HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil April 17 20011 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Regular County Council
3
4 April 17, 2001
5
6
7 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
8 Nelson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
9
10 Also Present: Absent:
11 Dan McShane Sam Crawford
12 Marlene Dawson
13 Connie Hoag
14 Barbara Brenner
15 Robert Imhof
16
17 ANNOUNCEMENTS
18
19 Nelson announced that there was a presentation by the Whatcom County
20 Council of Non - Profits (AB2001 -135) in the Committee of the Whole meeting.
21
22 Nelson also announced that there was discussion with Senior Deputy
23 Prosecutor Dave Grant regarding pending litigation (AB2001 -018) in
24 executive session during Committee of the Whole.
25
26
27 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
28
29 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR APRIL 3, 2001; BOARD OF HEALTH
30 FOR MARCH 27, 2001; REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MARCH 20
31 AND APRIL 3, 2001; WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION FOR MARCH
32 13, 2001; SPECIAL COUNTY COUNCIL LAW AND JUSTICE FOR MARCH
33 13, 2001
34
35 Dawson moved approval.
36
37 Brenner moved to amend the minutes per the handout provided earlier in the
38 day.
39
40 Motion to amend carried unanimously.
41
42 Motion to approve as amended carried unanimously.
43
44
45 SELECTION OF CANVASS REPRESENTATIVES
46
47 COUNCIL TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO CANVASS SPECIAL AND
48 QUESTIONED ABSENTEE BALLOTS FROM THE SPECIAL ELECTION TO
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 1
1 BE HELD ON MAY 15, 2001. THE CANVASS WILL TAKE PLACE ON
2 MAY 24 AT 9:00 A.M. AND MAY 25 AT 1:00 P.M.
3
4 Councilmember Brenner volunteered to canvass on May 24 and May 25.
5
6
7 SPECIAL PRESENTATION
8
9 UPDATE FROM THE COMMISSION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
10 (AB2001 -132)
11
12 Marty Snyder, 1832 Central Road, Everson, stated she would provide an
13 update on the work of the commission. The presentation covers three areas: a
14 brief history of the commission, its purpose, and its values; a list of the
15 membership and the value of multi - disciplinary representation, and; a description
16 of activities from the past year and current efforts that are underway.
17
18 The commission chair expressed his regret that he was not able to attend.
19 He did provide the Council with an annual report from the commission for the year
20 2000. She is vice -chair of the commission, and thanked the Council for the
21 opportunity to make the presentation, its support in creating the commission, and
22 for funding that has been provided for the commission.
23
24 The vision of the commission was inspired by a domestic violence summit
25 that was held three years ago. The summit was made possible through the efforts
26 of the Community Health Partnership, the City of Bellingham, the County, and the
27 work of the Whatcom County Domestic Violence Task Force. At the close of the
28 summit, Executive Pete Kremen and Mayor Mark Asmundson announced their
29 commitment to this important work by the creation of the commission. One year
30 later, the commission held its first meeting.
31
32 Some of the functions in the ordinance include develop and implement a
33 coordinated, comprehensive domestic violence plan; promote coordination and
34 increase collaboration; increase community awareness and understanding; and
35 serve as a community forum. Ultimately, the commission works with the
36 community to create a Whatcom County where domestic violence is not tolerated,
37 and where citizens can live safely in their own homes.
38
39 One of the values is that the safety of domestic violence victims and their
40 children is a priority. It is a concept that should guide every action, policy, and
41 intervention. Victims and survivors are experts at staying safe. Intervention can
42 turn out to be something that is not safe.
43
44 Another value is that perpetrators should be held accountable, and also be
45 provided with options and long term support for change. Domestic violence is a
46 learned behavior. It can be unlearned. Perpetrators will not be motivated to
47 change unless the community holds them responsible.
48
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 2
1 A third value is that community -based solutions are essential to ending
2 domestic violence. Domestic violence is a community problem. The community
3 norms will not change unless the community works together to enhance victim
4 safety, hold batterers accountable, and teach them how to have positive, healthy,
5 intimate relationships in their families. That has to really be stressed. They have
6 heralded the negatives for a long time. They also want to support a movement that
7 models what healthy relationships are and what a healthy family looks like.
8
9 They are a diverse community, so they must develop their own unique
10 strategies and solutions to reflect their diversity. The interdisciplinary membership
11 of the commission demonstrates its commitment to community -based solutions.
12 The commission plays a critical and unique role in creating and enhancing a
13 coordinated community response to domestic violence.
14
15 Jerry Hunter, 5531 Knight Road, stated he is the superintendent of the Mt.
16 Baker School District. One of the commission's primary responsibilities in the year
17 2000 was the completion of a comprehensive plan. The process that led to that
18 plan involved more than 100 citizens who participated in multiple work groups to
19 envision and prioritize achievable outcomes for change. There were eleven work
20 groups, each to work on a specific outcome. The commission communicates with
21 the work groups to provide support and monitor their progress. A prioritized
22 outcome is to increase standardization of Whatcom County batterers treatment
23 programs. They are working to ensure that the courts, probation, and batterers
24 treatment providers work together in a standard and consistent manner to
25 determine whether or not an individual should be ordered into batterer's treatment
26 and for how long. The ultimate goal is to increase accountability.
27
28 The subcommittee has learned there is not a consistent approach regarding
29 who is ordered into treatment and for how long. Monitoring an unsystematic
30 system is not consistent. Such a situation unintentionally plays into the hands of
31 domestic violence perpetrators, who often use tactics that minimize, justify, or deny
32 their abuse. Victims in such a situation remain at risk when batterers are able to
33 find loopholes to avoid consequences. The subcommittee will make
34 recommendations to the commission, which will work with the courts in seeking
35 implementation of the recommendation.
36
37 This is an example of the value of the commission. There is a
38 multidisciplinary representation that has leverage to address issues such as this. If
39 the recommendations are approved by the courts, the commission will have
40 increased accountability for offenders and enhanced victim safety.
41
42 Sue Parrott, Domestic Violence Commission Director, 121 Bear Creek Lane,
43 Bellingham, stated the commission prioritized the community survey project.
44 During the development of the comprehensive plan, the participants stated that
45 Whatcom County needs a better understanding of the fears and experiences of
46 victims and survivors as they interface with community services and health care
47 providers. They want to know what kinds of things make it easier for a victim to
48 tell someone about the violence. They have some anecdotal information and
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 3
intuitive thoughts, but it is best to ask the consumer. To conduct this project, they
needed professional expertise to design a survey, conduct a survey, and analyze
the data. The commission raised $20,000 to contract with a firm to do the work.
They expect to have the survey results in about a year. After they have the results,
they will work with the community to improve response, education, and training.
Some of the funding sources for this $20,000 includes Tosco Refinery,
Intalco, BP Cherry Point Refinery, St. Joseph Hospital, and the Whatcom
Community Foundation. This is an example of the commission's commitment to
leverage other funds to accomplish its work. The commission's projects are to
enhance the overall community response to domestic violence. Its efforts benefit
the providers, which ultimately benefit victims and their children.
The commission carries out annual activities in the area of community
outreach and awareness. The commission coordinates domestic violence
awareness month, a media campaign, and domestic violence literature. This year,
they will go to the community again to ask for funding to do those events for
domestic violence month. This year, the outreach committee will work on
presentations around the community, and the commission will work on developing
new partnerships with other planning groups in Whatcom County.
Changing community norms, modeling positive relationships, increasing
victim safety, increasing batterer accountability, and creating community -based
solutions are bigger tasks than anything the commission can accomplish alone.
That is why it takes a community to make a difference.
She thanked the County Council and the commission members for their work
on this issue.
Nelson thanked the commission members for their efforts.
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Bernice Brannon, 4145 Petos, Ferndale, stated the Lummi Tribe says that the
County doesn't keep its agreements. She has proof that it's the Tribe who doesn't
keep its agreements with the County. She asked the County how to deal with the
Lummi Tribe in a government -to- government relationship if they do not recognize
the County's jurisdiction. An example is Portage Island. In the early 1960's,
Portage Island was to be developed as a park for all people. In 1966, the Tribe, by
resolution, gave the County right -of -way for a road to access the tidelands on the
island. In 1967, 1968, and 1971, deeds were signed and recorded conveying the
land to the County for the park. The County purchased the land for a County park.
In 1977, the Lummi Tribe had the Bureau of Indian Affairs cancel the right -of -way
because of disagreements with the County on the way the park was being run. In
1980, the Lummi Tribe received over $1 million, which was a portion of what
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 4
everyone had contributed to purchase the island, to purchase Portage Island from
the County with the understanding that the Lummi Tribe would open Portage Island
to the people. They have not abided by that agreement.
They made an agreement with Bellingham Water in 1990 for a permit for
1,000 gallons of water, and they said they would not discriminate. They have
discriminated. In 1999, they tried to regulate land use on fee lands on the
reservation.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, asked the Council to continue the
cottage industry ordinance.
Chapel Arnett, 4136 Salt Spring Drive, stated she is a member of the Sandy
Point Improvement Company Board of Directors. There is heavy criticism of the
County Council by the Tribal Council regarding letters to be sent to the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and Department of Interior. She requested that the County Council
inform the Sandy Point Improvement Company of all communications between the
County and the Tribe, so it can respond. She will submit information regarding
wells at Sandy Point. She asked the Council to consider that the Lummi Tribe may
have something to hide, which is why the Tribe didn't want the letters to go out.
Alex Cummings, York neighborhood, stated Lake Whatcom is the drinking
reservoir. A fish advisory is being issued for the lake because of mercury. Mercury
has been found in the lake, along with other metals. She provided information on
mercury from an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fact sheet. Mercury is
transported by wind as vapor or particles. It reaches water either through direct
deposition or as runoff from soil after rain. It transforms into methylmercury,
which is highly toxic and accumulates in fish. Coal -fired electric utilities are the
largest source of mercury in the air. Next are municipal waste combusters, medical
waste incinerators, and hazardous waste combusters. There are three forms of
mercury. Methylmercury is the organic form and is the most dangerous. It bio-
accumulates in the food chain, and once in the body, can effect the fetal and adult
nervous system. This information must be looked at before making any more
decisions on power plants in the County. The City Council wants to work with the
County to look at the power plant situation in the County. Industry put mercury
into the lake. Only one industry in the county lists mercury on the toxic release
inventory. The community needs to learn more about mercury. There are two
upcoming meetings, one at Squalicum High School on April 24 and one at the
Unitarian Church on May 3.
Nate Kronenburg, 2351 E. Pole Road, Everson, commented on the
Agricultural Protection Overlay zone, and asked Councilmembers who voted for
Agricultural Protection Overlay zone to re -think their decisions. The County
Comprehensive Plan page 8 -2 says to maintain and enhance natural resource -
based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries.
Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and agricultural lands, and
discourage incompatible uses. In addition, the countywide planning policies state
that Whatcom County shall become a government of rural areas in land use matters
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 5
1 directed toward agriculture and forestry as part of a broad -based economy.
2 Productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries should be maintained in a
3 sustainable manner. The results of the visioning process place a great importance
4 on preserving agricultural lands while recognizing the economical pressures facing
5 the farming community. Whatcom County cannot afford to lose any more
6 productive farmland. Amending the Comprehensive Plan in this fashion could
7 trigger an appeal to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.
8
9 Chuck McCord, 3365 Robertson Road, spoke on behalf of the Fee Land
10 Owners Association to speak against the Lummi Nation resolution. He was
11 concerned about approving the resolution that the Council is considering regarding
12 increasing tribal jurisdiction over natural resources to include fee land. Tribes do
13 not have jurisdiction over non - Indians or fee land resources, including logging of
14 fee lands, which has been decided in the Ninth Circuit Court. These are legal
15 matters. Before recognizing any third party tribal jurisdiction over fee lands, the
16 Council needs to be certain of their facts and the law. The association also urged
17 the Council to not act precipitously by recognizing tribal jurisdiction through
18 passage of this proposed resolution regarding matters that are far from settled.
19 The state Department of Ecology (DOE) and state and County health departments
20 are legally responsible for resource management on reservations. The association
21 doesn't believe the County should do anything to erode state or local authority over
22 the fee land areas within the reservation. The Lummi Tribe has yet to honor
23 agreements with the state and County regarding Portage Island. It also continues
24 to discriminate against non - tribal hook -ups to their water system after assuring the
25 Bellingham City Council that the Lummi Water and Sewer District couldn't
26 discriminate. The Tribe made hook -up determination a function outside the
27 decision - making of the district. The Lummi Indian Business Council governing body
28 made a policy to limit new hook -ups to tribal members and, at one point in time, to
29 non - tribal members willing to sign a consent to tribal jurisdiction on all matters.
30 The County is obligated to represent all citizens of the county, and should not
31 consider discriminating against the non - tribal taxpayers within the exterior
32 boundaries of the Lummi Indian reservation. Consider the legal ramifications of
33 such a resolution.
34
35 Mike Kaufman, 1620 Huntley Road, stated Whatcom County is the gateway
36 for a lot of the gas -fired plants going in on the West Coast. The gas comes though
37 Sumas. They are going to have gas lines proposed through Whatcom County. The
38 Utility Planning Committee is up to speed on the issues. The City Council did the
39 right thing the previous evening by not letting Toll House go into the Dewey Valley
40 at this time. The County, the city, and anyone who wants to get involved in
41 planning the utilities need to coordinate. He encouraged the Council to continue
42 dialog with others.
43
44 Pat Eastman, Ferndale, stated he is a 23 -year employee of Intalco. He
45 thanked Executive Pete Kremen for what he has been doing to try to help save the
46 jobs. There are 930 jobs out there. There is a three -to -one loss in the secondary
47 job market, which are indirect jobs supported by the Intalco work force. The loss
48 would include a ten percent tax loss for the Ferndale School District, just from the
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 6
1 plant site. The union and the company are jointly sponsoring a meeting on Friday,
2 April 20 at the Mt. Baker Theatre. He invited the Council and Mr. Kremen to the
3 meeting.
4
5 Steve McBee, 6121 Medcalf Road, stated he was a proponent for the rezone
6 scheduled on the agenda. He owns a property adjacent to the subject property.
7 This issue is coming forward from the committee without a recommendation
8 because Councilmember McShane abstained from the committee vote. The
9 Planning Commission recommends it. He was available for questions.
10
11 Linda Kolbo, 3918 Saltspring Drive, stated the Lummi Herald indicated that
12 the County Council should have requested information from the Lummi Tribe first,
13 instead of writing to the Department of the Interior. She understood that several of
14 the councilmembers agreed with that position. While that may be an honorable
15 position, it is naive. The County already established that waterfront property
16 owners at Sandy Point have title that goes to the mean high tide, which is the same
17 thing as the ordinary high water, and is about where the seaweed accumulates.
18 However, harassment by tribal law officers and requests for money from the Tribe
19 continue. The state, along with various water associations have tried for four years
20 to get information on the Lummi Tribe's pumping rates and usage. Improper
21 pumping and excess usage may cause saltwater intrusion into that well and
22 collapse the aquifer. This Council serves to assist fee land property owners in
23 securing health, security, and welfare. When interference occurs, this Council is the
24 appropriate avenue to request information from the Department of the Interior that
25 has previously been denied by the Tribe. This Council is aware that denial of
26 information has occurred in the past with the water association and with the state.
27 It has been a month, and their letters have not yet been sent to the Department of
28 the Interior. She submitted a draft letter for the Council to send to the Lummi
29 Tribe, requesting a response and information within a normal ten -day response
30 time. Then, put the Department of Interior on notice, and request its help and
31 assistance in finding a resolution.
32
33 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
34
35 Jim Kolbo, 3918 Saltspring Drive, Ferndale, spoke regarding the Lummi Tribe
36 resolution. He understood that the Lummi Tribe proposed the resolution. Anytime
37 the Tribe proposed anything, it is for their benefit, not the benefit of the residents.
38 Also, the Tribe claims to be a sovereign nation. Canada is a sovereign nation,
39 Japan is a sovereign nation, and so is Russia. The United States doesn't let any of
40 those other countries make a decision over their land, water, and resources. The
41 Whatcom County Council, the State of Washington, and the federal government are
42 the ones who do that over non - tribal lands. He was offended that the Council is
43 even going to consider the resolution. They cannot ask the Tribe for any
44 information, because they are the opposing party. The request has to come from a
45 third party. That third party is the BIA, the Department of Interior, or any federal
46 agency that has all the valid information. The Tribe is only going to provide
47 information that supports their position.
48
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 7
1 Dale Peterson, 4052 Saltspring Drive, Ferndale, stated he would talk about
2 protecting the rights of fee landowners. At Sandy Point, the residents pay taxes
3 and comply with County codes and state laws. The Lummi Tribe has sovereign
4 immunity. It has many federal agencies to assist it in a big budget that comes
5 from the federal government. It is also exempt from many of the County codes
6 and state laws. At times, the Sandy Point community has disagreed with the
7 Lummi Tribe. Recently, Sandy Point residents requested the County Council's
8 assistance to send letters to federal agencies. The County Council said it would,
9 and then it wouldn't when the Lummi Tribe objected. This is unfair. State agencies
10 aren't always fair to them either. All they are asking for is consideration to help
11 them in these matters. They are, after all, taxpayers supporting this county.
12
13
14 PUBLIC HEARING
15
16 Nelson questioned whether there was consensus from the Council to attempt
17 to limit the public hearing portion of each public hearing to 30 minutes. If the
18 public hearing lasts longer than 30 minutes, the public record would be held open
19 for two weeks.
20
21 The Council concurred.
22
23 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WCC 24.06 IMPOSING LIMITS ON
24 ACCEPTANCE OF INFECTIOUS WASTE (AB2000 -024A)
25
26 Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
27
28 Gayle Pattenaude, 5809 Aldrich Road, stated that 66 percent of the voting
29 public voted for this initiative. She asked the Council to uphold the public's vote
30 and enforce the ordinance.
31
32 Dick Gilda, Jensen Road, stated that people voted, said what they wanted,
33 and that's what should go.
34
35 Bill Kramer, Sunset Avenue, stated he lives three - eighths of a mile northeast
36 of Recomp. The people voted to limit this. He can smell the compost at his place.
37 The neighbors are getting fed up.
38
39 Bill Palmer, 2804 E. Crestline Drive, thanked the Council for dealing with this
40 issue. If there is a facility that can ensure that infectious waste can be treated in a
41 safe and responsible way, then it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily limit the amount
42 that would be treated there, and run the risk that all the material is untreated or
43 treated unsafely. While it was voted on, there is enough compelling reason and
44 potential "not in my backyard" emotionalism that went into that vote and for the
45 Council to look at it logically in the best interest of the community.
46
47 Joe Stephens, 5381 Waschke Road, stated several people mentioned that
48 they'd been on Stericycle tours and noticed numerous violations. He questioned
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 8
how these people saw all these violations on one short, pre- arranged visit, when
unannounced state inspectors didn't find violations. People want to limit the
amount of infectious waste that enters the county. First, they need to determine
the amount of infectious waste included in the total medical waste stream. There
seems to be a lot of confusion about the difference between medical waste and
infectious waste. Not all medical waste is infectious. The medical profession says
that one or two percent of the population who has visited a facility with medical
waste actually has an infectious disease. Any percentage higher than that would be
an epidemic. Stericycle treats all medical waste as if it were infectious, just as a
dentist treats a patient as if he or she is infectious. It doesn't mean that the dental
patient is actually infectious. It also doesn't mean that all the medical waste
handled by Stericycle is infectious.
He questioned what happens to the place when it shuts down. It has been
suggested that the waste be treated at the point of generation. If the waste is not
treated at the point of generation and is not treated at Stericycle, then it must be
shipped somewhere else to be treated. That somewhere else would most likely be
Salt Lake City. He questioned how they could have less liability to the general
public by that stuff being on the road for a two -day trip to Salt Lake City than a
two -hour trip to Ferndale. It doesn't make sense to shut down the only legal
medical waste handler in Whatcom County.
Jim Austin, 1201 - 3rd Avenue, Seattle, Attorney for Recomp, stated that
health officials estimate that 76 Americans become infected from food every year.
There are 325,000 hospitalized, and 5,000 people die. Health officials also estimate
that no one becomes infected by medical waste treatment facilities, despite millions
of tons of biomedical waste processed at hundreds of facilities around the country
and despite the fact that health departments actively monitor the incidents and
sources of infectious diseases. There has only been one instance of occupational
infection, which was due to the use of a pre- treatment grinding and shredding
process that is banned in Whatcom County. This is a manufactured controversy.
There is no controversy among agencies and professional organizations. The
message is consistent between the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Center for Disease Control, and
the four Washington agencies that regulate biomedical waste. If biomedical waste
is managed properly, it poses no greater risk than the general waste stream. The
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists says that no illness attributable to
exposure to infectious medical waste outside the public health care setting has been
reported in a member of the general public. The Society for Healthcare
Epidemiology of America says that medical waste poses virtually no infectious
hazard to the public. The Whatcom County Hearing Examiner, in a binding decision
on the County, found that the handling of medical and infectious waste rarely
results in the infection of handlers, and even more rarely, if ever, results in
infection of unrelated members of the public. Commenting on Recomp's facility,
the Hearing Examiner found that the risks are not substantial and are most
accurately described as low to moderate risk.
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 9
This ordinance imposes the most severe sanction on a relatively benign
activity before there has been any violation to justify it. The way to make certain
that facilities like the one here operate safely is not to make it impossible for them
to operate, but to regulate their activity. There are many good regulations around,
including regulations in this county. If the regulations adopted a year ago are not
adequate, then take a look at them and see how they might be improved. Recomp
is not looking for a fight, but for ways to work cooperatively with the County
Council, the Health Department, and others to achieve the mutual goal of public
health.
Alex Cummings, citizen, stated she is a registered nurse. Medical waste is
infectious and must be taken seriously. She supported the ordinance. If an
industry has had multiple violations, then the citizens count on the County Council
to uphold the initiative that was approved by 66 percent. Take a stand to reduce
risks to the health and wellbeing of all in the county.
Dave Grunhurd, 2635 North Shore Road, Bellingham, stated most voters
knew little or anything about the medical waste issue when it was placed on the
ballot. Upon visiting the facility, he saw a picture completely different than the one
painted by those who opposed the medical waste facility. He saw a well -run, clean
facility, which is regulated and controlled in its day -to -day operation. He saw no
indication that it was unsafe. If he were to vote on the same initiative today, he
would vote opposite the way he originally did.
Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated that risk management
would dictate that Seattle or Vancouver needs a facility like this. Sixty -six percent
of the public voted against the facility. Perception plays a role in medicine. People
who have faith in the medicine they take get better faster. If the government does
things that the people perceive as not being good for them, the people will stay
angry longer.
Robert D. Bezona, Lummi Shore Road, stated he agreed with Mr. Grunhurd.
He toured the facility and saw a clean operation. As long as it is being run
properly, he has no problem with it. Don't operate under the premise of fear.
Richard Severson, Robertson Road, stated they need a backup, such as an
autoclave. He asked what would happen if the autoclave failed. There should be a
backup system. Move it someplace, and give them a chance to locate away from
the people. Have the hospitals take care of their own stuff.
Charlene French, 5044 LaBounty Road, Ferndale, stated she is Recomp's
neighbor. There is a need to impose a limit on the medical waste. In 1974, TRC
was built to handle the county's garbage. She read a portion of a letter from
Recomp dated March 29, which said that any debate should be based on accurate
information. The letter also said that the facility was cleaned and there were no
unusual odors. However, there are strong smells from the autoclave.
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 10
1 Steve Hortegas, 1419 Franklin Street, stated he works with the medical
2 waste facility in Ferndale. They've been conducting research to understand the
3 feeling of the community concerning the medical waste issue. He presented his
4 findings on a random telephone survey that poled 105 people. The study has a 95
5 percent confidence rate. Sixty -seven percent said they did not vote, did not
6 remember whether they voted, or couldn't remember how they voted. A significant
7 number of people who voted in favor of the initiative said they would not vote that
8 way again after being presented with some basic facts on the facility. In addition,
9 most of those who came on tours were in favor of the facility. Only a few stated
10 they were undecided. He quoted some of the survey respondents. The conclusion
11 is that most feel the facility is safe.
12
13 Dave Chesson, 4950 Pacific Highway, Ferndale, stated he lives near Recomp.
14 He voted to limit medical waste. Move forward with how the voters voted.
15
16 Andrew Bright, 8500 Benson Road, Lynden, read a letter from John Sands, a
17 professor of Business at Western Washington University, who could not attend. The
18 citizens in opposition of Recomp are ill- informed with few facts that rise to the level
19 of credibility. The positive side of the issue is that Recomp provides jobs, a tax
20 base, and a valuable service that safely disposes of solid and medical waste in a
21 way that ensures proper handling in a safe and contained facility. The Recomp site
22 is an integral part of the American medical and health industry, which is regarded
23 as the most advanced and safest in the world. He'd toured the medical waste
24 facility. No one solicited him for the tour. He was impressed, and felt safe. He is a
25 former industrial safety officer. From the standpoint of economics of scale, and
26 relative to issues of safe handling, the Recomp site makes sense. Rather than
27 thousands of untrained hands processing medical waste in a thousand different
28 places in North America, trained experts handle the product effectively at Recomp.
29
30 Robert French, 5044 La Bounty Road, Ferndale, stated the citizens voted
31 twice with the same results. The message is clear. He was concerned with the
32 concentration of diseases, which include all forms of hepatitis and meningitis. The
33 winds from the plant bring overwhelmingly putrid odors daily, which have not been
34 mitigated. That reflects on the operators of this facility. He lives across the street
35 from Recomp, and is denied the use of his property. If he has open windows in the
36 summertime, the putrid stench comes through. Recomp does not have the right to
37 endanger the citizens of the county. Move forward with the citizens' mandate.
38 Most of the people testifying don't live near the facility. They need some relief.
39
40 Una Sherman, 527 Everglade, stated she used to be a production manager
41 for the Gap in San Francisco. Her job was to monitor labor and safety issues,
42 among other things. Her supervisor had a conversation with a plant foreman over
43 the issue of child labor at their plant. The supervisor said they've been getting
44 complaints of there being child labor at the plant. The plant foreman said that the
45 supervisor could go on a tour, and if the supervisor didn't want to see child labor,
46 then to just tell him the day she would arrive.
47
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 11
1 Walden Haines, 4120 Iron Gate Road, stated he owned a residential property
2 on La Bounty Road. He recently was heading south on I -5 and smelled the horrible
3 smell of cooking flesh. He called his renters, who concurred that the odor had been
4 going on for a long time. He called the Recomp manager who assured him that the
5 autoclave was open, and there was a problem with the odors emanating from the
6 facility. The odors emanating from the facility have ruined the residential
7 characteristics of the neighborhood, and it needs to be curtailed.
8
9 Doug Loomis, 2500 Vining, Bellingham, stated that OJ Simpson showed us
10 that enough money can influence the outcome. This is what Recomp is practicing.
11 This company is proving that they intend to inflate this business beyond common
12 sense.
13
14 Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
15
16 Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance on Council packet page 226.
17
18 Brenner moved to amend the ordinance by adopting the Exhibit A on Council
19 packet pages 234 through 237. The changes streamline the ordinance by
20 simplifying and clarifying it. It doesn't change the intent or the scope of the
21 ordinance. In section II, Limits, the last sentence is supposed to be "...only treat
22 their own waste and tFansfer stations are not considered...." They took out the
23 definition and this term because they are found in other parts of the code.
24
25 Motion to amend carried unanimously.
26
27 Brenner amended her motion to adopt the amended ordinance that is on
28 packet page 234, with the version of Exhibit A that is on Council packet pages 234
29 through 237.
30
31 Hoag stated she was disappointed to find that Recomp was very selective in
32 the information they presented to the public and this Council. There are quotes
33 from the Department of Health and other places that directly refute what was
34 spoken, but this Council is fully aware of that. She attended hearings of Senate
35 subcommittees and a forum with the Department of Health and experts in the
36 industry. What Recomp tried to do in this community in terms of public relations is
37 not accurate, fair, or right.
38
39 McShane moved to go into executive session to discuss pending litigation for
40 approximately five minutes.
41
42 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
43
44 Motion carried unanimously.
45
46 Motion to adopt carried 5 -1 with Imhof opposed and Crawford absent.
47
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 12
1 Nelson stated that he voted in favor of the ordinance because the public
2 voted with a majority of 67 percent, even though he didn't agree that this
3 ordinance is one that would stand up in court.
4
5 Dawson stated she agreed with Councilmember Nelson's comment.
6
7 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
8 TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.40, AGRICULTURE DISTRICT (AB2000 -342)
9
10 Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, gave a staff report. He submitted a handout
11 with proposed amendments. Staff looked at two key areas in evaluating changes
12 that should occur to this proposal. One area was about a concern regarding
13 increasing densities in the agricultural zone from additional development rights
14 being created through Whatcom County Code section 20.40.250. It allows divisions
15 under the forty -acre minimum lot size. Parcelization is a problem in agriculture
16 because it puts people into the agricultural zone, and becomes a cause of nuisance
17 and difficulties for farming. The purpose of the agricultural zone is for commercial
18 agriculture. In reviewing the existing agricultural code, the staff wanted to look at
19 the other things it allowed in the agricultural zone to minimize the activities that
20 would cause additional nuisance complaints and conflicts between farming and
21 those uses.
22
23 Staff didn't look at gravel issues, purposefully. They decided not to get into
24 that. They also didn't look at conditional uses as a final approach. They've agreed
25 to look at that in the fall. The Planning Commission forwarded this to the County
26 Council with the caveat that the Council will go back and look at that. The reason
27 the Planning Commission did that was because the issue of parcelization continues.
28 The department gets three or four applications a month. It is important to move
29 forward on this section, and come up with language to eliminate additional density.
30
31 The other thing they didn't get into was the issue of cottage industries. They
32 deferred any talk about cottage industries. This proposal is not a complete
33 farmland protection program, nor does it attempt to resolve issues that are best
34 addressed by rezone. This is for agricultural land. If there is agricultural land in
35 the Agricultural zone that should not be in the Agricultural zone, they are not going
36 to address it with the agricultural code.
37
38 The handout lists key issues to keep in mind as they go over the text. First
39 is the timeline this process has been under. This process started in February 1999.
40 The Agricultural Technical Committee actually reviews the subdivision requests for
41 divisions under forty acres in farmland. Those people have been on that committee
42 for almost twenty years, watching these divisions come through. One of their
43 major complaints is that the code doesn't have enough detail to approve or not
44 approve an application. This section of the code was also reviewed by the
45 Agricultural Advisory Committee.
46
47 The Growth Management Act supports this. The Comprehensive Plan, task
48 six in the agricultural section, says that the County should review and rework
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 13
1 sections of the agricultural zone text in Title 20 to address such issues as land
2 divisions below forty acres and criteria for conditional use permits.
3
4 The Farm Futures Task Force was established. A resolution was approved by
5 the County Council to form the Agricultural Advisory Committee. Agriculture is
6 important to the community. In 1997, $241 million came from the agricultural
7 sector. Whatcom County ranked sixth out of 39 counties in the state for
8 production, and is first on the western side of the state. The county is in the top
9 three percent of counties nationally, is the largest dairy county in the state, is
10 ranked 12th nationally for dairy, and produces 50 percent of the nation's
11 raspberries. Agriculture receives $37 for services per dollar paid in taxes. They
12 are a good return for the County, as well.
13
14 The dairy industry is the largest portion of the agricultural income. In 1997,
15 $165 million in farm value was from dairy. There has been a tremendous change in
16 the way the dairies operate. They require a larger and larger land base. An acre of
17 tillable land is needed for every animal unit to get rid of the manure.
18
19 Hoag questioned whether that statistic changes given the changing dairy
20 methods, such as more frequent milking. Olason stated that with more milk that
21 comes out, more manure comes out.
22
23 Brenner asked if that was taken into consideration. Olason stated he
24 received his statistics from the Soil Conservation Services. The herd sizes go up
25 and the number of herds goes down. The concentration is greater. They have
26 more cows now than ten or twenty years ago.
27
28 Brenner stated they are more productive. Olason stated they are.
29
30 Olason continued to discuss the analysis of the parcelization that occurs.
31 They evaluated an updated County Assessor parcel map to determine which parcels
32 have a structure or are buildable. There are currently about 2,285 developed and
33 2,200 undeveloped parcels in the agricultural zone. There is a lot of additional
34 development that can occur without any further divisions. It is important to
35 recognize that. Over half the parcels in the agricultural zone are under ten acres.
36 There are a lot of small parcels out there. There is no real pattern to it. The
37 majority of acreage is over twenty acres, so there are still a lot of large parcels, but
38 there are a lot of small parcels spread throughout that cause the nuisance issue.
39
40 Staff recommended the proposal as it came out of the Planning Commission.
41 Since that time, they've had proposed changes during the Planning and
42 Development Committee. He submitted a memo to summarize the proposed new
43 language. He recognized the work by the Agricultural Advisory Committee, which
44 spent hundreds of hours going through this review. The department feels fortunate
45 to have that kind of committee available.
46
47 There are three items to consider. One is a question about a section in the
48 code, 20.40.106, regarding bio- solids and sewage sludge. Staff recommends using
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 14
1 the new language because it is updated to reference the state Department of
2 Ecology and current Washington Administrative Code.
3
4 There is a change proposed for section 20.40.135 regarding surface mining.
5 It allows surface mining as an administrative approval, which is consistent with the
6 other provisions in other code sections. It was recommended to be moved to a
7 conditional use section. He listed items that should be considered when evaluating
8 that decision. One item is Comprehensive Plan policy 8P -4, which allows mining
9 within mineral resource lands through zoning and a discretionary and administrative
10 permit process.
11
12 Brenner stated she didn't see the difference between the old language
13 regarding bio- solids and the new language. Olason stated they are referencing a
14 permit issued by a state Department of Ecology in accordance with WAC 173. It
15 used to say that the permit is issued by the County.
16
17 McShane stated the committee changed it already. It is not underlined in the
18 packet.
19
20 Olason stated the language in section .106 in the packet is new language and
21 should have been underlined. Regarding the surface mining, the policies indicate
22 that there was a standard method that was implemented for dealing with mining in
23 MRL's in spite of the zoning district. If they want to do something different with the
24 Agricultural zone, they will have to determine what policy changes should occur.
25
26 McShane stated he looked at the Comprehensive Plan policy 8L -2, which
27 states they would avoid the use of designated agricultural land for mineral or soil
28 mining purposes, unless the soils can be restored to productive capabilities as soon
29 as possible after mining occurs. The current MRL designation of two pits within the
30 Agricultural zone can, through administrative approval, be allowed to reclaim as
31 lakes, not as agriculture. There is a conflict between those two policies.
32
33 With those changes, the staff recommends that the Council adopt the
34 ordinance. The Agricultural Advisory Committee supports the ordinance.
35
36 Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
37
38 Christopher Street, 2820 Mays Road SE, Olympia, stated he works for
39 Ostrom Mushroom Farm. They are a full service provider of mushroom products
40 out of Thurston County and also Whatcom County. As their industry changes, their
41 business must change. In 1990, mushrooms sold at an average retail price of
42 $2.99 per pound. They still do today. They must find ways to reduce operating
43 costs and raise profitability in a very competitive industry. This industry is going
44 through rapid change. There is extreme price pressure coming from all quarters.
45 Acquisitions and mergers in the produce and food chain industry create a very
46 unstable customer base. He asked the Council to remand back to committee the
47 issue of mushroom composting as something other than a direct and necessary part
48 of the mushroom production. It isn't a conditional use or an ancillary use. It is a
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 15
requirement to grow mushrooms. It has been moved to a conditional use, which
puts the viability of that industry in serious trouble.
Hoag stated that new language would allow commercial mushroom
composting as an accessory use in the agricultural zone. The other added language
that removed mushroom composting was just to clarify that commercial remained a
conditional use. The existing language, which was not changed, regarding
commercial composting in section .159 requires it to be a conditional use. To allow
farmers the ability to compost on their farm as an accessory use, language was
added to allow composting and mulching facilities for the farmers. It was clarified
that commercial mushroom composting is still a conditional use. It is not covered
as an accessory use to a farm.
Richard Gilda, Jensen Road, stated the state and federal government have
done everything to put farmers out of business with over - regulation. The farmers
have to do something with their property. This is a good thing.
Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, stated she submitted
a letter to the Council previously. The proposal as it came from the Planning
Commission was a good product. It is inappropriate now to change mining in the
MRL that happens to have the underlining zone of agriculture to a conditional use
rather than an administrative use. That is inconsistent with what the
Comprehensive Plan states the MRL is supposed to have as a permitting process. It
is also inconsistent with all the discussion and dialogue that went on to set up the
zoning ordinance to implement the Comprehensive Plan in 1997. There are only
two sites that have an underlying agricultural zone that are in the MRL. One site
has been active for a number of years, and updated its reclamation plan four to five
years ago. Its reclamation is to a lake. There are only two peninsulas of property
that are un- permitted, which jut out from the active area. It would be
inappropriate to seek to reclaim those to an agricultural use when they've already
declared the highest and best use to be as a mineral resource.
The second property submitted a permit application that is being reviewed by
Whatcom County at this time. If the intent is to look at additional mining in the
agricultural zone, it would be addressed through the Comprehensive Plan and MRL
changes. Mining in the agricultural zone is not something the Council is considering
at this time, until they finish the Comprehensive Construction Aggregate Study.
Policy 8L deals also with all agricultural zone mining and enhancement.
Another issue is adding to a conditional use in the section dealing with
storage units. It's possible they could deal with that as a cottage industry, but
since the cottage industry ordinance is not yet adopted, it is an appropriate use for
the vacant agricultural buildings.
Charles Anthoult, 2265 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, stated he spoke on behalf
of the Agriculture Advisory Committee. They worked 350 volunteer hours on this.
This fragmentation going on provides potential nuisance problems for farmers,
drives up the cost of farmland, and makes farming more difficult. It is inconsistent
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 16
1 with the Comprehensive Plan and the stated intent of the Whatcom County Code.
2 The committee recognized that the market establishes the highest and best use of
3 land in their economy. They also recognize the market failures. Without change in
4 business as usual, there is a potential for the ultimate demise of agriculture through
5 the continuation of this pattern of development. The committee recommends that
6 the Council adopt the changes they've proposed as a way to mitigate this kind of
7 problem that they can foresee.
8
9 The committee believes that WCC 20.40 ought to retain the option of fish
10 farms. It is a potential. They don't know of any current aquaculture operations in
11 the county, but it is a valuable potential on the horizon. The committee thinks that
12 option should not be precluded.
13
14 Last, the committee is a creation of the Council. It looks forward to the
15 Council's questions and comments. With respect to the agriculture protection
16 overlay, they have not considered it and would be pleased to do so.
17
18 Roger Bajema, 792 E. Badger Road, stated the Agricultural Advisory
19 Committee worked extremely hard on this. A couple of concerns are not being
20 addressed. The County planners should have some cows of their own. He does
21 have a farm plan, which allows for more than three cows per acre. In addition, the
22 map on display is unclear. Eleven parcels were split off in the last four years, since
23 the 600 -foot road frontage law had been taken out. There are different types of
24 agricultural land. There is opportunity for other agricultural business in the
25 community, and they should be allowed. They cannot afford to buy land in the city.
26 Zero land loss is not called for. Agriculture is changing and they will lose it
27 completely if they don't allow room for businesses to locate on fringe property.
28
29 Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
30
31 Hoag moved to adopt the ordinance.
32
33 Brenner asked if the Agricultural Advisory Committee wants to wait on doing
34 cottage industry before doing this ordinance. Olason stated the committee agreed
35 to defer to whatever comes out of the process they are going to do. When the
36 Council adopts the cottage industry ordinance, the section regarding agriculture in
37 that ordinance would be plugged into this section.
38
39 Brenner questioned why fish farms were removed.
40
41 McShane explained since it was his suggestion. Within prime agricultural soil
42 areas, which is most of the agricultural land in Whatcom County, having excavated
43 ponds isn't the best use of that land. Fish farming as such would be more
44 appropriate in other locations in rural areas of the county. Allowing large scale fish
45 farming could create a conflict of use with current agricultural uses regarding
46 pesticides, which may impact fish.
47
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 17
1 Olason stated the Agricultural Advisory Committee discussed the issue after
2 the Planning and Development Committee looked at it, and the advisory committee
3 felt it is a use that should stay in, but they didn't have any theories about it.
4
5 Imhof moved to reinstate the fish farm section part of the ordinance as a
6 conditional use. In some parts of the country, the fish farms are enclosed. The
7 waste is good fertilizer.
8
9 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two side A.)
10
11 Imhof continued to state that they have to de -water and haul fish waste long
12 distances to apply it to agricultural fields. Having it close in is a benefit to the
13 farms. It is cheap fertilizer. There is nothing going on in the county now, but there
14 is a potential.
15
16 McShane stated he concurred that fish farming is a viable option for
17 Whatcom County. The agricultural zone is based almost exclusively on prime
18 agricultural soils. He was concerned they would use up prime agricultural soils.
19 There are a lot of rural areas where it would fit in well as a farming activity that
20 would not use the prime agricultural soils.
21
22 Dawson stated the tanks could be above ground so they don't go into the
23 prime agricultural soils.
24
25 Brenner questioned whether it would be taken into consideration during the
26 conditional use process that the fish farm not disturb prime agricultural soils.
27 Olason stated he didn't know that it would come up. Typically, they would look at
28 how they fit into the neighborhood and what siting issues they might deal with.
29 They don't have a soil dependent use requirement in the code.
30
31 Brenner asked if fish farms would be a problem in prime agricultural soils.
32 Olason stated not particularly.
33
34 Nelson restated the motion to reinsert WCC 20.40.157.
35
36 Hoag stated there was no one at the Planning and Development Committee
37 from the Agricultural Advisory Committee. On this issue, it is existing language.
38 The advisory committee is asking that it be retained. For that reason, she would
39 support the language being reinstated.
40
41 Motion carried 5 -1 with McShane opposed.
42
43 Brenner stated she had a problem with the language in section 20.40.051.
44 She didn't like that the equipment must be temporary. She wanted the equipment
45 to be able to be there as long as it is needed. She didn't want people to have to
46 move it just to move it back. She asked why it should be in there. Olason stated
47 they were trying to distinguish the difference between that provision and the
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 18
1 requirement for a conditional use permit for permanently placed equipment. If it is
2 portable, it should be temporary or movable.
3
4 Nelson stated the intent was to prevent processing in agricultural lands. He
5 disagreed with the intent.
6
7 Olason stated there is a conditional use. The problem is that they want to
8 have an incidental use, but if one is going to set up a factory or processing plant
9 without any standards for how big it can be, it becomes an issue. They are trying
10 to have an opportunity for people who aren't trying to set up a major plant to be
11 able to do that without a conditional use permit.
12
13 Hoag stated that section 20.40.158, conditional uses, specifies permanent
14 equipment. That is why the section for permitted uses says 'temporary portable
15 equipment.' It is just to call out the difference between what requires the
16 conditional use permit and what doesn't. It is existing language.
17
18 Olason stated that when staff doesn't know what people want to do, it is hard
19 to put a size limitation on it. They are trying to allow activities that aren't going to
20 be of a major scale and a permanent nature.
21
22 Imhof questioned the problem they are trying to prevent. He asked if there
23 is a history of this problem. Olason stated they should look at how to tell whether a
24 processing plant should be a conditional use or not. If the equipment does not
25 have to be temporary or portable, then they lose their ability to distinguish what
26 would require a conditional use permit. Some of those things should have a
27 conditional use permit.
28
29 Brenner questioned whether they have the ability to reduce the cost of
30 certain conditional use permits for agricultural purposes.
31
32 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the cost of processing a
33 conditional use permit means they have to pay the Hearing Examiner to do that. If
34 they want to reduce the cost, they have to make it administrative or permitted, or
35 subsidize the cost with the general taxpayer's money.
36
37 Brenner stated they should subsidize it or make it administrative.
38
39 Hoag stated that in agriculture land, the farmer's are using only $.37 out of
40 every dollar they are paying in taxes. It is legitimate to subsidize the cost of the
41 conditional use permit.
42
43 McShane stated they have an Agricultural Advisory Committee. The Planning
44 and Development Committee made some changes, and he had no problem focusing
45 on those changes because they went beyond what the Agricultural Advisory
46 Committee said. These people know more about farming than the councilmembers
47 do. He hesitated to manipulate this any more significantly than the Planning and
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 19
1 Development Committee already did. The Council should give some deference to
2 the farmers' expertise.
3
4 Nelson stated he hoped the committee thought this through thoroughly. He
5 recognized the committee's expertise, but he also grew up with agriculture. There
6 are impacts to these types of decisions if people are interpreting them differently.
7
8 Hoag stated the Planning and Development Committee ran out of time.
9 There were a number of changes that she wanted to bring forward. She'd asked to
10 keep it in committee, but it moved forward to the full Council. She would propose
11 her changes.
12
13 Imhof moved to refer to committee.
14
15 McShane stated he had a problem sending it back to committee. The
16 Planning and Development Committee has worked through this. Councilmember
17 Hoag had some additional issues. It is preferable to do it before the full Council.
18
19 Imhof amended his motion to hold to the next Council meeting in two weeks.
20 The proponents of amendments can have their amendments written up for
21 consideration before then.
22
23 Motion to hold in Council carried 5 -1 with Hoag opposed.
24
25 Nelson stated the public hearing is closed to public testimony.
26
27 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
28 TITLE 20, TO REVISE STANDARDS AND APPROVAL PROCESS FOR
29 HOME OCCUPATIONS AND COTTAGE INDUSTRIES IN VARIOUS
30 ZONING DISTRICTS (AB2000 -251B)
31
32 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated
33 that they've been working on this for close to two years. The amendments would
34 change the definitions of both home occupation and cottage industry, and would
35 revise some of the standards regarding cottage industries and home occupations
36 within each of the zoning districts. The Planning Commission worked on this for a
37 year. The full Council held one previous public hearing, and the Planning and
38 Development Committee has discussed it several times over a period of about six
39 months.
40
41 The home occupations, which are a business within a house, are a permitted
42 use under the existing code. The existing code allows no employees and no
43 detectable off -site impacts. The proposed language would lighten it up a bit to
44 allow two employees, additional off -site employees, and seasonal employees. It
45 would still be a permitted use. The off -site impacts wouldn't be prohibited, but
46 would be restricted if they are injurious or unreasonably interfere with the
47 surrounding area. That is less restrictive than the current code. The limit on the
48 retail sales is more restrictive. The retail sales are limited to items produced on site
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 20
or accessory to something produced on site, or e- commerce and catalogue sales.
There are hours of operation that aren't in the existing code. Heavy manufacturing
uses are restricted in the proposed code. There are more lenient sign regulations.
The existing code allows four square feet. The proposed language allows a larger
sign by conditional use.
A cottage industry is in a building separate from the home. The existing
code allows the cottage industry by conditional use. The proposed language is to
allow an administrative approval process, which is less expensive and time
consuming. The existing code allows two to four employees, depending on the
different zoning districts, and up to ten employees for forestry and agricultural uses
with acreage. The existing code allows a four square foot sign. The proposed
regulation allows larger signs of eight or sixteen square feet. The size of the
building allowed is the same. The size of the building is only limited on new
buildings. Seasonal employees not working more than 21 days per year are not
counted as employees. The cottage industry also limits retail sales to products
produced on site, accessory, or related uses. Heavy manufacturing uses are also
restricted. They are similar restrictions to what they have in the Light Impact
Industrial zones. The hours of operation are the same as the home occupations.
There has been similar discussion on the building codes or the requirements
to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) state requirements. There is a
memo from Sam Ryan, the building official. Ms. Ryan recommended language,
which is on packet page 281. It is an additional change that staff recommends for
section 20.97.087(10). It should say that the portion of the structure housing the
cottage industry shall comply with life /safety regulations. It addresses the building
and fire code issues, and makes it clear that the owner doesn't have to bring the
entire building up to code.
Brenner questioned whether it addresses ADA. Goodwin stated ADA is a
state and federal law. No matter what the County does, people still have to
comply. If it is a small enough business, the business still has to comply, but there
are no requirements for a small enough business. The County has never required
small businesses to build wheel chair ramps and handicapped bathrooms. That is
not a requirement. If there are a lot of employees or the business serves a lot of
the public from an outside facility, such as a restaurant, then there would be those
requirements.
Brenner suggested that a clarification be added to section 20.97.180(8).
That language confused her. She questioned whether an e- commerce or catalogue
business could be a primary business. Goodwin stated it could.
Dawson questioned how life /safety regulations differ from building and fire
regulations. Goodwin stated there are many building and fire regulations. This
proposed language only specifies those things that affect life or safety issues
specifically related to the proposed use, as opposed to all regulations.
Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 21
Emily Salka, Building Industry Association, stated that cottage industries
make a significant contribution to the economy. She questioned whether this
ordinance would increase or decrease opportunities for businesses to occur. She
supported Sam Ryan's proposed language.
Brenner questioned whether Ms. Salka had any specific suggestions for
amendments. Salka stated she could only speak to the proposal by Sam Ryan.
Wayne Sherwood, 5804 Hannegan Road, Bellingham, commended the
Planning Commission for its original amendments to the ordinance. It created three
classifications for businesses. The first classification streamlined home occupation
approvals and the cottage industry. It also provided a third classification that let
other businesses be located in places that may be unique. Look at the ordinance
more before it is approved. Look at statistics on the money that is brought into the
county by these types of businesses.
Richard Gilda, Jensen Road, stated he agreed with Sam Ryan's suggested
language. It is clear. Some of the buildings are structurally sound, but wouldn't
meet today's code. This ordinance would put approximately 50 antique dealers
who sell antiques from their homes out of business. Regarding home occupations,
section 20.97.180(7) would put people out of business who manufacture ceramics
or metals. That section needs to be reworded. They already touched on the issue
of sales. The way it is written, the intent isn't clear. Regarding the 10,000 square
foot building limit, it should be clarified. It was intended for existing buildings to be
put back on the tax roles. It was not intended to go out and build 10,000 square
foot buildings. People keep asking the difference between a 10,000 square foot
horse arena and a 5,000 square foot building for someone to have a business.
Martin Van Buren, 7312 Wiser Ridge Road, stated the ordinance needs
clarification and asked that the Council hold the ordinance to another scheduled
meeting to reevaluate the ambiguous wording. Inspections of any kind should be
limited only to health and safety. Businesses are regulated to the hilt. Private
industry, individual responsibility, and entrepreneurism have been and are the
backbone of America. Mandating such repressive conditions as this is like killing
the golden goose. Regarding section 20.97.180(1), the government should not
care how many people outside the family work in any business. Regarding section
20.97.180(2), it shouldn't make a difference on how much space it takes to start a
new business as long as there is a place to eat, sleep, and raise a family. Seventy -
five percent of a house is not too much to use for a small business. Regarding
section 20.97.180(8), there are some entrepreneurs who do not manufacture or
maintain services in the course of their business. Many bring in products from all
over the word, and redistribute them through standard business trade channels. It
is not the County's business. Through the regulations, the County may deprive an
enterprising taxpayer the freedom to earn a living.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated Mr. Van Buren expressed the things
they seem to forget more and more. He asked the Council to put off decision to a
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 22
later date. Not enough time has been spent defining what the problems actually
are. Then, determine what can be done about the defined problems. Once they
come up with the rules, go out and see how they work before they are imposed.
He submitted a handout that showed that for Acme, Deming /Glacier, and Custer,
there were 1,362 employees that collect $28 million in payroll. That is a significant
impact. He suggested that the Council go out and look at the small businesses. He
supported Sam Ryan's suggestion. This is a bigger issue than it appears on paper.
They haven't had a lot of big problems. They've only had a small few problems.
Address those issues.
Pat Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated cottage industry is very
important. He had a cottage industry 22 years ago and it worked really well. It
should be something that does not draw a lot of people to that location or does not
hire a lot of people. It shouldn't draw a lot of people to the location because it puts
a strain on the roads. Work with any existing buildings. He questioned whether
they are taking into account the amount of money it costs to service people who
are building things in the rural areas and who want services. Go with the ordinance
the way that it is. It is an improvement over what they had before, which worked.
This will also work.
Gary Reid, 5651 Mission Road, stated the goal was clarification of language.
He was discouraged that, after two years, they still have so many problems with
the language. One problem is in the definitions, which was one of the things they
wanted clarified. The cottage industry section allows the use of the dwelling unit,
which would make it a home occupation. Sam Ryan's language is very important to
all of them. There is a significant difference between life /safety and building codes.
The barns of the county are important from a historical standpoint, and they are an
asset. They have to find uses for the barns if they are going to be preserved.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side 8.)
Reid continued to state that the ordinance says there must be handicapped
access, but doesn't specify ADA. Any house with a cottage industry has to have a
handicapped ramp. If there is a misunderstanding, there is something wrong with
the language.
Regarding screening, the language went from 'may' to 'shall.' That could be
a substantial dollar impact if there is a large amount of acreage.
Ron Roosma, 4977 Wahl Road, referenced section 20.97.087(7). He
questioned who would make the determination that a use unreasonably interferes
with the enjoyment of life and property. In subsection (11), the Planning
Commission's intent was to not have a small oil refinery -type of operation. They
weren't against mixing two chemicals together to form a fiberglass or plastic
product. They didn't want the manufacturing of a chemical. Regarding screening,
the language should be 'may require,' because there are certain conditions in which
a remote business doesn't need screening.
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 23
1 Tom Filion, Ferndale, stated this should be continued. It needs more work.
2
3 Jeff Church, 8420 Island Drive South, Seattle, stated he loves this
4 community, and would like to move here. They have a craft studio, but the
5 restrictions in the current code on home occupations would make relocating here
6 impossible. The proposed language would make it possible. He asked the Council
7 to approve the proposed language because it would allow their business. The
8 existing would not.
9
10 Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
11
12 (Clerk's Note: The Council took a five - minute break at 10:30 p.m.)
13
14 Brenner moved to table the ordinance.
15
16 Nelson stated they need to have adequate discussion.
17
18 Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated a motion needs to be on the
19 floor before it can be tabled.
20
21 Hoag moved to adopt the ordinance.
22
23 McShane moved to approve the language proposed by Sam Ryan to amend
24 20.97.087(10) and 20.97.180(10), "10) The portion of the structure housing the
25 cottage industry (home occupation) shall comply with building and fiFe cede
26 , and inspeetien, including assen9bly
27 life /safety regulations." It reflects the intent of the Planning and
28 Development Committee.
29
30 Motion carried unanimously.
31
32 McShane stated he heard a suggestion from a couple of people, which
33 reflects many of the comments heard during the hearing. There seems to be some
34 indication that the Council is greatly restricting cottage industry and home
35 occupations, when the reverse is true. The Council is making regulation somewhat
36 easier. Having worked on this for a very long time, there were many people
37 against this in the beginning because they felt it went too far. Those people are not
38 here because they are satisfied with what the Planning and Development
39 Committee did. They tried to incorporate Planning Commission ideas as much as
40 possible. This is a complicated issue and it took a long time. No matter how hard
41 the committee and full Council struggles with this, they are never going to get it
42 perfect. He moved to have a review in two years written into this ordinance to look
43 at possible unintended consequences.
44
45 Nelson suggested adding language, "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by
46 the Whatcom County Council that it will be reviewed in two years for administrative
47 and fiscal impacts."
48
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 24
1 McShane accepted the suggested language for his amendment.
2
3 Hoag stated she agreed with the sentiment, but was concerned about
4 mandating a review because it ties up staff time and costs taxpayer money. She
5 preferred that the review be undertaken if there are complaints.
6
7 Brenner stated there might be problems in less than two years. She would
8 rather do a review whenever there are complaints, even if it is in less than two
9 years. The code used to allow home occupations in a separate building. A person's
10 home is the entire property. It doesn't matter where on the property the home
11 occupation exists. More needs to be done on this now.
12
13 Dawson suggested adding the amendment that a review will take place in
14 two years if the Planning Commission feels it is appropriate.
15
16 McShane accepted Councilmember Dawson's suggested language for his
17 amendment. Some councilmembers think that no other changes would occur in
18 this review. He is open to making changes now. This was in the Planning and
19 Development Committee, which deals with land regulations. However, many of the
20 questions the committee dealt with were economic in nature. It may be
21 appropriate to have this before the Finance Committee.
22
23 Motion to amend carried unanimously.
24
25 Brenner stated she wanted to make some amendments, and moved to hold
26 to the next Council meeting because it is late.
27
28 Hoag stated the committee has had this for months. People have had ample
29 opportunity to propose changes. She didn't hear any issues raised at this meeting
30 that weren't already addressed in committee. She would be happy to go over what
31 those are. They are covered. People who are objecting to this are not reading the
32 ordinance.
33
34 Brenner stated she did bring some of these issues up. There is a committee
35 of three people. That is not the majority of the Council. She was not allowed to
36 make any motions because she is not a committee member. They were not
37 addressed in committee.
38
39 Hoag stated Councilmember Brenner is welcome to bring her motions
40 forward now, but it doesn't need to go back to committee.
41
42 Brenner stated she didn't want to bring it to committee.
43
44 Motion failed 2 -4 with Nelson and Brenner in favor.
45
46 McShane stated there was a scriveners error at the end of section 20.40.158
47 on packet page 275, "...WCC 20.36.161(1) through (4 5)." There is also a
48 scrivener's error in section 20.42.164, "...WCC 20.36.161(1 - 4 5)."
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 25
1
2 Brenner moved to amend section 20.97.087(7), "...or electrical interference
3 off the property in sufficient amounts and of such characteristics and duration as is
4 likely to be injurious or cause damage to human health, plant or animal life, or
property, or which unreasonably interferes with enjoyment of life and property."
6 The language she wants to strike is subjective. They already have nuisance laws
7 about noise.
8
9 Hoag stated there is a scrivener's error in that proposed section,
10 20.97.087(7). The term "off the lot" was not supposed to be stricken. The
11 language should be, "...or electrical interference deteetable to the "^ ~""a' senses off
12 the lot in sufficient amounts...."
13
14 Brenner stated it is stricken, so her motion is to put it back in.
15
16 Hoag stated the committee recommended the language to include the term
17 "off the lot."
18
19 The Council concurred that it was a scrivener's error, and that term should be
20 reinstated.
21
22 Brenner amended her amendment to section 20.97.087(7), "...or electrical
23 interference off the lot in sufficient amounts and of such characteristics and
24 duration as is likely to be injurious or cause damage to human health, plant or
25 animal life, or property,
26 may."
27
28 Hoag stated the language is taken from state law regarding odors. With
29 cottage industry, there is noise and odor. The committee looked up the different
30 laws that apply to odor, and incorporated that language. She read the state law
31 regarding odor. The term is very clear.
32
33 Brenner stated there is a lot of state law that is not clear. If something is an
34 environmental or public health problem, then the County should do something. If it
35 is a matter of the enjoyment of someone's property, anyone can say that anything
36 interferes with enjoyment.
37
38 Nelson questioned whether it is clear administratively.
39
40 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated it would be subject to
41 interpretation. The Hearing Examiner on a conditional use would be able to decide.
42 On an administrative use it would be done administratively by staff. They would
43 have to notify people within 300 feet, who would say whether the impacts interfere
44 unreasonably. If a use is not supposed to have an unreasonable odor, and people
45 are complaining that it smells bad, then staff would have to revisit the conditions.
46 Odor is the most difficult to detect because there isn't an odor meter.
47
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 26
1 Hoag stated that is why the key word is 'unreasonably,' which is used
2 throughout law. A person making the complaint would have to prove that the odor
3 interferes unreasonably. It is not arbitrary, and it is state law.
4
5 Motion failed 2 -4 with Brenner and Nelson in favor.
6
7 Brenner stated the section 20.97.087(11) on packet page 270 should read,
8 "Cottage industry std may /shall be limited to...." She didn't know why the word
9 'should' is in there. Also, she questioned how metal casting or welding would be
10 taken.
11
12 Hoag stated that primary metal manufacturing would be like Intalco.
13
14 Brenner moved to amend section 20.97.180, "...means an occupation
15 conducted in a dwelling unit; provided that...." The regulations show the intent of
16 home occupation is a use of lesser impacts and fewer employees. It could be in a
17 barn. Cottage industry requires a lot more permitting and money than a home
18 occupation.
19
20 Goodwin stated that cottage industry requires an administrative approval. A
21 home occupation is permitted outright. If one does make a home occupation in a
22 separate building, then he or she would have to define how big the building would
23 be, or ultimately there would be two parallel regulations that are exactly the same,
24 but with different standards.
25
26 Brenner stated a cottage industry has to do with more employees and more
27 impacts. The concept of home occupation is minor and incidental, with no impacts
28 to neighbors. It used to not have to be in a dwelling unit.
29
30 Motion failed 1 -5 with Brenner in favor.
31
32 Nelson stated the sign limit goes from four to eight square feet. Eight square
33 feet is a two -foot by four -foot sign, which one couldn't see on a busy thoroughfare.
34 He questioned the committee discussion regarding the change in size, and was
35 interested in making this a conditional use so it would allow larger signs on busier
36 roads.
37
38 McShane stated it was discussed in committee. There was a split vote to
39 make a larger size a conditional use. They were talking about a sign that is 32
40 square feet.
41
42 Nelson moved to amend section 20.97.180(3), "...A larger sign up to four feet
43 by eight feet may be approved by the hearing examiner...."
44
45 Hoag stated she would support it as a conditional use. The committee looked
46 at the particular zone where the sign would be, and made the sizes accordingly.
47 For instance, the Rural zone allows a sign of eight square feet, but agricultural
48 zones allow signs that are sixteen square feet.
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 27
1
2 Brenner stated she had understood that larger signs would be approved by
3 administrative approval. One could end up paying more for the conditional use
4 permit than for the sign.
5
6 McShane stated the committee allowed larger signs under administrative
7 approval throughout.
8
9 Goodwin stated the theory is that in a residential neighborhood, where the
10 home occupation is in someone's house, the neighbors would have to be notified
11 and have an opportunity to speak on the issue.
12
13 Hoag stated this is something that the neighbors are concerned with. The
14 committee made the sign allowance bigger, from four square feet to sixteen square
15 feet. If someone wants to go even bigger, then he or she should have to pay the
16 extra money. Goodwin stated home occupations are allowed a sign of four square
17 feet in all instances, unless one gets a conditional use permit. Cottage industries
18 are allowed a sign up to eight or sixteen square feet.
19
20 Hoag suggested that the language of the motion specify 32 square feet,
21 instead of four feet by eight feet, to be consistent with the other language.
22
23 Nelson accepted the friendly amendment to amend section 20.97.180(3),
24 "...A larger sign up to 32 square feet may be approved by the hearing examiner...."
25
26 Motion carried 4 -2 with Brenner and Dawson opposed.
27
28 Brenner moved to amend section 20.97.180(3), "A larger sign up to 32
29 square feet may be approved by the hearing examiner by conditional use permit. A
30 larger sign up to no larger than four feet by eight feet may be approved by
31 administrative approval."
32
33 Hoag stated this is already under the administrative approval sections.
34
35 Nelson stated he would approve if it was consistent with the cottage
36 industries.
37
38 McShane stated the sign sizes for cottage industries are listed by district, and
39 are either eight square feet or sixteen square feet.
40
41 Nelson suggested a friendly amendment that the home occupation sign size
42 requirement be consistent with that of cottage industry.
43
44 Brenner accepted the friendly amendment to make home occupation signs
45 sizes consistent with cottage industries sign sizes, based upon the zoning.
46
47 Motion carried 5 -1 with Hoag opposed.
48
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 28
1 Goodwin stated that if it is done by district, home occupations are the same
2 in all districts. Sign size is either four, eight, or sixteen square feet. By specifying
3 sign size by zoning district, they have to reorganize the entire code and make it
4 different in every district.
5
6 McShane stated he believed the intent was to allow the sign size for home
7 occupations to be at a level the same as that of cottage industry. They won't
8 change it from district to district. They could make the maximum size at eight or
9 sixteen square feet.
10
11 Brenner moved to amend section 20.97.180(3), "...not exceeding fetes eight
12 square feet in area...."
13
14 Motion carried unanimously.
15
16 Brenner referenced section 20.97.180(7) and questioned whether it should
17 be limited to small -scale manufacturing.
18
19 Hoag stated it is for the assembly of things already manufactured. Home
20 occupation doesn't allow manufacturing. It only allows assembly of things already
21 manufactured.
22
23 Brenner moved to amend 20.32.165(3), " ...the zoning administrator sera++
24 may require adequate landscaping...."
25
26 Hoag stated that language was changed at the request of staff. The key
27 word is 'adequate.'
28
29 (Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side A.)
30
31 Hoag continued to state that if someone is in the middle of nowhere and is
32 impacting no one, then they don't have to have screening. The language simply
33 says that they shall require adequate screening on whatever is there. The word
34 'adequate' is the key word. It is looking at the particular site and seeing what is
35 needed. If nothing is needed, there is no screening.
36
37 Brenner stated that is why the word 'may' needs to be there.
38
39 Nelson restated the motion.
40
41 Motion to amend failed 2 -4 with Brenner and Nelson in favor.
42
43 Motion to adopt the ordinance as amended carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed.
44
45 McShane expressed tremendous gratitude to Sylvia Goodwin for her work on
46 this ordinance.
47
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 29
1 4. ACADEMY ROAD LATECOMERS AGREEMENT — ASSESSMENT
2 REIMBURSEMENT AREA AND ASSOCIATED COSTS (AB2001 -098)
3
4 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, gave a staff report and stated
5 there were some failed attempts for a Road Improvement District (RID) for
6 Academy Road in the early 1990's. In 1997, several property owners began to
7 construct the road. They estimated the cost at $113,000. He distributed photos
8 that showed before and after construction of Academy Road. In 1997, their funds
9 were exhausted before they could complete the road. The County looked at the
10 options. He submitted the road standards for a light bituminous surface treatment
11 (BST) road, or a chip sealed BST road instead of pavement. It would allow the
12 development to continue to finish the road with the money they had. However, it
13 places a restriction that the road is good for a maximum of 400 average daily trips
14 (ADT's) per day. With that in mind, and the fact that a single - family residence
15 generates ten trips per day, it equates to 40 lots. Mr. Olsen initiated a request to
16 receive reimbursement through the new County Code 12.44, which is
17 reimbursement for road construction costs that benefit others.
18
19 On packet page 293, there is a map showing the area chosen for the
20 latecomer assessments. The next page shows the cost allocations. Information on
21 packet page 296 lays out the different options they looked at for assessing the
22 people in the district. Attachment E on page 297 is the option they chose. They
23 chose a reimbursement area. That area is adjacent to the existing road. They
24 could have made the area bigger. However, they are limited to the forty lots based
25 on the road standard. There could be a maximum of approximately 70 lots, based
26 on zoning. The zoning on the north side of the road is Rural, one dwelling per five
27 acres (R5A). The zoning on the south side of the road is Rural, one dwelling per
28 two acres (R2A).
29
30 Hoag questioned whether the reimbursement is made to the County. Mills
31 stated Mr. Olsen and several property owners put money up for the costs, which is
32 shown on the chart on packet page 294. The owner contribution column shows
33 what people have already paid into the assessment. Mr. Olsen has put in the lion's
34 share of the cost. The money would go back to Mr. Olsen through the latecomer
35 ordinance. If one develops property within this area in the next 15 years, then he
36 or she is required to pay back that share. If one does not develop within 15 years,
37 he or she doesn't have to pay.
38
39 Brenner questioned why a particular lot that doesn't seem to access the road
40 is included. Mills stated the information in the packet includes letters from four
41 people who are protesting and asking for the opportunity to appeal. The Saulsbury
42 property is included in the district, however it is not assessed because it already
43 has access to the existing improved Academy Road, before it was extended.
44
45 Hoag questioned why they would assess the Lake Whatcom Residential and
46 Treatment Center if the road stops short of servicing their property. Mills stated
47 the road ends within the first parcel owned by the treatment center, and there is a
48 driveway that extends to Academy Road. Regarding the Saulsbury property, it
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 30
1 accesses Academy Road through an easement. They had a driveway before this
2 project. They didn't need the road extended to benefit them. That's why they are
3 not charged.
4
5 There are two issues to consider. One issue is whether the area is adequate
6 and the boundary makes sense. They have to go to the ordinance to see the
7 criteria for whether the boundary makes sense. It must be likely that benefited
8 property will be developed within 15 years from the date, otherwise the developer
9 doesn't get much money back. It also must be likely at the time of development of
10 the benefited property that such property will not be required to install similar
11 improvements. Academy Road, based on road standards, can only have 40 lots. If
12 the County makes the area very big with 70 to 100 lots, they are going to have to
13 do additional road improvements to Academy Road. That is one of the reasons
14 they were excluded from this. The criterion says they have to include lots that
15 wouldn't have to do additional road improvements to be benefited by this project.
16 However, they can only have 40 lots on this area. If they bring in 100 lots, they
17 are going to have to make additional road improvements. They are either going to
18 have to pave Academy Road now, which is chip seal, and possibly improve
19 Academy Road further down the hill.
20
21 Imhof stated the service level would change with the number of trips across
22 the road.
23
24 Mills stated that is why they wanted to keep the benefit district the way it
25 was. The third criterion is that the benefited parcels should be adjacent to the road
26 improvements or likely to require connection. They are trying not to add parcels
27 that are not adjacent to the road.
28
29 The last criterion is that there be an equitable cost share among the people.
30 He looked at different methods. They chose a combination of two methods. There
31 are 36 existing lots of record in the benefit area. Given the maximum of 40 lots,
32 they are left with four reserve tract lots. That is what they have on the chart on
33 packet page 294. Under cost allocation for method one, the owners listed how
34 many lots they have or want to have. The second method is based on road use.
35 The distance is from where the road improvement starts to the person's driveway
36 or lot line if the lot is undeveloped. That is how much of the road they are going to
37 use frequently. This is a dead -end road, not a through road situation. A person
38 close to the road improvement wouldn't be charged too much. Someone at the far
39 end would have to pay a large amount of money to get the road up to them. Cost
40 allocation three on packet page 294 is the average of the two methods. It is a
41 combination.
42
43 Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
44
45 Bruce Parker, 2544 Apple Jack Lane, stated this is a broader scope than he
46 was lead to believe by the County. He wasn't informed that this process would
47 occur. He found out when the person who did the locate for the underground
48 utilities called him to let him know. He made a trip to his property, and by the time
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 31
1 he got there the woods were cleared up the hill. No one had any answers as to
2 what his cost would be. He'd attended other road meetings about road
3 improvements going up the canyon. He was told at the time that certain things
4 would have to be done and certain rules would have to be followed. Those rules
5 went out the window, and this was prepared out of nowhere. Before, they said it
6 would be a democratic process. He didn't know how many people were involved in
7 the beginning. Some people owned property because they wanted to live there,
8 not to develop and make money. That was his intent. He assumed that part of it
9 was over with, he had to take this, and it was just a matter of contesting the
10 amount of money he was being asked to pay. He contested that because they are
11 basing the cost partly on the road usage. Access to his property is 100 to 150 feet
12 from where the old pavement ended. To his surprise, they had to cut the road
13 down and he would lose his driveway. He was told that he would get a replacement
14 driveway, which he did, but it is nearly impossible to use. Prior to the work, his
15 driveway was a nice, gentle slope up to where they park their recreational vehicle.
16 Now, he parks on the road and walks up.
17
18 When he brought this up at the last meeting, he was told that he should have
19 informed them sooner. He said at that time that no one ever informed him that
20 this process was beginning or when it ended. He lost his driveway, it was moved
21 further up the road, he gave up a quarter of his property so they could stay outside
22 of the County easement.
23
24 Mike Rorvig, 3791 Greenville Street, Bellingham, stated he owned his
25 property for ten years. He was involved in the road building project and would like
26 to see Don Olsen's assessment reimbursement put in place as soon as possible.
27 Mr. Olsen has been waiting for about four years. He had three suggestions to make
28 the assessment better for everyone. Mr. Mills indicated that the BST surface that
29 was put on the road would limit the users to 40. He asked that the Council allow all
30 the properties in the reimbursement area to use the road according to their existing
31 zoning. This would be consistent with the uses further down Academy Road in the
32 original section and also on Northshore Drive and many other places in the county.
33 Second, he asked that more properties are included in the reimbursement area.
34 The road labeled 'cell tower access road' is currently in and provides access to
35 several properties that border Academy Road, which are not included in the
36 assessment reimbursement area. They should be included. Lots number 9 and
37 number 23 through number 28 are owned by the same person and are likely to be
38 improved and will require access to Academy Road. Third, he asked that more
39 recognized methods be used to calculate the assessments. Front footage and
40 density are the common standard methods used. He'd never seen a precedent for
41 ADT before. This is the first assessment done by the County. These other two
42 methods would be fair and even - handed. Fourth, costs are included in the project,
43 which are detailed in his letter, that were not submitted by Don Olsen and do not
44 have either cancelled checks or receipts to back them up. Those costs should be
45 looked at before any final assessment is in place. Since he is ten percent of the
46 assessment, the cost would be significant to him. These changes would make his
47 assessment more fair, and the difference is nearly $10,000.
48
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 32
1 Rick Sola, Richmond Beach, Washington, stated he represented Olav Sola,
2 who participates in HJG, a landowner off Academy Road since 1959. He requested
3 that the Council continue to consider or reject what staff had presented. There
4 seems to be a discrepancy in the numbers regarding the lots. The information he
5 received doesn't jive with the 36 -lot count. He counted 22 parcels that are inside
6 of the reimbursement assessment area. Of those 22 parcels, 19 of them are on the
7 list to be assessed. Of those 19, 17 actually have an assessment applied to them.
8 Two parcels do not have an assessment applied to them. Of the 17 parcels that are
9 assessed, 16 are either rectangular or square in configuration. The only one that is
10 not is the triangle that is owned by HJG. When they do the road usage calculation
11 that is applied, it is appropriate to talk about yield for lots to be developed. Their
12 triangular configuration reduces their yield significantly. They would pay a
13 disproportionate share of the assessment. There is a power transmission line right -
14 of -way on the northeast edge of that lot. There is also an unauthorized easement
15 put in place by the developer that has encroached on that lot along the western
16 edge. It is the cell tower easement that ended up on his property. The developer
17 made a donation to the construction of that easement, which should be allocated to
18 the donation of HJG's contribution, since the easement ended up on the HJG
19 property. There is more consideration that needs to go on as far as how the
20 assessments are going to be determined and who is going to be included in the
21 reimbursement area.
22
23 Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
24
25 Hoag moved to refer this in the Public Works Committee to review the
26 assessment calculation and whether or not the receipts are legitimate. This is not
27 the hour to review this.
28
29 Motion to refer in committee carried 5 -1 with McShane opposed.
30
31
32 CONSENT AGENDA
33
34 Imhof reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
35 moved approval of items one through six.
36
37 Hoag removed Consent Agenda items two and four.
38
39 Motion to approve items one, three, five, and six carried unanimously.
40
41 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #01-
42 33 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, WILDER CONSTRUCTION
43 COMPANY, FOR THE FERNDALE /LUMMI AREA PRELEVEL PROJECT, IN
44 THE AMOUNT OF $439,695 (AB2001 -136)
45
46 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
47 AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS SOLID
48 WASTE AND GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 33
1 CEDARVILLE LANDFILL CUT -OFF WALL, IN THE AMOUNT OF $103,380
2 (AB2001 -137)
3
4 Hoag questioned where the wall would be put, and wanted to make sure it
5 was before the location where the groundwater comes in rather than at the other
6 end so it doesn't deflect the leachate onto other properties.
7
8 McShane stated it is to cut groundwater from entering into the landfill before
9 it gets there. Currently, one could drink the leachate in the wintertime because it is
10 so clean. He'd tested it. It's drinkable.
11
12 Nelson moved approval.
13
14 Motion to approve carried unanimously.
15
16 3. RESOLUTION OF HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON SALE OF
17 COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY, REQUEST #01 -01 (AB2001 -138)
18
19 4. RESOLUTION OF HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON SURPLUS OF
20 COUNTY PROPERTY, REQUEST #02 -01 (AB2001 -139)
21
22 Nelson moved approval.
23
24 Hoag questioned why it would be a benefit to the County in dealing with Park
25 Road. She questioned what they are accomplishing.
26
27 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, stated that, in widening Park
28 Road this summer, most of the widening has to take place on the south side of the
29 road. They need additional right -of -way because they can't cut into the hillside.
30 They are trading north for south.
31
32 Brenner questioned whether they are cutting into the Park Store. Mills stated
33 they are not.
34
35 Motion carried unanimously.
36
37 S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
38 CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
39 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND WHATCOM COMMUNITY
40 HEALTH PARTNERSHIP TO SUPPORT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
41 INITIATIVES FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN
42 DIRECTIVE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000 (AB2001 -140)
43
44 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
45 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE SUDDEN VALLEY
46 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION TO ACQUIRE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE
47 LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,584.03
48 (AB2001 -141)
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 34
1
2
3 OTHER ITEMS
4
5 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20,
6 REGARDING REGULATIONS RELATING TO NON - CONFORMING
7 SURFACE MINES AND SURFACE MINING IN THE RURAL,
8 AGRICULTURAL, RURAL FORESTRY AND COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
9 ZONES (AB2000 -301)
10
11 McShane reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated it is held
12 in committee and will be scheduled again on May 1.
13
14 2. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY
15 BICYCLE/ PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2001 -131)
16
17 Dawson reported for the Public Works and Capital Projects Committee and
18 moved approval. The Parks Department will assist the committee. This is an action
19 called for in the County's Comprehensive Plan. A transportation conference is
20 coming up soon, and it would be helpful to have this underway.
21
22 Brenner stated they are not going to use staff time for this. The committee
23 members can audiotape their own meetings. This is something the County should
24 be able to do without extra staff.
25
26 Nelson stated Councilmember Brenner recognizes the fiscal impacts when
27 forming committees. He questioned whether the administration has a desire to see
28 any changes in the ordinance regarding fiscal impacts.
29
30 Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated the ordinance specifies that the
31 committee shall be responsible for developing meeting agendas and keeping its
32 own minutes. Administration did take fiscal impacts into consideration. They want
33 to keep the staff commitment to a bare minimum.
34
35 Brenner questioned whether a staff member would attend the meetings.
36 Kremen stated a staff person may attend upon request for informational purposes.
37
38 Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
39
40 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO ADD
41 A NEW SECTION TO CHAPTER 20.36, RURAL DISTRICT, TO CLEARLY
42 DEFINE THE FORMULA FOR CALCULATING THE NUMBER OF LOTS IN A
43 CLUSTER SUBDIVISION AND PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY FOR
44 LOCATING CLUSTER LOTS WITHIN A RURAL SUBDIVISION WHICH
45 COVERS MORE THAN ONE ZONING DISTRICT (AB2001 -129)
46
47 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated
48 the committee moved to recommend approval as amended. He moved to adopt the
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 35
1 ordinance. There was one amendment to language in 20.36.310(7), "...minimum of
2 S9 100 feet from..." to make it consistent with the Agricultural Protection Overlay
3 (APO). He so moved. The amendment is redundant, but they wanted to make
4 sure it is consistent with the APO.
5
6 Brenner stated she didn't support the APO. With a buffer of 100 feet, less
7 land is available for agriculture.
8
9 McShane stated more land would be available for agriculture.
10
11 Hoag stated it is also consistent with the Health Code. The land can be more
12 easily farmed because buildings won't be as close to the agricultural activity. This
13 ordinance is about clustering where two different zones meet.
14
15 Motion to amend carried unanimously.
16
17 McShane spoke regarding section 20.36.310(6). At the previous Council
18 meeting, the Council amended the APO to allow sixteen residential lots. He moved
19 to amend 20.36.310(6), "...nor more than te-R sixteen residential lots...."
20
21 Hoag stated the vote in committee was split on this issue. This would allow
22 cluster subdivisions in R10 zones. Sixteen residential units don't preserve the rural
23 character in R10 zones. The language says the purpose is to preserve the rural
24 character.
25
26 Brenner stated it still can't go against how much they could have done. She
27 asked how the rural character would be reduced if the residential lots are clustered
28 in one location, leaving even more open space. She supported the motion.
29
30 Motion carried 5 -1 with Hoag opposed.
31
32 Brenner moved to amend 20.36.310(7) so that the setbacks to the other
33 property lines be reduced to be consistent with the zoning.
34
35 Hoag stated it is already consistent with the APO.
36
37 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the APO requires 30 -foot
38 setbacks, but the zone only requires five -foot setbacks.
39
40 Brenner stated they wanted to allow the five -foot setbacks. That was her
41 motion.
42
43 Hoag stated this is for a cluster. There is more impact in one spot. The
44 other zoning language applies to individual homes. The current language would be
45 consistent with the APO.
46
47 Motion failed 1 -5 with Brenner in favor.
48
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 36
1 Motion to adopt the ordinance as amended carried unanimously.
2
3 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
4 MAP FROM LIGHT IMPACT INDUSTRIAL (LII) TO GENERAL
5 COMMERCIAL (GC) FOR APPROXIMATELY SIX ACRES AT THE
6 NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF WEST SMITH ROAD AND GUIDE
7 MERIDIAN (AB2001 -130)
8
9 McShane stated he would abstain due to a financial relationship with one of
10 the applicants and the financial institution.
11
12 Imhof moved approval of the ordinance.
13
14 Brenner questioned why this was not done a long time ago.
15
16 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated this is already
17 commercial. Because they are widening the Guide Meridian and Smith Road, the
18 owner is going to have to relocate all their buildings. That is why they asked for
19 the rezone. Three corners of the Guide Meridian and Smith Road intersection are
20 already commercial zoning, including this corner. The proponent wants to extend
21 the commercial zone further north along the Guide Meridian because they are going
22 to have to relocate their business buildings when the roads are widened.
23
24 Hoag stated staff recommends that they rezone 2.4 acres, and the remainder
25 stays in LII, which is what the surrounding properties are. The applicant suggested
26 that would not work for them because there would be costs in relocating those
27 buildings, and in order to recoup those costs, they want the entire six acres zoned
28 General Commercial.
29
30 Motion carried 5 -0 with McShane abstaining.
31
32 S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
33 TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.38, AGRICULTURE PROTECTION OVERLAY, TO
34 ENHANCE THE APO COMPLIANCE WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
35 ACT, THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE
36 COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING POLICIES; TO CLARIFY; AND TO ENHANCE
37 PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURE LANDS (AB2000 -356)
38
39 Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, gave a staff report and stated the staff
40 response explains and shows the Comprehensive Plan section in which one of the
41 changes requested at a previous meeting would be out of compliance with the
42 Comprehensive Plan. Also, staff received a memo from the Health Department that
43 addresses the issue of the septic drain fields in the reserve tract.
44
45 (Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side 8.)
46
47 Olason continued to state that the Council might want to defer this.
48
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 37
1 Brenner stated they all agree that they need to do a Comprehensive Plan
2 amendment rather than make the change here.
3
4 Hoag questioned whether they are going to put the language back in.
5
6 Brenner stated they are.
7
8 Hoag questioned whether the Health Department is asking the Council to
9 change something major. Olason stated that relates to the question about having
10 the drain fields in the reserve tract. The Health Department memo is just for the
11 Council's consideration. It seems to indicate that it is out of compliance with WCC
12 24.05.
13
14 Hoag stated the Health Department asks the Council to reconsider the
15 language the Council adopted, which said the drain field could be in the reserve
16 tract, provided they used an underground system. It is the language at the top of
17 packet page 345, item four. It is the double - underlined language in that section
18 that the Health Department recommends deleting. She moved to amend section
19 20.38.060(4), "...but not within the reserve tract unless they use a standard
20 ground system ei= are on non APO soil, and"
21
22 McShane stated it would be easiest to remove the drain field from the
23 reserve tract. That is where the trouble is. Plowing is going to cause problems.
24 The intent was to create more flexibility, but it doesn't work.
25
26 Hoag stated that is what her motion would do.
27
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29
30 Hoag stated staff recommended a change to section 20.38.050(2)(b) on
31 packet page 344. If the Council adopts the version of Exhibit 1 that is on packet
32 pages 342 through 349, then the Council will have adopted the amended version
33 that has all of the change made, except the one made just now and the section that
34 does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. She moved to adopt the ordinance
35 with the Exhibit 1 that begins on packet page 342, as amended.
36
37 Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
38
39 6. POSSIBLE APPOINTMENT OF A DISTRICTING MASTER TO PREPARE
40 THE 2001 DISTRICTING PLAN (AB2001 -045)
41
42 Nelson stated that the members of the Whatcom County Districting
43 Committee, whose members include Les Reardanz, Todd Gunn, Erik Konstad, and
44 Darlene McLeod, held their first meeting last Friday, April 13, 2001. At that
45 meeting, they appointed their fifth committee member, Henry Bierlink, to serve as
46 the Districting Committee chair. The committee also appointed Terry Unger as the
47 districting master. Mr. Unger will prepare a districting plan for the County. The
48 next meeting of the Districting Committee will be held at 2 p.m., Friday, April 27,
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 38
1 2001, in the Whatcom County Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue,
2 Bellingham.
3
4 7. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE RELATIONSHIP WITH WHATCOM
5 COUNTY AND LUMMI NATION (AB2001 -133)
6
7 Nelson stated a substitute version of the resolution was distributed during
8 the day. He read the resolution into the record.
9
10 Brenner stated the sentence structure for item four didn't work. There was
11 an incomplete sentence there, so she put the sentences together. She read the
12 proposed amended language:
13 "4. The Lummi Indian Tribe and Whatcom County desire to work
14 together to address natural resources, economic development
15 opportunities, and other issues for the benefit of all people."
16
17 Dawson moved approval of the resolution. She suggested a letter
18 accompany it, which was brought forward.
19
20 Imhof moved to delete item number two.
21
22 Dawson stated that item number two needs to be deleted. Their attorney
23 said so. She distributed the wrong copy.
24
25 Imhof stated the Council has a copy of the agreement from 1982, which is a
26 mess. He would not reconfirm that document.
27
28 Dawson proposed to go into executive session to discuss with its attorney the
29 legality of some of this language regarding the 1982 memorandum agreement.
30
31 Nelson moved to go into executive session.
32
33 Motion carried 5 -1 with McShane opposed.
34
35 McShane stated he would not attend the executive session.
36
37 (Clerk's Note: The Council went into executive session from 12:20 a.m, to
38 12:25 a.m.)
39
40 Nelson restated the motion to amend the ordinance by deleting item number
41 two. During discussion, they determined they need additional information.
42
43 Motion to amend carried 4 -1 -1 with Brenner opposed and McShane
44 abstaining.
45
46 Dawson moved to go into executive session to discuss legality with legal
47 counsel.
48
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 39
McShane moved to replace item number 1 with language, "NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Whatcom County Council that it does not seek
in any way the diminishment of the Lummi Reservation that was created by the
Treaty of Point Elliot (12 Stat.927) dated January 22, 1855 and an Executive Order
dated November 22, 1873 (12 Stats. At Large, p. 928); and"
Hoag stated the County Council has not taken a stand on diminishment one
way or the other.
McShane stated the County Council could take a position now.
Hoag stated the tribes objected to what they perceived as the County Council
taking a position when it sent letters out requesting more information. The Council
has taken a position of not taking a position for either side on the issues out there,
but only acting to try to gain more information. It is inappropriate to ask the
Council to take a stand on these. The Council has never taken a position regarding
diminishment, and that's where it should remain.
Brenner stated that she didn't support diminishment, so she didn't have any
problem with the motion. She was fine with it when they were at the meeting with
the Lummi Tribe. She changed the language because the councilmembers didn't
want it worded that way when she talked to them, but she's fine with the language
as proposed.
Hoag stated that if the Council wants to take a position on it, then the
Council should hold hearings on it and get information from both sides on the issue.
The Council is not in a position right now to take a position.
Dawson stated it is another one of those legal words that has a lot of
ramifications. It is like the words 'sovereignty,' 'in common,' and 'nation.'
Everyone has their own perception of what it is. It just makes it difficult to work.
Having this neutral position is the best way to go.
McShane stated it is critical that the Council take a position on this. There
will be consequences if the Council doesn't take a position.
Nelson stated there are always consequences to whatever they do.
Hoag stated the motion may be something she would support if she had
enough information. It's not time to take a position on something without
information.
Brenner stated she understood what Councilmember Hoag said, but she
would not like to see the reservation reduced in any way or diminished in any way.
It may be a more complicated word than how she sees it, but she didn't want to
see any diminishment of the reservation in any shape she could think of.
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 40
1 Dawson stated Councilmember Brenner said she didn't want to see it
2 diminished. It has been diminished. The original uplands was 12,440. The trust
3 land status now is approximately 8,000. It has already been diminished.
4
5 Brenner stated she didn't want to see it diminished more.
6
7 Nelson restated the motion.
8
9 Motion to amend failed 2 -4 with McShane and Brenner in favor.
10
11 Motion to approve the resolution as amended carried 5 -1 with McShane
12 opposed.
13
14 Dawson stated a letter was brought forward. It was brought forward during
15 the open session. They could send the letter along with the resolution to the Tribe.
16 The letter asks the Tribe for information, which was the suggestion from the
17 Bellingham Herald.
18
19 Nelson stated the Council wants to set up the liaison to the Tribe. This is just
20 the beginning.
21
22 Dawson stated this letter would precede it by having some of this information
23 for that liaison. She would circulate the letter and request four councilmember
24 signatures.
25
26 Nelson stated he would not sign it. He would have the Council's liaisons,
27 Councilmembers McShane and Brenner, work with the Lummi tribal issues. The
28 Council needs to have that discussion.
29
30 Dawson questioned whether Councilmember Brenner would look at the letter.
31
32 Brenner stated she would look at it.
33
34 Hoag stated she didn't have the letter long enough to know what it's about.
35 She wouldn't support voting at this point to send it with anything. If the Council
36 wants to consider sending this letter, it should be held for two weeks, it should be
37 in the Council's packet, and the Council should be able to review the letter.
38
39 Dawson stated the Council holds issues for two weeks, and they go on
40 forever. They are discussing this now, so they know the letter is here. They could
41 get four signatures.
42
43 Hoag stated that getting four councilmembers' signatures for letters is a
44 process that was set up to respond to legislation that's moving very quickly through
45 Olympia, where there won't be a County Council meeting prior to the deadline they
46 are trying to meet. The process is not meant to take votes outside of the public
47 eye.
48
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 41
1 Dawson moved to refer the letter to committee.
2
3 Brenner stated one fellow who spoke said that anytime someone proposes
4 something, it is for their benefit. That is why the Sandy Point people need to
5 understand that the letters the Council first did were written by the Sandy Point
6 people. The ultimate questions may be questions they wanted answered, but the
7 way the letters were worded was not impartial. It seems strange that someone is
8 concerned about wording from the Lummi Tribe, which the Council went over during
9 a public process. They did a very good combination mostly. She was concerned if
10 people think that something anyone proposes is for their benefit and why they think
11 the Council should have mailed those letters, which were written by a certain side.
12 She understood that the Tribe is a sovereign nation, but they are also Whatcom
13 County citizens. They County has Canadian Americans. There are people in the
14 county with dual citizenship. They are still part of the community.
15
16 (Clerk's Note: Imhof left the meeting at 12:35 a.m.)
17
18 Brenner continued to state that someone said she only wanted to get
19 answers from the Lummi Tribe. She told the reporter that the Council needs to ask
20 the Lummi Tribe first, and if they can't answer the questions to the Council's
21 satisfaction, then the Council needs to write letters that are neutral.
22
23 Hoag stated those letters that she supported spelled out what the concerns
24 were that were brought to the Council, and asked for further information. The
25 Council did not take a stand on the issues that were raised. The Council just said
26 that this is what was brought to them, and they would like more information.
27
28 Brenner stated the Council didn't say it that way. That's not true.
29
30 Nelson stated there is a difference of opinion.
31
32 Brenner stated the Council said that this is what it is. It was very specific.
33 They could have asked the questions in a paragraph instead of two pages.
34
35 Nelson thanked the members of the Lummi Nation who attended the
36 meeting. This is just starting out, and it's a very difficult process. He questioned
37 whether the Tribal Council had selected its members.
38
39 Unidentified audience member stated they had not yet.
40
41 S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A NEW
42 LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR WILLOWS INN BED &
43 BREAKFAST, 2579 WEST SHORT ROAD, LUMMI ISLAND (AB2001 -142)
44
45 Hoag moved approval.
46
47 Motion carried unanimously.
48
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 42
1
2 INTRODUCTION ITEMS
3
4 Brenner moved to accept the Introduction Items.
5
6 Motion carried unanimously.
7
8 1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF COUNTY TAX TITLE
9 PROPERTY, REQUEST #01 -01 (AB2001 -138A)
10
11 2. RESOLUTION DECLARING COUNTY -OWNED PROPERTY AS SURPLUS
12 AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF SUCH PROPERTY, REQUEST #02 -01
13 (AB2001 -139A)
14
15 3. ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR TEMPORARY LOCAL HEALTH OFFICER
16 COVERAGE FOR WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2001 -143)
17
18 4. ORDINANCE CONTINUING A MORATORIUM ON CONDITIONAL USE
19 PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR NATURAL GAS, PETROLEUM, AND
20 PETROLEUM BASED PRODUCT TRANSMISSION LINES (AB2001 -122)
21
22
23 OTHER BUSINESS
24
25 McShane stated the Natural Resources Committee recommended approval of
26 a request to have the Surface Mining Advisory Committee examine mining in
27 industrial areas, and establish conditional use criteria in the industrial areas. He
28 moved approval.
29
30 Hoag stated she wanted clarification that they look only at heavy impact
31 industrial areas, not light impact industrial areas, which are situated right next to
32 residential areas and which are not where they want to mine.
33
34 Motion carried 4 -1 with Hoag opposed.
35
36 Pete Kremen, County Executive, invited the councilmembers to a meeting
37 this Friday at 8:00 p.m. at the Mt Baker Theater regarding Intalco. The
38 councilmembers would be treated as special guests. The councilmembers should
39 RSVP to Jim Frederick. They are expecting a large crowd there on Friday evening.
40
41 Brenner asked what the County could do. Kremen stated it is an
42 informational meeting, more than anything. He also invited all the mayors and the
43 city councilmembers from each city within Whatcom County. Every community
44 within the county would be affected by a shut down at Intalco. It would be
45 beneficial and productive for the councilmembers to be there.
46
47 Kremen also recognized and commended the County Council staff and the
48 administrative staff for enduring this lengthy, but productive meeting.
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Hoag questioned whether there would be an opportunity to provide input.
Kremen stated this is an effort to rally the community to convince the Bonneville
Power Administration (BPA) to adopt the tiered rate structure.
Hoag stated she has a suggestion to adopt a structure that is slightly
different than the industry - proposed 75 percent /25 percent. Her suggestion would
be acceptable to the public utility districts (PUD), and BPA could do it. Kremen
stated the local PUD already accepts the 75/25 split.
Hoag stated the other PUD's aren't. Kremen stated there might be an
opportunity for her to inject her views. It would be worth the effort to be there to
show support, interest, and concern for the situation at Intalco.
Hoag stated she'd already contacted legislators on their behalf, before they
had the newspaper articles.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
There were no reports.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:45 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on May 15 , 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Regular County Council, 4/17/2001, Page 44