HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil April 3 20011 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Regular County Council
3
4 April 3, 2001
5
6 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Vice -Chair Sam
7 Crawford in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Also Present: Absent:
10 Dan McShane L. Ward Nelson
11 Connie Hoag
12 Barbara Brenner
13 Marlene Dawson
14 Robert Imhof
15
16
17 ANNOUNCEMENTS
18
19 Crawford announced that there was discussion with Senior Deputy
20 Prosecutor Dave Grant regarding potential litigation (AB2001 -018) and
21 discussion with Senior Deputy Prosecutor Dan Gibson regarding pending
22 litigation (AB2001 -018) in executive session during the Committee of the Whole
23 meeting.
24
25
26 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
27
28 COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MARCH 6, 2001; COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
29 FOR MARCH 20, 2001
30
31 Imhof moved to approve.
32
33 Motion carried unanimously.
34
35
36 OPEN SESSION
37
38 The following people spoke:
39
40 Maggie Hanson, Bayside Place, stated she owns her home at 399 E. Smith
41 Road, which is the house she was raised in. She rents it out. The current renters
42 have lived there for 15 years. Her septic tank is inadequate, but has worked for
43 over 70 years. The Health Department does not allow enough time for a
44 homeowner to get an engineer and install a new tank. They want a septic tank that
45 is required for a house much larger than hers. People need time to finance the
46 cost. It is awful that the County, on an anonymous complaint, would require
47 replacement. There is no odor. Her renters are responsible for taking care of the
48 tank, and they failed to do that recently. She asked the Council to work with the
Regular County Council, 4/3/2001, Page 1
1 Health Department. Review the regulations on septic tanks. There should be some
2 differences if they are grandfathered in.
3
4 Kathy Cleveland, 4961 Morgan Drive, spoke regarding the Birch Bay Short -
5 Term Planning Area. Birch Bay residents are involved in developing a development
6 plan. She asked the Council to not approve the changes to the urban growth area
7 until the citizens are done with the planning process, which should be at the end of
8 the summer.
9
10 In 1990, when the state passed the Growth Management Act (GMA), the
11 state recognized that unplanned growth poses a threat to environmental
12 sustainable economic development, health, safety, and quality of life. This
13 proposed rezone is unplanned growth. Allowing this unmanaged growth will create
14 safety and traffic issues. The roads can't handle continuous unchecked
15 development. Rezones must have a substantial relationship to the public interest.
16 This rezone does not have that relationship. Their meetings in Birch Bay are trying
17 to determine the public interest in Birch Bay.
18
19 Bernice Brannon, 4145 Petos Avenue, Ferndale, stated the Lummi Tribe
20 doesn't go to the County when it affects county citizens, but it expects the County
21 to go to the Tribe when something affects the tribal citizens. That is not right.
22 They don't keep their agreements. They didn't comply with their agreement on
23 Portage Island or Bellingham water. They didn't keep to their agreement regarding
24 land use. Residents still get notices that say they have to abide by Tribal land use
25 regulations. The County will not tell the Tribe that the County has jurisdiction over
26 the County citizens, which violates her rights as a citizen. The County can't afford
27 to lose control of the water to a government that doesn't keep agreements and that
28 discriminates. Don't go to the Tribe to ask to send letters. Either agree with the
29 residents' position or not. Let the Tribe walk out of negotiations. They will be back.
30 Don't be intimidated.
31
32 Bob Ranken, 3954 Salt Spring Drive, Ferndale, stated he was saddened and
33 shocked by the actions of Lummi Indian Business Council regarding the County
34 Council's request for information from the Department of the Interior. Resolve
35 issues with open and honest communications. Their walking out is the action of a
36 child.
37
38 Ron Larson, 4023 Mayne Lane, Sandy Point, Ferndale, stated he purchased
39 his property in 1966. When he bought his property, he had a 99 -year lease on the
40 tidelands. Then he learned that the price is renegotiable every five years. It cost
41 $2,000 per year for the tidelands. Now the Tribe is asking for $2 million per year.
42 There have been no improvements to those tidelands in 35 years. He asked how
43 they justify going from $2,000 to $2 million. He doesn't have anyone but the
44 County Council to fight for him. The Tribe has people who lobby in Washington
45 D.C. The head of the state Department of Ecology used to represent Indian tribes,
46 so he won't provide much help. He asked for the Council's help.
47
48 Shane Ramsey, 3981 Salt Spring Drive, Ferndale, spoke on behalf of 3,000
49 residents who control 5,000 acres of fee simple land on the original boundaries.
Regular County Council, 4/3/2001, Page 2
They are a large taxpaying group in the County. They don't see this as being a
dispute between the Lummi Tribe and some individuals in Sandy Point. It is a
foreign government in which they have no say and which is attempting to override
the zoning and other regulations. It is a government that defies the acts of
congress, state regulations, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations,
and Supreme Court rulings. They have implemented a utility tax for all people,
including those on fee simple land. They are not supposed to tax people on fee
simple land. They use intimidation and extortion. They are immune to the
consequences of their own action. The County is uncertain of its own jurisdiction,
and won't stand up for the citizens.
Jim Coble, 3918 Salt Spring Drive, Ferndale, stated the County Council voted
to inform the federal government regarding wellhead and bulkhead issues. A few
days later, the Council voted to hold those letters because the Lummi Tribe walked
out on salmon issues. The citizens of the county pay the County Council. The
tribes are not paying anything, but they are demanding. The Council has a legal
and a moral responsibility and obligation to represent and protect the citizens of
this county. He expected the Council to do that. He was furious when he heard
that the Council had held the information. Quit being threatened by the Tribe.
Claudia Hollod, 927 Key Street, Bellingham, stated she also has property in
Birch Bay. She is a member of the Birch Bay Planning Steering Committee, the
water board, and the Coastal Zone Management Board. She would address the
Jackson rezone. The County has unresolved public beach issues. There is no
regular maintenance out there. They need real restrooms. There are unresolved
water and water rights issues between Birch Bay and Blaine. They don't know what
will happen with that. They need to in -fill the current short term planning area
first. There is no demonstrated need for more short -term planning area. It was
suggested that Blaine would build a line to Point Whitehorn, which would drain out
to Point Whitehorn if this was built. However, they are not sure that will work.
They are not sure that the state Department of Ecology or the Department if Fish
and Wildlife will approve it. There may not be enough flushing action at Point
Whitehorn to carry that load. They are creating a situation in which too many
people live too close together in Bellingham's Roosevelt neighborhood, but they
don't want to create that situation in Birch Bay. There is no guarantee that the
development will be used for affordable housing. An argument was made that it is
needed for coming workers, but Intalco may close. Growth Management
encourages people to work where they live. There is opposition from the
neighborhood. Property rights is an issue.
Bruce Phillips, 2171 Shallow Shore Lane, stated he is a member of the Lake
Samish Watershed Advisory Committee, which spent many months working on the
recommendations. They recommended a successful blending of property rights and
environmentalism. He urged the Council to adopt the recommendations, which
were approved by the Planning Commission. One reason the recommendations
should be approved is because Lake Samish is different than Lake Whatcom. They
have different needs and issues. Being zoned Forestry already protects an
overwhelming part of the watershed. The recommendations provide excellent
protection to the watershed without unnecessarily burdening either the residents or
Regular County Council, 4/3/2001, Page 3
1 County government. The Lake Whatcom watershed rules would harm property
2 owners in the Lake Samish watershed. They are very onerous. Ignoring the
3 committee recommendations sends a negative message about citizen involvement.
4
5 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, spoke on the Birch Bay urban
6 growth area. They can't force people to develop those in -fill lots until they are
7 ready. There are also a lot of wetland problems in the area. As they learned from
8 the power shortage, it is a fine line to find just enough without running out. He
9 would rather they err in favor of having too many lots. Regarding cottage industry,
10 hold off on it. Have an advisory committee to look over what is suggested.
11
12
13 PUBLIC HEARING
14
15 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
16 TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.38, AGRICULTURE PROTECTION OVERLAY, TO
17 ENHANCE THE APO COMPLIANCE WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
18 ACT, THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE
19 COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING POLICIES; TO CLARIFY; AND TO ENHANCE
20 PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURE LANDS (AB2000 -356)
21
22 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated
23 that there were a few changes the committee made. The first section clarified the
24 intent more clearly. Section 20.38.040, Definitions, conflicted with the lot
25 consolidation ordinance and was modified to be consistent. They added the list of
26 agricultural protection overlay (APO) soils into the ordinance. The agricultural soils
27 list was modified to remove the LaBounty soils that are usually poorly drained, and
28 the Whatcom Silt Loam.
29
30 There are criteria for which parcels are subject to the APO. At this point, all
31 of the following criteria have to be met: There must be 50 percent APO soils, less
32 than 50 percent is designated Agriculture /Open Space, and the parcel has to be 20
33 acres. The new section (3) provides an exemption if the property is surrounded by
34 smaller lots that make it less suitable for farming. The zoning in the language is
35 supposed to be two units per five acres, not one unit per two acres. That is what
36 the committee recommended. There is no such zoning as two units per five acres.
37
38 The next change clarifies where the lots will be placed on the cluster
39 subdivision. Some changes were made in subsection (7). Originally, the Planning
40 Commission recommended that structures in a cluster subdivision only had to be 50
41 feet from the property line, and the farmer would also have a 50 -foot buffer. The
42 committee recommended deleting subsection (10), and increased the a buffer back
43 to 100 feet. She urged the Council to also make that buffer change back to 100
44 feet in subsection (6) because the committee didn't do that. Otherwise, it would
45 put wells within 50 feet of a property line, and manure spreading could go right up
46 to the property line, which would likely contaminate the wells. If they are going to
47 reduce the no manure /no pesticide zone, then they also want to increase the well
48 setback.
49
Regular County Council, 4/3/2001, Page 4
1 Hoag stated the committee made that change.
2
3 Goodwin stated that subsection (10) requires a notification, which doesn't
4 have to have all of this stuff on the plat, but only that the parcel is subject to the
5 APO. The part that was removed in 20.38.080 was moved to a different section,
6 not eliminated.
7
8 McShane moved to accept the language on 20.38.050(3)(b) as it is written in
9 the packet. That would make it clear of what the committee intended. It is one
10 unit per two acres.
11
12 Hoag stated it is not the official action that the committee took.
13
14 Goodwin stated she heard discussion of eliminating the criteria that the
15 parcel not be subject to APO if it was designated Agriculture /Open Space. She can't
16 find a copy of the Comprehensive Plan, but there is language that talks about it. If
17 they want to discuss it, they should look at the Comprehensive Plan.
18
19 Crawford opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
20
21 Roger Almskaar, land use consultant, stated he attended the committee
22 meeting two weeks ago. He proposed a change for a scenario in which a person
23 with 80 acres, half of which are on steep slopes, is dragged into APO because it was
24 designated Agriculture /Open Space many years ago. He proposed three
25 amendments (on file). He asked the Council to adopt language to allow an owner
26 to take out some of the land from mandatory clustering. If the purpose is to
27 protect prime farmland, this situation would put 40 acres of steep hillside into an
28 agricultural reserve. Allow an owner to withdraw some of the land, but not all of
29 the land. Second, clarify the development standards, as suggested in his handout.
30 Third, if they comply with the law regarding septic drain field in the reserve tract,
31 there needs to be some flexibility as long as they work and are not damaged by
32 farming activities.
33
34 Lisa Starkenburg- Kroontje, 115 Front Street, stated there should be clarity
35 with what they are looking at for the benefit of those who are trying to use the
36 ordinance. Take a look at the Open Space /Agriculture tax criteria. Ms. Goodwin's
37 suggestion about referencing the Comprehensive Plan is a good one. Deal with
38 soils that exist, not actions of the landowner. If they are seeking to protect the
39 soils, then the actions of a landowner should not be an issue. Another issue is
40 regarding clarity of what is meant in section 20.38.060(3). She read that section.
41 It is not clear. She suggested new language (on file). What this does is set out
42 different parameters. They need to balance the real intent. In subsection (5), no
43 more than ten residential lots will be permitted in one cluster. Determine the
44 priority between subsections (2), (3), and (5).
45
46 Terry Unger, resident, stated he had many reservations, and didn't
47 understand it.
48
49 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Regular County Council, 4/3/2001, Page 5
1
2 Unger continued to state that he failed to see what in section
3 20.28.050(2)(b) has to do with the APO. If a farm is not a productive farm, he
4 didn't understand why that is a criteria.
5
6 There is one issue of the drain fields. If the drain fields fall on the better
7 ground, one cannot utilize the ground at all. Use a portion of the reserve tract for
8 the drain field.
9
10 The ten unit residential limit is also a problem. On an 80 -acre parcel in an
11 R5A zone, 16 units are allowed. It is only reasonable to look at a higher number of
12 units, such as 14.
13
14 One statement says that all potable wells in the cluster subdivision shall be
15 kept within a minimum of 100 feet from the property line. That is a Health
16 Department criterion. He questioned why it is in the zoning code. There is an
17 underlying notion that all these reserve tracts are definitely going to be intensively
18 and completely farmed. That is an erroneous observation. Many of these tracts
19 will never be farmed. Even though there are agricultural soils, they will not be
20 farmed. To make the assumption that they will be intensively farmed is not
21 accurate.
22
23 Don Kehrer, planning consultant, submitted information (on file). Because of
24 the tax classification history, the Shuksan Golf Course property is subject to APO
25 classification. The agricultural soils comprise well less than 50 percent of the soils
26 on the property. The site is no longer suitable for agriculture, and will never be
27 used for agriculture in the future. Criterion (2)(b) places this property in the APO,
28 and is based solely on prior tax status. They need a better method of determining
29 long -term agricultural suitability. They should not apply criteria retroactively. A
30 landowner could not have known five years ago that his decision would result in
31 more restrictions now. Other properties may have the exact same characteristics,
32 but were not designated Agriculture /Open Space. Remove the 50 percent
33 requirement, or allow people who don't want to be in the APO to get out.
34
35 Hearing no one else, Crawford closed the public hearing.
36
37 McShane stated the ordinance came out of committee as recommended. He
38 moved approval.
39
40 McShane moved to accept language in 20.38.050(3)(b), Applicability, to be
41 exactly as written in the Council packet. The committee recommended wording
42 that was different, but this reflects the committee's intent.
43
44 Motion to amend carried 5 -1 with Crawford opposed.
45
46 McShane moved to amend 20.38.050(2)(a), ...industrial districts: of and..."
47
48 Brenner stated the tax designation should not have anything to do with
49 whether or not the property is in the APO. People have farmed areas that don't
Regular County Council, 4/3/2001, Page 6
1 have great soils, but the way they used their property qualified them for the
2 Agriculture /Open Space designation. She would not support this motion because
3 she did not approve of subsection .050(2)(b).
4
5 (Clerk's Note: This motion was not voted on.)
6
7 Dawson moved to strike section 20.38.050(2)(b).
8
9 Hoag stated the purpose of this section is to maintain and enhance
10 commercial agricultural activity, and further protect open spaces in Whatcom
11 County. The changes are to help better protect agriculture. Section 20.38.080 is
12 the previous criteria. Staff said it was difficult to determine whether or not the
13 property was used for commercial farming activity, and that it was easier to look at
14 whether or not the property had been designated Agriculture /Open Space. If the
15 Council votes to strike subsection .050(2)(b), then reinsert the old subsection
16 .080(1)(c). There are farmed soils that are great, but are not prime soils. They
17 are to protect the land base. They don't have to have prime soils to graze milk
18 cows, but they have to have enough acreage in the County.
19
20 Brenner stated that if they don't give flexibility to the farmers, they would
21 lose them anyway. She didn't support either of those sections.
22
23 McShane stated the Council, at the time it adopted this ordinance, was
24 unwilling to down zone agriculture, and this is an outgrowth of that. If people have
25 been getting a tax break with an Agriculture /Open Space tax designation, then that
26 is how they should be treated. As a taxpayer, he would be outraged that it would
27 be any different. Forgiving the rules is outrageous, and the County should not
28 encourage that activity.
29
30 Imhof stated it is amusing that they are trying to protect agricultural land by
31 legislation. This doesn't help agriculture at all. He supported the amendment to
32 remove it. There are financial and legislative burdens to the agricultural community
33 in the County. Give farmers the flexibility to realize some monetary gain from their
34 investment. Monetary gain is not from agriculture. The Council needs to give
35 farmers the ability to cluster so they can continue to farm what ground they have
36 left.
37
38 Dawson agreed with Councilmember Imhof.
39
40 Crawford stated he supported the amendment.
41
42 Motion failed 3 -2 -1 with McShane and Hoag opposed and Brenner abstaining
43 because she did not feel the Council was given a chance to adequately discussed
44 the issue.
45
46 Brenner called a point of order to clarify whether debate can be cut off.
47
48 Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated that debate cannot be cut off.
49
Regular County Council, 4/3/2001, Page 7
1 Dawson moved to reconsider the previous motion.
2
3 Motion failed 2 -3 -1 with Brenner and Dawson in favor and Hoag abstaining.
4
5 McShane moved to amend section 20.38.060(2), "Shall not interfere with the
6 resource productivity and agricultural use of the agricultural reserve tract."
7
8 Hoag stated that puts a gravel slant on things. The term "resource" in the
9 Comprehensive Plan was used for both agriculture and mineral. The current
10 language talks about the productivity of the agricultural activity.
11
12 McShane stated it refers to using the land for agricultural purposes. The
13 cluster subdivision is done in a manner to not interfere with agricultural use. It is
14 to clarify that clustering is to protect agricultural use.
15
16 Imhof stated it reflects the present use of the property. It is a good
17 amendment.
18
19 Motion carried unanimously.
20
21 McShane moved to accept language for 20.38.060(3), "If the parent parcel
22 contains an area that is non - agricultural or lower class soils, and if this area is large
23 enough to contain or partially contain the clustered residential lots, then the
24 clustered residential lots shall be located on this lower class soil unless restricted by
25 physical constraints or unless the placement of said lots would be contrary to
26 section (2) above." as suggested by Lesa Starkenburg- Kroontje.
27
28 Hoag stated it is an improvement of the language they currently have.
29 However, it is still unclear because it doesn't clarify what physical constraints
30 consist of. Part of what they are doing is changing the percentage of the property
31 that the cluster subdivision can be located on. Everyone was finding a physical
32 constraint, and clustering on the largest percentage allowed. She would like to
33 better define what physical constraints are.
34
35 Motion carried unanimously.
36
37 McShane moved to amend 20.38.060(4), "...but not within the reserve tract
38 unless they do not require fill or are on non -APO soils portions."
39
40 Hoag questioned whether all drain fields require fill.
41
42 McShane stated there are some cases in which all one has to do is dig the
43 hole and lay the pipe. Other conditions may require a mound system. This
44 language would prohibit a mound system.
45
46 Hoag asked if members of the Agricultural Advisory Committee were present.
47 Goodwin stated they are not. There wasn't time to notify them.
48
Regular County Council, 4/3/2001, Page 8
1 Goodwin stated Donovan Kehrer said that if the grade is not changed, then it
2 is not considered fill. Her greater concern is if there are not APO soils, but it is still
3 used for mowing and hay, there might be a problem with tractors and mowing
4 equipment going over the drain field. They may have to write an administrative
5 interpretation. They could say "standard in- ground system."
6
7 Imhof asked if drain rock would be considered fill. They would have to
8 consider the tile in the drain rock. He asked if that would be considered.
9
10 Regina Delahunt, Interim Health and Human Services Department Director,
11 stated that if they refer to a standard in- ground on site system, then they get away
12 from calling it fill or not fill.
13
14 Hoag offered that as a friendly amendment.
15
16 McShane accepted.
17
18 "...but not within the reserve tract af�d unless they use a standard in- ground
19 system or are on non -APO soils portions."
20
21 Hoag stated she wasn't clear on whether it can be in the reserve tract.
22
23 McShane stated one could, if he or she has a standard in- ground system or is
24 on non -APO soil portions.
25
26 Motion carried unanimously.
27
28 McShane moved to amend 20.38.060(5), "...no more than te-R fifteen
29 residential lots...." He would rather have seen a down zone in the area, but that
30 won't happen.
31
32 Imhof asked the rationale of that, as opposed to specifying the underlying
33 zoning.
34
35 McShane stated an extreme case would be 200 acres that are zoned R5 or
36 R10. The owner would not give up any zoning by clustering, and the agricultural
37 tract would be preserved. He didn't care if they have scattered clusters or if they
38 are packed in. However, it gives more flexibility to the property owner to cluster
39 together and protect the agricultural soil out there.
40
41 Imhof stated that if they have 200 acres zoned at R5, there are 40 lots.
42 Allow clustering of all 40 lots in one corner of the 200 acres.
43
44 Goodwin stated that with the original APO zone, the Growth Management
45 Hearings Board found there could be suburban sprawl if there was an unlimited
46 number of lots that are clustered. They wanted the County to limit the number.
47 Ten was an arbitrary number. Fifteen would work equally well.
48
Regular County Council, 4/3/2001, Page 9
1 Imhof proposed a friendly amendment to allow 16 residential lots, which
2 gives someone with an 80 -acre parcel in R5 the ability to do that.
3
4 McShane accepted the friendly amendment.
5
6 Crawford restated the motion to amend section 20.38.060(5), "...no more
7 than tee sixteen residential lots...."
8
9 Hoag stated they should hear from the Agricultural Advisory Committee.
10 This is a product of their work. This motion doesn't preserve rural character.
11
12 Brenner stated it is not a substantial difference.
13
14 McShane stated his intent and the bigger goal should be agricultural
15 preservation.
16
17 Motion carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed.
18
19 Hoag stated there were scrivener's errors and suggestions for clean up. She
20 moved to amend 20.38.040(1), "...and tf—aiq-y the resultant area is less than 20
21 acres, the provisions of this chapter do not apply to that portion."
22
23 Motion carried unanimously.
24
25 Hoag moved to amend the last sentence in section 20.38.010, "...This section
26 is not intended to interfere with the use of other resources that do not degrade the
27 production potential of agricultural soils."
28
29 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
30
31 Hoag continued to state that it could be misinterpreted to allow mining,
32 which would destroy the agricultural soils and the intent of this chapter.
33
34 Imhof stated the last sentence is too ambiguous.
35
36 Brenner stated that it seems strange to have that sentence at all. It is not
37 necessary.
38
39 Goodwin stated the discussion at the time it was added was that they can't
40 force people to farm if they want to mine or do forestry. Nothing says one has to
41 farm the reserve tract. Mining is allowed in the rural zone. The options are open
42 anyway, without the sentence. If they approved the amendment, the staff would
43 have to look at whether the activity would degrade agricultural soils.
44
45 Brenner stated she would rather delete the sentence. She proposed that as
46 a friendly amendment.
47
48 Hoag accepted.
49
Regular County Council, 4/3/2001, Page 10
Crawford restated the motion to amend section 20.38.010, "...This seetien
Motion failed 3 -3 with Hoag, Brenner, and McShane in favor.
Hoag moved to amend section 20.38.010, "...This section is not intended to
interfere with the use of other resources that do not degrade the production
potential of agricultural soils." There are only three resources, forestry, mining,
and agriculture. Forestry will not interfere with the protection of the agricultural
soils, but mining will. The point of the APO was to protect the agricultural land.
Brenner stated she was concerned about the point at which they are going to
draw the line. Determining whether an activity degrades production is very
subjective. People are allowed to do gravel mining in agricultural soils. She didn't
like changing it this way. If they have to change it, then change it through the uses
directly.
Hoag stated that this is talking about other resources.
Motion failed 1 -5 with Hoag in favor.
Hoag moved to amend section 20.38.060(6), "...of -5$ 100 feet...." That was
the recommendation from the Planning Committee.
Motion carried 5 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Brenner moved to amend 20.38.060(7), "...No structure shall be constructed
within 30 feet of exterior, side, and rear property lines, and no structure shall be
constructed within 30 feet of the agricultural use, and...." If the County can lets
people cluster, then the people should be allowed to get as close to the property
line as possible. She questioned what the normal setback is. They are still not
allowed to be within a certain distance from agricultural use. Goodwin stated that
the side yard setback in a rural zone is five feet.
Hoag asked the rationale for adding the language regarding structures in the
first place. She agreed with the motion. Goodwin stated it might have to do with
manure spreading or pesticide use on adjacent property.
Motion carried unanimously.
Dawson moved to amend section 20.38.050 "(4) A portion or portions of a
parcel subject to APO, which meet all the following criteria: (a) consists of less than
20 percent APO soils; (b) is at least 10 nominal acres in an area; (c) is legally
eligible for Open Space /Timberland and /or Designated Forestland property tax
status, per RCW and the Whatcom County Assessor, and (d) the remaining
portion subject to APO is at least 20 nominal acres."
Hoag stated the motion doesn't sound bad at first. However, it would be at
least ten acres, and the remaining portion of the subject APO would be at least 20
Regular County Council, 4/3/2001, Page 11
1 acres. That is at least a 30 -acre parcel to start with. If a person had a 30 -acre
2 parcel, the development would typically be clustered on the non -APO soils. If one
3 creates a separate ten -acre parcel, then he or she is left with 20 acres of good
4 soils, and would take another five acres for clustering out of the good soils. It is
5 not the solution to Mr. Almksaar's scenario.
6
7 Motion failed 2 -4 with Dawson and Crawford in favor.
8
9 Hoag moved to amend section 2.38.050(2)(a), "...ef and"
10
11 Brenner stated she would not support the motion because she didn't like
12 subsection .050(2)(b).
13
14 Motion failed 2 -4 with Hoag and McShane in favor.
15
16 Imhof moved to delete section 20.38.050(2)(b).
17
18 Brenner stated the County gives all kinds of tax breaks. One should not be
19 outraged about it. People are required to pay back seven years' worth of taxes,
20 and it doesn't go away. They are not giving a gift here.
21
22 Hoag stated that a farmer could cluster under the APO. It doesn't take that
23 ability away, but it just defines what is exempt from the APO. This adds
24 exemptions to it. Also, if they are going to get rid of this, then reinsert what they
25 had before, about 50 percent or more of the parcel not being used for commercial
26 farming for the last five years. They are depleting the critical land base. John
27 Gillies testified about the amount of acreage they need before losing dealers and
28 processors. The APO was what the Council set up to protect agricultural land. They
29 want to keep the agricultural use. In order to qualify for Agriculture /Open Space,
30 one is supposed to make a certain amount of money off the property.
31
32 Imhof stated this is no way to protect farmland. When he started farming in
33 1976, processors were coming in to take the product. There are none any more.
34 Whatcom County is an expensive place to do business. They are over - regulated.
35 In spite of all they do, agriculture is on the downslide in Whatcom County. They
36 may be able to forestall it for a short period of time. Limiting what farmers can do
37 to get a financial benefit off their land will hasten their demise.
38
39 McShane stated farmers could still develop the property to the zoning
40 potential that is there. There is no change in that. This gives them that
41 opportunity, and they can still farm if they so choose, or sell the land to someone
42 else to farm. The Council has given the farmers a lot of flexibility. If the Council
43 doesn't do this, it may be a problem. This is to satisfy the fact that the Council
44 didn't want to take away that zoning in the past.
45
46 Motion carried 4 -2 with Hoag and McShane opposed.
47
48 Dawson moved to amend 20.38.050(2)(x), "...ef"
49
Regular County Council, 4/3/2001, Page 12
1 Goodwin stated that if the Council deletes this word, they should hold this
2 item in Council for two weeks to have time to look at the language in the
3 Comprehensive Plan. They don't want an APO that conflicts with the
4 Comprehensive Plan. If they do, then they will constantly be saying which governs.
5 The Comprehensive Plan does specify 50 percent Agriculture /Open Space. There
6 are many findings in the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan that talk about how
7 many acres of agriculture are protected through the APO, which is now 25,000
8 acres fewer. Hold the entire thing to look at legally.
9
10 Dawson moved to reconsider the previous vote.
11
12 Imhof suggested waiting to see what the language is in the Comprehensive
13 Plan.
14
15 Crawford stated that the motion to amend the word "or" is still on the table.
16
17 Dawson stated that she would withdraw her motion to amend the word "or."
18
19 Dawson also withdrew her motion to reconsider.
20
21 Imhof moved to hold the ordinance in committee for two weeks.
22
23 McShane moved to withdraw the motion to approve the ordinance. It doesn't
24 need to come back to committee.
25
26 Imhof amended his motion to hold in Council for two weeks.
27
28 Hoag stated that they already know the language in the Comprehensive Plan.
29 She asked that the Agricultural Advisory Committee be notified.
30
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32
33
34 CONSENT AGENDA
35
36 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
37 and moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through five.
38
39 McShane thanked Mr. Desler for his work on the Medic One issue. It was not
40 an easy task. The decision reflects what the Council was hoping for.
41
42 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the City of Bellingham and
43 Councilmember Crawford also helped.
44
45 Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through five carried
46 unanimously.
47
48 1. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 999019
49 AND THE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE TELEGRAPH ROAD /JAMES
Regular County Council, 4/3/2001, Page 13
1 STREET ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LOWEST
2 RESPONSIVE BIDDER, HARKNESS CONTRACTING INC., IN THE
3 AMOUNT OF $395,077.50 (AB2001 -124)
4
5 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
6 FLOOD DAMAGED PROPERTY AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF
7 ONE OF THREE REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES PROPOSED FOR
8 ACQUISITION UNDER THE HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT IN THE
9 AMOUNT OF $155,000 (AB2001 -125)
10
11 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
12 CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
13 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND REGION 3 AIDS SERVICE
14 NETWORK TO PROVIDE HIV /AIDS PREVENTION INCLUDING
15 COUNSELING AND TESTING, OUTREACH TO HIGH -RISK
16 POPULATIONS, ET AL., IN THE COUNTRACT AMOUNT OF $126,310
17 (AB2001 -126)
18
19 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
20 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
21 SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND CHAMBERS & WELLS COUNSELING,
22 INC. TO PROVIDE SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT SERVICES TO
23 INDIGENT AND LOW- INCOME CLIENTS, IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT
24 OF $385,800 (AB2001 -127)
25
26 S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
27 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY
28 OF BELLINGHAM CONCERNING EXTENSION THROUGH DECEMBER
29 2004, FOR MEDIC ONE SERVICES (AB2001 -128)
30
31
32 OTHER ITEMS
33
34 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO
35 INCLUDE THE LAKE SAMISH WATERSHED UNDER CHAPTER 20.71 —
36 WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, DESIGNATING
37 THE LAKE SAMISH WATERSHED AS A WATER RESOURCE SPECIAL
38 MANAGEMENT AREA UNDER SECTION 20,80.730, AND AMENDING
39 SECTION 20.80.634 — STORMWATER SPECIAL DISTRICTS (AB2001-
40 115)
41
42 McShane reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated this item
43 would be scheduled for a public hearing at the first meeting in May because the
44 committee made changes. The Lake Samish Citizens Committee did a good job.
45 The committee stated that if the parcel is less than 10,000 square feet, the owner
46 is allowed 3,000 square feet for a footprint.
47
48 There was another amendment on packet page 14. The Planning
49 Commission accepted the recommendation regarding leaving the Lake Samish
Regular County Council, 4/3/2001, Page 14
watershed out as a stormwater special district. They were concerned about that
designation because of work that needs to be done on development standards for
individual homes. The Natural Resources Committee suggested including Lake
Samish in the district, with stormwater development standards being deferred until
the stormwater standards for stormwater special districts are updated and revised.
The recommendation of the committee is to make those changes and bring it to the
Council for a public hearing. Alternatively, someone on the Council could move this
and approve it without any changes. When the Lake Whatcom Stormwater Special
District was created, people needed to do detention that required engineering for
even small lots. There was recognition that the requirement for that was too much.
In December, the Council set a threshold, but there are no best management
practices that exist yet. Anyone would now have to do engineering for a single
home. With the change, the committee won't have to come back and update the
language.
Hoag stated that the Planning Commission intent was not to wait for the
overall Countywide stormwater standards to be updated and revised, but that there
be best management practices (BMP's) established for the stormwater special
districts. There are no BMP's now. Everything required engineering because they
don't have those BMP's. That is what the citizens spoke about. That is why she
proposed the amended language to section 20.80.634(2)(c), "...shall be deferred
until such time that the eveFall eeuntywide stormwater standards for stormwater
special districts are updated and revised...." That is where the concern was, and
this makes it clearer.
Hoag stated that the Natural Resources Committee recommends amending
language in section 20.71.302(4) to strike the first sentence. It is an amendment
that would also be good for the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance and accept the Planning Commission
recommendation. The Council was challenged with the designation of a water
resource protection overlay for this area. There was a lot of community
divisiveness. It was a unique solution to let the citizens' committee work on this,
with a great amount of oversight and assistance of the Planning Department, which
dedicated a great amount of time. He attended the Planning Commission hearing
at the Lake Samish fire hall. Those areas were discussed at length. The
community had a lot of participation. To change it now, when there is a good
working document that the community has compromised on and approved, he
would be reluctant to do.
Hoag stated the citizens' advisory committee is not an elected committee.
The Planning Commission is also not an elected body. They advise the County
Council. She read the minutes and discussion of the different issues. The Council
is the elected body that takes that information and makes the final decision.
Although she respected the input, she would not rubber stamp the input.
The most important change is regarding the percentage in the reserve tract.
Seventy percent of a parcel in the Rural zone could be a very large parcel. If 30
percent of a large parcel could be impervious surfaces, it would have a tremendous
Regular County Council, 4/3/2001, Page 15
1 impact on the watershed. In the Lake Whatcom watershed, the percentage allowed
2 is reduced as the parcels get larger. She encouraged the Council to look at the
3 changes suggested by the committee, which would also promote consistency
4 between the zones.
5
6 McShane stated one of his concerns was also the consistency between zones.
7 They may create other water zone districts. Councilmember Nelson had expressed
8 that he also was concerned about having consistency from district to district. The
9 exceptions that the committee noted were regarding the mobile home issue.
10
11 Crawford restated the motion to approve the Planning Commission
12 recommendation and adopt the ordinance.
13
14 Motion failed 3 -3 with Crawford, Imhof, and Brenner in favor.
15
16 Brenner moved to schedule a hearing.
17
18 McShane stated it should be moved to schedule a hearing on the ordinance
19 as amended by the committee.
20
21 Brenner moved to reconsider the vote.
22
23 Motion carried unanimously.
24
25 Brenner moved to schedule a public hearing on the ordinance as amended by
26 the Natural Resources Committee.
27
28 Motion carried 5 -1 with Imhof opposed.
29
30 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
31
32 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET,
33 SUPPLEMENTAL #3 (AB2001 -120)
34
35 Imhof reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
36 stated a substitute ordinance was submitted and unanimously approved. He so
37 moved.
38
39 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated that the County Executive,
40 County Council, Sheriff, and Prosecuting Attorney provided leadership to approach
41 the issues. They asked the community to approach the issues of law enforcement
42 with cooperation and coordination. That effort has been done. The Council
43 reserved money in the budget to implement the first phases of the plan.
44
45 Crawford stated many people worked long and hard on this.
46
47 Desler acknowledged the Sheriff and Prosecutor, and citizen representatives
48 that include Dr. Gibb and Kathleen Marshall. He also acknowledged Kathleen
Regular County Council, 4/3/2001, Page 16
1 Mohebbie with Northwest Regional Council. All worked hard and positively
2 together.
3
4 Motion carried unanimously.
5
6 3. REQUEST FROM AT &T BROADBAND FOR WHATCOM COUNTY TO
7 WAIVE THE FRANCHISE FEE FOR CABLE MODEM SERVICES TO AT &T
8 BROADBAND CUSTOMERS (AB2001 -123)
9
10 Imhof reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
11 stated that the committee recommended establishing a separate account to bank
12 the fees collected from the cable modem equipment, pending outcome of Federal
13 Communications Commission (FCC) clarification. He so moved.
14
15 Motion carried unanimously.
16
17 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
18 MAP FROM LONG TERM PLANNING AREA TO SHORT TERM PLANNING
19 AREA FOR APPROXIMATELY 300 ACRES WITHIN THE BIRCH BAY
20 URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2001 -085)
21
22 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated
23 the Planning Commission recommended approval. Staff recommended amending
24 it. Staff provided four options. One option was to wait until the subarea plan is
25 done. Another option is on packet page 212, which is what the Planning
26 Commission recommended. That motion failed in committee. He made a motion in
27 committee to do an altered option two, which was to keep a portion of the area in
28 the long -term planning area. That is the committee's recommendation. He so
29 moved.
30
31 Crawford restated the motion to adopt option two, the map on packet page
32 211 as amended in committee to remove a 40 -acre tract directly north of the
33 bottom section that says "remain LTPA." It is directly north of Anderson Road.
34
35 Hoag stated the plat that is recommended to remain in the long -term
36 planning area (LTPA) already has plat approval for 270 lots. That can already be
37 developed without any change to a short -term planning area (STPA). In addition,
38 there is no shortage of developable land, and no need to change this to a short -
39 term planning area. It violates the Comprehensive Plan process and the Growth
40 Management Act (GMA), which say to in -fill first. She was against the motion.
41 Wait until the subarea plan is finished.
42
43 Dawson also stated they need to follow the subarea plan.
44
45 Brenner concurred.
46
47 McShane stated they should give deference to the citizens out there. He
48 agreed.
49
Regular County Council, 4/3/2001, Page 17
1 Crawford stated he would not support the motion.
2
3 McShane withdrew his motion.
4
5 Crawford moved to accept the Planning Commission recommendation. The
6 developable land shown on the map is not necessarily developable. There is a need
7 for affordable housing. There are water and sewer provisions.
8
9 Hoag stated the citizens have spoken.
10
11 Motion failed 2 -4 with Crawford and Imhof in favor.
12
13 S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
14 MAP FROM RR2 THE UR4 FOR APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES IN
15 BELLINGHAM'S URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2001 -116)
16
17 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated
18 the committee voted to recommend the rezone for the dark shaded area and the
19 hatched area on the map on packet page 228.
20
21 Crawford stated this received a unanimous recommendation from both
22 County and City planning commissions.
23
24 Motion carried unanimously.
25
26
27 INTRODUCTION ITEMS
28
29 Dawson moved to accept the Introduction Items.
30
31 Brenner stated Introduction Item two was incorrect. The item should be a
32 reintroduction of the ordinance with an agenda bill number AB2000 -024A.
33
34 Dawson accepted a friendly amendment to amend item two as stated by
35 Councilmember Brenner.
36
37 McShane asked to remove item five from the Introduction Item because he
38 has a conflict of interest.
39
40 Motion to accept items one through four and six carried 4 -1 with Imhof
41 opposed.
42
43 1. RECEIPT OF LATECOMERS AGREEMENT FOR ACADEMY ROAD
44 (AB2001 -098)
45
46 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 24.06, SOLID
47 WASTE DISPOSAL STANDARDS, IMPOSING LIMITS ON ACCEPTANCE
48 OF INFECTIOUS WASTE (AB2001 -122)
49
Regular County Council, 4/3/2001, Page 18
1 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.40,
2 AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS (AB2000 -342)
3
4 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO ADD
5 A NEW SECTION TO CHAPTER 20.36 RURAL DISTRICT TO CLEARLY
6 DEFINE THE FORMULA FOR CALCULATING THE NUMBER OF LOTS IN A
7 CLUSTER SUBDIVISION AND PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY FOR
8 LOCATING CLUSTER LOTS WITHIN A RURAL SUBDIVISION WHICH
9 COVERS MORE THAN ONE ZONING DISTRICT (AB2001 -129)
10
11 5. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
12 MAP FROM LIGHT IMPACT INDUSTRIAL (LII) TO GENERAL
13 COMMERCIAL (GC) FOR APPROXIMATELY SIX ACRES AT THE
14 NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF WEST SMITH ROAD AND GUIDE
15 MERIDIAN (AB2001 -130)
16
17 Dawson moved to accept.
18
19 Motion carried 4 -1 -1 with Imhof opposed and McShane abstaining.
20
21 6. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY
22 BICYCLE/ PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2001 -131)
23
24
25 OTHER BUSINESS
26
27 Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated a town hall meeting in Point Roberts
28 would be held on April 10.
29
30 Kremen stated the power bill for the County had gone down by 25.1 percent
31 for the month of February, and natural gas consumption was reduced by 30.5
32 percent. The average daily temperature during that time was five degrees colder
33 than the previous year. This is significant. The County is setting the model that
34 the rest of the state should follow. He expressed his pride of the County employees
35 for reducing the energy used.
36
37 Hoag commended the Executive for his leadership on this issue. The action
38 was noticed by the Governor, who mentioned it in a recent speech.
39
40 Kremen stated he's having a meeting with Jim Frederick, the General
41 Manager of Intalco and two corporate executives from Tennessee to discuss their
42 plight for an affordable, reliable source of electricity for the Intalco plant. There is
43 concern and interest by the executives for the future of Intalco. They may be able
44 to come up with a plan so that the operation can continue.
45
46 Brenner stated that she didn't want a coal -fired plant in the County. It
47 should not be part of the discussion.
48
Regular County Council, 4/3/2001, Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Hoag stated that the Northwest Air Pollution Authority (NWAPA) website has
an emissions inventory for areas. She was concerned that British Petroleum (BP)
proposes a large plant in the area. If Intalco also has a plant, they would have a
big impact.
Kremen stated that they are concerned about the viability of Intalco. It
generates the higher salaries in the region for a significant number of residents. He
is sensitive and aware of the need to protect the environment. There is also a need
to provide security and stability for the economy.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Hoag recognized that a number of businesses are closing in the area,
including Home Base, Toys R Us, Georgia- Pacific's pulp mill, and Long's Drugs.
Heath Techna is laying people off. They need to help these people out.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on April 17 , 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Sam Crawford, Council Vice -Chair
Regular County Council, 4/3/2001, Page 20