ", FOR
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF 131 SINGLE - FAMILY LOTS
(AB2002 -335)
OTHER BUSINESS
Brenner stated she received calls from Lummi Island residents regarding
vandalism to cars out there. They need another security guard out there. They are
one guard short to have security all the time.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, explained that Executive Kremen has
asked that a second guard be instituted, at least for a short -term. There was a
series of vandalism issues to the cars out there. The community is upset. They are
trying actively to reconcile coordination issues between Lummi Law and Order, the
Sheriff's Office, and the security service.
Brenner stated there is an issue with logging above Glenhaven. She asked
about the Council's authority regarding the logging. A State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) representative stated in the Bellingham Herald that the County
Council has some authority. She doesn't think the Council has authority.
Fleetwood stated that was a misquote. The County doesn't have jurisdiction.
Brenner stated the DNR quote in the Bellingham Herald says the County has
authority to deal with protecting those people.
Fleetwood stated she was making a reference to zoning. The DNR
representative is correct that the County zoned it forestry years ago.
Brenner stated the article went beyond just zoning. It looked like DNR was
passing the buck.
Nelson stated he talked to DNR. It has clearly gone through all the DNR
processes. There may have been questions regarding the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) review process.
Brenner stated that if the County doesn't have authority, the Council should
make the statement that it does not have authority.
McShane stated the issue is that DNR notifies local governments. It's
possible that the level of concern could have been raised higher by someone in the
County government, but they probably had a fair amount of trust in DNR's review
of the project. He doesn't know whether or not that was appropriate. The Council
would have to have a broader discussion about whether or not it wants to fund a
position to look very carefully at every proposed timber harvest in the county.
Brenner moved to have the Council make a statement regarding the County's
authority over the logging in the Glenhaven.
Kremen stated the people do know that they have to go to DNR. He went to
a meeting two weeks ago. There was general cognizance that DNR is the authority.
The residents invited the DNR to the meeting to explain why the DNR wasn't
receptive to the residents' complaints.
Brenner asked if the DNR is saying that it is the County's jurisdiction.
Kremen stated the DNR is not saying that.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, 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
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 anyone there knows what the risk really is there. Kremen
stated the judge said there is not enough evidence.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
There were no reports.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on October 8, 2002.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2002, Page 40