HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil March 20 20011 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Regular County Council
3
4 March 20, 2001
5
6 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
7 Nelson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Also Present: Absent:
10 Dan McShane None
11 Marlene Dawson
12 Connie Hoag
13 Barbara Brenner
14 Sam Crawford
15 Robert Imhof
16
17
18 ANNOUNCEMENTS
19
20 Nelson announced that there was consideration of an appeal of the
21 Hearing Examiner's decision on File No. APL2000- 00009, filed by Jonathan
22 Sitkin for Robert and Susan Brooks, regarding the Whatcom County
23 Shoreline Administrator's determination of nonconformance (AB2001-
24 032).
25
26 Dawson moved to support the Hearing Examiner as it relates to the
27 expansion of the second story where a conditional use and variance are needed.
28
29 Motion carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed.
30
31 Dawson moved to reverse the findings regarding the carport modification,
32 based on an error of law.
33
34 Motion carried unanimously.
35
36 Nelson announced that there was also discussion with Senior Deputy
37 Prosecutor Dave Grant regarding pending litigation (AB2001 -018) in
38 executive session during the Committee of the Whole meeting. Legal counsel was
39 given direction.
40
41
42 SPECIAL PRESENTATION
43
44 PRESENTATION BY WASHINGTON STATE DIVISION OF VOCATIONAL
45 REHABILITATION (AB2001 -017)
46
47 Sharon Whirl, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR), stated her agency's
48 mission is to assist people with disabilities to prepare for, obtain, and retain
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 1
1 employment. She presented a plaque to Information Services Division Manager
2 George Reid for hiring, training, and working with people with disabilities.
3
4 George Reid, Information Services Manager, accepted the certificate of
5 recognition and stated that it is with pleasure that he is able to provide an
6 opportunity for these people to learn a skill and become a productive team
7 member. The plaque really belongs to Record Management Supervisor Ann
8 Bjertness. He asked Ms. Bjertness to accept the plaque and give recognition to her
9 staff, who helped her bring this program on board.
10
11 Ann Bjertness, Record Management Supervisor, thanked her staff. Without
12 their help, this would not have happened over the last ten years that they've been
13 working with programs such as Kulshan Vocational Services to aid in getting
14 employment for the handicapped.
15
16 Whirl stated DVR contracted the services of Matt Carlson of Kulshan
17 Supported Employment a couple of years ago. He approached the Whatcom
18 County staff about a DVR applicant who was interested in obtaining an office
19 position in the courthouse. The County staff was willing to give this young man the
20 opportunity to learn to prepare documents for microfiche. Following a successful
21 work trial and on- the -job training program, the person was hired permanently. He
22 is still employed. Given the proper training and support, people with disabilities can
23 be successfully employed. They offer diverse abilities and have proven to be
24 dependable and valuable employees. She thanked the courthouse staff for taking a
25 lead in the community and making a difference.
26
27
28 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
29
30 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FEBRUARY 20, 2001 COUNTY
31 COUNCIL MEETING
32
33 Imhof moved to approve.
34
35 Motion carried unanimously.
36
37
38 OPEN SESSION
39
40 The following people spoke:
41
42 Debra Smith, 1301 Deep Valley Drive, spoke regarding Comprehensive Plan
43 amendment 2001 -N. She requested that the Council deny the development of a
44 gravel pit at Macmillan plat. She did not want the accompanying trucks, dirt, and
45 noise. The land shares the water table. She asked to see the impact of the first
46 gravel pit three miles away, which is the Cowden pit. She submitted a letter from
47 Rick Meyer, Water District 13 Commissioner.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 2
1 McShane stated the Natural Resources Committee already received a letter
2 from Water District 13.
3
4 Nelson stated that if this is docketed, it will go to the Planning Commission.
5
6 Yvonne Vander Molen, 3011 Green Valley Drive, spoke against
7 Comprehensive Plan amendment 2001 -N. Her community just heard about this,
8 and will organize against this. They will fight for their quality of life and aquifer.
9 Taking it to the community without any public hearings is unfair. The property was
10 logged over three years ago. Slash burning has not taken effect yet. They are
11 living in a drought. No one will do anything about it, and now they want to do
12 more to decimate the community.
13
14 Nelson stated these are items that will only be docketed for Comprehensive
15 Plan amendments. This still has a long process to go through. It would go to the
16 Planning Commission, which would hold hearings on these matters to address
17 issues that have been raised. Then, it comes back to the Council for even more
18 hearings. This is just the beginning of the process.
19
20 McShane stated that, even if the Planning Commission recommends
21 approval, the Council wouldn't decide until October or November.
22
23 Hoag stated notice would be sent to people who live within 1,000 feet of the
24 designation, not others. The public needs to find out who lives within 1,000 feet
25 and be in contact with them if this does get docketed.
26
27 Jack Swanson, 900 Dupont, spoke on Comprehensive Plan amendment 2001-
28 I, It is a rezone of 20 acres east of Maple Falls from Rural Forestry (RF) to Rural,
29 one dwelling per five acres (R5A). The proposal is to build a bed and breakfast
30 establishment, cabins, and some recreational vehicle (RV) sites and leave most of
31 the property as it is. It is an area that hasn't been logged for about 50 years. It
32 has a few large trees, pasture, and shrub scrub. He submitted photographs. It is
33 not forestland. It should have been zoned Rural in the first place. It is a wonderful
34 site for the proposed use. There are a number of provisions in the Comprehensive
35 Plan that deal with this. The East Whatcom County Economic Development plan,
36 prepared by BST Associates, addresses the fact that this is a fairly rapidly growing
37 area. Much of the employment in the area comes from small businesses like the
38 one operated out of the bed and breakfast establishment. He urged the Council to
39 send this to the Planning Commission to be docketed.
40
41 Robert VanHouten, 4145 Blue Canyon Road, commented on the Council's
42 action to overturn the Hearing Examiner decision regarding Park Store Scooter
43 Stuff. From the beginning, his utmost concern was for the neighbors. The product
44 mix they sell is also of concern to their neighbors. He asked what happened to the
45 more than 20 letters submitted in support of the store by his neighbors. He doesn't
46 sell alcohol and tobacco. His home is in the business. He has concerns about the
47 well being and care of the community. The business is very much like a
48 neighborhood commercial zone. The neighborhood is the Sudden Valley area,
49 which is densely populated. The stores in that area would be able to survive with
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 3
the local clientele in the Sudden Valley area. Those stores thrive. The area near
his store is sparsely populated. He relies on the tourism to Sudden Valley. It was
implied that he draws people to his store, but people have come there for years for
the scenic amenities.
Motorcycle parts and accessories no different than auto parts and boat parts.
Nowhere in the zoning mix does it say they have to have one product. They can
have a combination of things. People will say that the ruling was based on
interpretation of zoning law. Other people will say that there was prejudice against
motorcycle riders. He asked to read from the Hearing Examiner.
Nelson stated that the Council has already decided this. His paperwork can
be submitted to the public record.
VanHouten read a quote from the Hearing Examiner. The record submitted
to the Council by the Prosecuting Attorney referred to the products as motorcycle
paraphernalia. The term "paraphernalia" is a derogatory term, and doesn't belong
on these documents. He asked the Council what it based its decision on.
Hoag stated there have been a lot of comments about the question of bias.
The Council was asked to look at whether or not the use that was there was in
compliance with the zoning. This is not about motorcycles.
Doug Campbell, Associated Project Consultant, 1401 Astor Street, spoke on
Comprehensive Plan amendments 2001 -F, 2001 -P, and 2001 -K. Last year, he
submitted the application for the seven -acre parcel on the Mount Baker Highway,
which is amendment 2001 -F. There was an appeal to the Growth Management
Hearings Board. The Hearings Board, city, and applicant agreed to come back
through the system on this one. They are doing that now. He asked the Council to
move it again through the process. There are significant changes at the Mount
Baker /Britton Road intersection. He submitted information from the City Council
that documents significant improvements to that area in terms of a new school, a
potential new primary school, an 18 -lot subdivision, a 60 -lot subdivision, a 75 -lot
subdivision, a new fire station, and a new 22 -unit condominium, which the City
Council approved the previous evening. This area is ready to go. They would like
to make the improvements needed to the intersection. The sewer and water
services are there.
Regarding amendments 2001 -K and 2001 -P, he urged the Council to docket
these items. Item 2001 -P fell through the cracks, and was just submitted to the
Council by Matt Aamot. It makes sense to allow for this particular joint sand and
gravel operation as proposed in amendment 2001 -P because it is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and allows Mr. Connelly to operate under his conditional
use permit. He would like to conform to the mineral resource land (MRL)
requirements, even though the applications through the state Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) are more onerous than the County regulations.
Arlene Blankers- Sanders, 1409 Marietta Avenue, spoke in support of
Comprehensive Plan amendment 2001 -D regarding the urban growth area (UGA) in
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 4
1 Lynden. This acreage is close to downtown Lynden. It is across the street from the
2 fairgrounds. It adjoins a proposed city park. Eighty -six acres were taken out of the
3 Lynden UGA last year. The City of Lynden fully supports this amendment. She
4 asked the Council to docket this item for Planning Commission review.
5
6 Jennifer Corn - Leach, 132 Alger Cain Lake Road, stated she supports the store
7 Scooter Stuff, and objected to the Council's continued harassment of this store and
8 its owners. The Hearing Examiner decided this zoning issue last November in favor
9 of Scooter Stuff. She is a recreational motorcyclist that has ridden the Blue Canyon
10 Park area for over 20 years. This historic store has been revitalized and keeps its
11 ambiance and charm. The store serves its immediate neighborhood by selling
12 convenience items, locally crafted items, and clothing. It also sells motorcycle
13 parts that are considered hardware, which is allowed under the neighborhood
14 commercial zoning. This is in keeping with the history of what this store has always
15 been. It is blatant bias that this Council is not telling every store in neighborhood
16 commercial zones what they can and can't sell. One vocal woman has opposed the
17 store, but 30 other neighbors are in favor of the store. The owners work hard to
18 accommodate their neighbors by opening at 10:00 a.m. and closing at 6:00 p.m.
19 They are not an undesirable element. She urged the Council to reconsider its
20 decision.
21
22 Debra Benner, 4406 Minaker Road, Sumas, spoke in support of
23 Comprehensive Plan amendment 2001 -M. In 1996, she had two parties interested
24 in buying part of her acreage for residential use. When the Killam Pit requested
25 and obtained a rock crusher in October of 1997 and mining activities began to
26 occur, the two parties lost interest. With an active pit bordering her northern
27 property line, the property is undesirable as residential property. Doug Goldthorp
28 commented that her property contains high grade sand and gravel. Her MRL
29 proposal is more consistent with the 125 foot buffer required and approved by the
30 County Council, and keeps the mining on one side of the pipeline. The proposal
31 would also not create a new MRL in the area. It would be an extension of an
32 existing MRL. Her property would provide the county with a good source of high
33 quality sand and gravel. She asked for the Council's approval.
34
35 Kevin Zender, 2181 Central Road, Everson, spoke on Comprehensive Plan
36 amendment 2001 -N. Currently, the land is in the urban growth area, with a zoning
37 of Rural Forestry. He asked to lower the density to Rural, one dwelling per five
38 acres, with an MRL overlay and an underlying zone in Rural Forestry. There is a
39 need to increase the supply of construction aggregate in Whatcom County to avoid
40 shortages. This has been addressed by a state Department of Natural Resources
41 study of the 50 -year aggregate supply available in northwest Washington.
42
43 A MRL overlay to forestland is compatible for this use. Mining operations are
44 part of forest management. Forests are very good at regenerating soils. This
45 amendment is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal 8E, which
46 discourages conversion of forestland to other uses. By reducing the density, they
47 will also reduce the likelihood of conflicts arising because of residential development
48 and forest management.
49
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 5
Brian Bentley, Whatcom County resident, stated he has ridden motorcycles
and scooters along the back roads of Whatcom County since he was five years old.
He's a lifelong resident of the county and the United States. He is a decorated
combat veteran from Vietnam. It is someone's right to have any type of business
he or she chooses. Rita Foley has protested and caused problems for everything
that has happened in that valley. She has tried to stop him from clearing pasture
and excavating for new homes on the lake and in the watershed with every permit
he was required to have. He recommended getting back to the basics and do
something proper for these people.
Mike Hill, 5310 Potter Road, Deming, spoke in favor of the Comprehensive
Plan amendment 2001 -I. He is the realtor that represents the sellers of the
property. He spent considerable time on the property. It isn't forestland and
hasn't been reforested. It was last forested 50 years ago. The remaining trees
have a cultural significance, and would destroy the property if removed. The
buyer's plan is to leave everything intact and do a cluster, which is appropriate for
the site.
Dr. Larry Marrs, 2612 Nubgaard Road, Ferndale, spoke in favor of the
Scooter Stuff store. It is the finest kind of rural institution anyone could find. He
urged the Council to overturn its decision. The owners wouldn't make it selling only
bread and milk to the families in the area. They have to sell other products. The
people who frequent that store wear leather, but it is to protect them if they fall of
a bike. The people who ride the bikes are not outlaws. They are outstanding
citizens. He is the chairman of the local Harley owners group. In that group, they
have public school teachers, two Christian ministers, and real estate brokers and
agents. He was dean of the College of Education at Western Washington University
for 15 years, and a member of the Ferndale School Board.
Richard McMillan, 1903 Lakeway Drive, stated he supports the Park Store.
He is a local artist in the community. He has been airbrushing motorcycles for 25
years. He sells his artwork at the store and plans to teach art.
AI Forbes, 413 E. Lake Samish Drive, stated he is a Canadian citizen who
supports the Park Store Scooter Stuff, and he tells everyone about the store.
People come to this community and spend their money. He has spent over $5,000
in the last six months because of his loyalty to them and the kind of people they
are.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Doug Connelly, 8092 Comox Road, Blaine, spoke in support of
Comprehensive Plan amendment 2001 -K. The aggregate is a valuable and
essential product. It is close to the market in the western part of the county. They
are only one mile from Interstate 5, four miles from Blaine, and 12 miles from
Bellingham. If they can't get material from this location, it has to come from the
Pole Road, a 25 -mile haul. It is an ideal location. He urged the Council to docket
this amendment.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 6
Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, spoke in favor of
Comprehensive Plan amendment 2001 -L. It is a request to change the area to an
agriculture /MRL study area. In 1997, the Council indicated that there would be no
agriculture- designated areas placed into the MRL unless they abut another MRL and
it is a matter of straightening out the boundaries. The Council also indicated that
additional lands that did not meet that criteria, but which contained quality mineral
resources, may be identified as an agriculture /MRL study area. The Hardy's want
their property to be considered as a potential resource in the future. The
Comprehensive Aggregate Study must be done within the next 14 months. In the
event it is found that there is a need for additional aggregate and it is determined
that the aggregate should come from Whatcom County's agricultural zone as a
supply area, then areas in the study area can be considered for the agriculture /MRL
zone. At that time, there are criteria that have to be met for becoming designated
for the agriculture /MRL zone. The Hardy's want to be considered for a potential
source.
Leonard Lindstrom, 2858 West Maplewood, stated he is a qualified bartender.
He's gone to clubs with the Banditos and the Hell's Angels, without having any
problems with them.
Roger Ellingson, Blaine, stated he represented the City of Sumas. It appears
that the Council is going to endorse the recommendation of the Natural Resource
Committee to not docket Comprehensive Plan amendment 2001 -L. The
recommendation is appropriate because the Comprehensive Construction Aggregate
Study (CCAS) has not been completed. Until that it is done, it would be premature
to designate any further MRL sites that are located in prime farmland soils. The
City of Sumas is concerned only because of the precedent- setting nature of this
application. The site has prime agricultural soils. Withholding the application at
this time will not prejudice the applicant in any way for a future application once
the CCAS study is done. After the study is complete, the Council is to hold a public
hearing on the study, and then decide whether they are going to designate any MRL
sites in the prime agricultural areas that are zoned agriculture. If the Council
chooses to do so, it will need to formulate an ordinance that lays out what criteria
will be applied before those MRL areas that are designated.
Crawford asked if the Council could exercise its authority to grant a special
exemption, allowing Scooter Stuff to continue its current type of business, while not
changing the current neighborhood commercial zone regulations.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that no comment is
appropriate.
Crawford asked if the Council could change zoning regulations for
neighborhood commercial zones to allow exemptions.
Nelson stated it would have to be docketed as a Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
Grant stated it could go through that process.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 7
1
2 Crawford asked if the proprietors of the store could apply for a conditional
3 use permit.
4
5 Grant stated he didn't know.
6
7 Hoag stated there has been much information in the press that was not
8 exactly accurate and asked Mr. Grant to explain the role of the County Council in a
9 Hearing Examiner appeal. Grant stated the role of the Council was to determine
10 whether an error of law was committed or to investigate the issue of whether the
11 findings of fact determined by the Hearing Examiner were supported by evidence in
12 the record, as defined in WCC 20.90 or WCC 20.92.
13
14 Hoag asked if it is true that the County Council doesn't have the discretion to
15 approve the use, and if the County Council is restricted to reviewing whether the
16 use falls within the law.
17
18 Brenner stated there was nothing inaccurate in the news article.
19
20 Hoag stated there was.
21
22 (Clerk's Note: Council took a five - minute break.)
23
24
25 PUBLIC HEARING
26
27 1. ORDINANCE ACCEPTING A PORTION OF ZANDER DRIVE AS A PUBLIC
28 ROAD (AB2001 -082A)
29
30 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, gave a staff report and
31 recommended approval. He prepared a report on the road condition, right -of -way
32 status, financial implications, and public benefit.
33
34 Nelson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
35 hearing.
36
37 Brenner moved to adopt.
38
39 Motion carried unanimously.
40
41 2. ORDINANCE ACCEPTING A PORTION OF MCLEOD ROAD AS A PUBLIC
42 ROAD (AB2001 -083A)
43
44 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, gave a staff report and
45 recommended approval. He addressed the same conditions as the previous public
46 hearing in his report.
47
48 Nelson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
49 hearing.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 8
1
2 Imhof moved to adopt.
3
4 Motion carried unanimously.
5
6
7 CONSENT AGENDA
8
9 Imhof reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
10 moved approval of items one, two, and four through twelve.
11
12 Motion to approve items one, two, and four through twelve carried
13 unanimously.
14
15 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #01-
16 17 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, HARDWARE SALES, FOR
17 THE ANNUAL SUPPLY OF ADS N -12 CULVERT IN THE AMOUNT OF
18 $53,667.73 (AB2001 -101)
19
20 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #01-
21 24 TO THE LONE BIDDER, WASHINGTON CULVERT, FOR THE ANNUAL
22 SUPPLY OF ALUMINIZED AND GALVANIZED CULVERT IN THE
23 AMOUNT OF $59,693.34 (AB2001 -102)
24
25 3. RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 2000 -043 AND RE-
26 PRIORITIZING WHATCOM COUNTY PROJECTS FOR THE WASHINGTON
27 COMMUNITY ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION TEAM (WA -CERT)
28 (AB2001 -103)
29
30 Imhof stated the committee did not discuss this item and opted to have
31 discussion at the full Council. He moved approval of the list as presented on March
32 20, 2001.
33
34 Hoag moved to move item seven to item four, and move the rest down the
35 list. The Blaine Harbor Economic Revitalization item is really improvements to
36 Marine Drive itself. The Whatcom Land Trust Canyon Lake Trail employs displaced
37 timber workers. The monies from WA -CERT are supposed to be directed at
38 displaced timber workers, displaced fishers, and the communities that support
39 them.
40
41 Imhof stated the Council went through the prioritization schedule, and this
42 list is the result.
43
44 Brenner agreed that the item should be a higher priority, but everyone has
45 put their preferences in, and the results have been tallied.
46
47 Hoag agreed that the ranking was done, but one councilmember did not
48 participate. The first criterion is that the projects address long -term economic
49 status of County citizens directly affected by economic decline in timber and
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 9
1 fisheries. Three councilmembers only award ten out of 40 points for the Whatcom
2 Land Trust project. It is appropriate to have the discussion and point it out because
3 she didn't know if the councilmembers were aware that displaced timber workers
4 were used to do the work.
5
6 Motion failed 3 -4 with Hoag, Brenner, and McShane in favor.
7
8 Motion to approve carried unanimously.
9
10 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
11 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
12 HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND WHATCOM CRISIS
13 SERVICES, TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO SUPPORT THE
14 BELLINGHAM / WHATCOM COUNTY COMMISSION AGAINST DOMESTIC
15 VIOLENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,500 (AB2001 -104)
16
17 S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
18 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
19 SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND SUN COMMUNITY SERVICES TO
20 PROVIDE SHORT -TERM TRANSITIONAL HOUSING SERVICES TO
21 WHATCOM COUNTY CONSUMERS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS, IN THE
22 CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $67,102 (AB2001 -105)
23
24 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO
25 AMENDMENT #3 TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
26 WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF FERNDALE CONCERNING
27 ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FERNDALE UGA
28 (AB2001 -106)
29
30 7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO
31 AMENDMENT #4 TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY
32 OF FERNDALE CONCERNING ANNEXATION (AB2001 -107)
33
34 S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
35 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
36 CITY OF EVERSON CONCERNING ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT
37 WITHIN THE EVERSON UGA (AB2001 -108)
38
39 9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
40 CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
41 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND LAKE WHATCOM RESIDENTIAL
42 TREATMENT CENTER TO PROVIDE FOR THE RENT SUBSIDY PROGRAM
43 SUBSIDIZING LIVING RESIDENCES FOR 50 MENTALLY ILL
44 CONSUMERS, IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $69,000 (AB2001 -109)
45
46 10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
47 CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
48 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND CATHOLIC COMMUNITY
49 SERVICES NORTHWEST, TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE FAMILY
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 10
1 RESPITE AND RELIEF PROGRAM PROVIDING OVERNIGHT RESPITE
2 AND /OR SHORT TERM CARE RELIEF IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
3 $28,210 (AB2001 -110)
4
5 11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
6 CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
7 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND CASCADE VOCATIONAL —
8 COMMUNITY ACCESS TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR PERSONS WHO ARE
9 NOT ABLE TO ACCESS EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES DUE TO THE
10 SEVERITY OF THEIR DISABILITIES OR OTHER BARRIERS IN THE
11 AMENDMENT AMOUNT OF $8,887 FOR THE TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED
12 $59,000 (AB2001 -111)
13
14 12. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
15 CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
16 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND WHATCOM COUNSELING AND
17 PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC, TO PROVIDE A VARIETY OF MENTAL HEALTH
18 SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $231,000 (AB2001 -112)
19
20
21 OTHER ITEMS
22
23 1. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
24 AMENDMENTS (AB2001 -041)
25
26 McShane reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated there is
27 an amended resolution.
28
29 2001 -A Threatened and Endangered Species
30
31 McShane stated that the committee recommended approval of amendment to
32 2001 -A regarding the Endangered Species Act. The committee chose to amend
33 action item 54 so it says "Amend the Whatcom County Shoreline Management
34 Program to protect threatened and endangered species, consistent with Department
35 of Ecology rules (WAC 173 -26)."
36
37 He so moved.
38
39 Hoag moved to reinsert language in policy 8E -5, "Encourage voluntary
40 restoration of properly functioning habitat conditions...." This is not a requirement,
41 but encourages voluntary efforts. Without the term, the policy doesn't make sense.
42 Council has expressed in the past its desire to address the function.
43
44 Brenner stated she would support the motion, and asked why the language
45 was removed.
46
47 McShane stated the language came out because of the suggestion made in
48 the Water Resources work session that the Council leave open -ended the decision
49 on whether to follow path A or path B regarding shorelines. "Properly functioning"
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 11
is a defined phrase, and the feeling was that the term would commit the Council to
path B. The full Council is not prepared to do that.
Nelson stated that he would love to encourage voluntary restoration of
habitat, but the term "properly functioning" requires certain assessments and
information being collected, which is what the Council needs to have before
determining what is properly functioning. He was concerned that they not
discourage voluntary efforts later if they find out that the information doesn't fit
with those voluntary efforts.
Hoag stated she was concerned about the language in policy 2M -2, which
would ask people to restore degraded habitat to properly functioning conditions.
That is onerous. Therefore, staff took out everything that had to do with properly
functioning conditions, but the term is appropriate in some areas. They would like
to encourage and educate people on restoring things back to properly functioning
conditions. It also helps the County get buy -off from the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS).
Motion carried 6 -1 with Nelson opposed.
McShane moved to approve option two for action item 54, "Amend the
Whatcom County Shoreline Management Program to protect threatened and
endangered species, consistent with Department of Ecology rules (WAC 173 -26)."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane stated both of the previous amendments to docket item 2001 -A
were approved and recommended by the Natural Resources Committee.
Hoag moved to amend policy 2M -3, "...restore degraded habitat to properly
functioning conditions, especially for threatened...." This is not an onerous
requirement. It just gives people the tools to understand what is involved, so the
people can work toward this goal.
Brenner asked why the language was removed.
McShane stated he felt they should avoid using the term "properly
functioning conditions" throughout the document. The one he voted in favor of was
because it didn't make sense to leave out the phrase. It is the language of path B,
which he would support, except other councilmembers want to deviate from path B.
He was concerned they would create a guidance document for how they choose the
shoreline management program, and then go in different directions.
Brenner stated this looks like incentives to encourage properly functioning
conditions. She asked if something would be put into the plan that would force
rather than encourage properly functioning conditions.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 12
1 Nelson stated the incentives of developing the educational tools would still go
2 on regarding restoring degraded habitat. The level that may occur may be different
3 because they don't have the assessments yet.
4
5 McShane stated he would not support it because it would make a statement
6 that they could achieve properly functioning conditions for salmon recovery through
7 voluntary, incentive approaches. He was not sure that is true. They are going to
8 have to look at ensuring, not just encouraging, in certain situations.
9
10 Hoag stated there is indication of general consensus among the
11 councilmembers that they would like to follow path A, while including certain items
12 from path B that would be appropriate and beneficial. If they leave out any
13 reference to properly functioning conditions, they are setting themselves up for a
14 battle with NMFS. If they are going to develop educational tools and incentives, the
15 Council should try to let people know what properly functioning habitat is and how
16 they might get toward it. If the Council does that, the plan will be more acceptable
17 to N M FS.
18
19 Nelson stated that Councilmember McShane has been exercising restraint in
20 understanding the will of the Council and the public concerns because he supports
21 path B.
22
23 Motion carried 4 -3 with Nelson, McShane, and Crawford opposed.
24
25 Hoag moved to restore language in policy 4L -2, "...do not degrade properly
26 functioning habitat conditions for threatened...." If the Council decides it is going to
27 allow projects to degrade properly functioning habitat conditions for threatened and
28 endangered species, they will be in trouble. This is not requiring anyone to restore
29 or upgrade conditions. It only ensures that conditions are not degraded.
30
31 Brenner stated they sometimes end up having to do capital improvement
32 projects that have a certain amount of negative impacts, but are offset by enough
33 positive problem resolutions that they can trade one for another.
34
35 Hoag withdrew the motion.
36
37 Motion to approve carried unanimously.
38
39 2001 -B Sudden Valley Urban Growth Area
40
41 McShane moved to include the Sudden Valley urban growth area as a
42 Comprehensive Plan amendment. The committee recommended docketing 2 -1,
43 with direction to the Planning Commission to explore other alternatives for Sudden
44 Valley becoming a city.
45
46 Hoag stated she is sympathetic with the issues, but this is not the best
47 solution. She encouraged that alternatives be sought out. This change would not
48 protect Lake Whatcom as well as keeping it the way it is.
49
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 13
1 Brenner stated she didn't think that Sudden Valley will be able to financially
2 afford doing an urban growth area that doesn't create impacts, but she would let
3 the issue go through the system. Maybe they can come up with something that can
4 make it work.
5
6 Dawson stated that Sudden Valley can dictate what their road standards are
7 if they can dictate their own destiny. The City of Nooksack is a city, and doesn't
8 have a lot of financial concerns. She would support the item.
9
10 Motion carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed.
11
12 2001 -C Lake Whatcom Watershed Downzone
13
14 McShane stated an individual brought this forward. The committee
15 recommended unanimously to not approve moving this forward.
16
17 Imhof moved to approve the Lake Whatcom watershed downzone.
18
19 Brenner stated the application was incomplete, and a lot of information was
20 left out. There wasn't much to the application.
21
22 Hoag stated the individual who applied wasn't aware of how much this would
23 cost. If the watershed is downzoned, the County should do it and absorb the cost.
24
25 Motion failed unanimously.
26
27 2001 -D Lynden UGA
28
29 McShane stated the committee did not recommend approval by a vote of 1-
30 2. He moved to approve.
31
32 Hoag stated the Council received letters about this. One letter was from the
33 Agricultural Advisory Committee, who recommended denial. All the soils listed for
34 the property are prime farmland soils. A good portion of the acreage is within the
35 100 -year flood plain. Extension of UGA boundaries into farmland should be
36 discouraged. Cities are required to meet infill and development density
37 requirements per the Comprehensive Plan. There is no indication of a current land
38 availability shortage. Her main concern is that the majority of the property is
39 within the 100 -year flood plain.
40
41 Imhof stated it should go through the process. The Council has had letters
42 from the City of Lynden to that affect. It is questionable whether or not it is in the
43 100 -year flood plain, depending on whose maps you look at. The property is
44 sandwiched between Lynden and the ditch. It is not farmable ground. Give them
45 their day in court.
46
47 Brenner stated she didn't like the idea of the 100 -year flood plain being in
48 the cities, but she wanted to see it go through the system to work out a better
49 boundary.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 14
1
2 Motion carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed.
3
4 2001 -E Ferndale UGA
5
6 McShane stated the Planning and Development Committee recommended
7 approval 2-1.
8
9 He so moved.
10
11 Hoag stated that farmers complained they weren't being considered, and the
12 Council created an advisory committee. It is important to give weight to what they
13 say. In terms of sending it through the process, it involves taxpayer funds and
14 staff time. The Council needs to go through a sifting process.
15
16 Motion carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed.
17
18 2001 -F Bellingham UGA
19
20 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
21
22 McShane stated this was not recommended for approval by a vote of 1 -2 out
23 of the Planning and Development Committee.
24
25 Imhof moved to approve.
26
27 Hoag stated the Council received a letter from Patricia Decker of the City of
28 Bellingham Planning Department, which requested that this not go forward because
29 of the diversion of staff time and energy from preparing for a jointly sponsored, in-
30 depth look at UGA expansion.
31
32 Motion carried 5 -2 with Hoag and McShane opposed.
33
34 2001 -G Point Roberts Subarea Plan
35
36 McShane stated staff brought this forward to update the subarea plan. The
37 committee recommended this item unanimously.
38
39 He moved to approve.
40
41 Motion carried unanimously.
42
43 2001 -H Point Roberts UGA
44
45 McShane stated this was brought forward by the Point Roberts Voters'
46 Association to create a UGA for all of Point Roberts. The committee voted
47 unanimously to not approve this item.
48
49 He moved to approve.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 15
1
2 Dawson stated the association wanted to do this for the sewer, but there is a
3 motion to allow water and sewer to the Resort Recreational Subdivisions.
4
5 Brenner stated there is a huge change as of last week. The entire
6 association and the make -up of the officers are different. Many people were feeling
7 that the association wasn't representing enough of the voters. She encouraged the
8 Council to vote against it.
9
10 Hoag stated the committee voted against this because the subarea plan
11 needs to take place before proceeding with any UGA's.
12
13 Motion failed unanimously.
14
15 2001 -I Maple Falls, Rural Forestry to Rural Five Acres
16
17 McShane stated the committee did not recommend this item.
18
19 He moved to approve.
20
21 Hoag stated the issue on this property is that only one -third of the property
22 is outside of the 100 -year flood plain. Two - thirds of the property is in the flood
23 plain. The applicant wants to do cluster development on the portion that is outside
24 of the flood plain, but they can already do that per the current zoning. If the
25 Council changes the zoning, it allows development in the flood plain that she would
26 not like to see.
27
28 Imhof stated that they are only allowed one house given their current zoning
29 designation.
30
31 Hoag stated they are also allowed an accessory unit.
32
33 Imhof stated the applicant wants R5A zoning to have five units.
34
35 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that Rural Forestry allows
36 one house per 20 acres. The applicants could have one house, an accessory
37 dwelling, and a bed and breakfast establishment if they chose. They could not
38 divide the property into four lots.
39
40 Imhof stated it looks like the property is in harm's way.
41
42 Brenner stated she was moved by the argument that the applicant should be
43 allowed to use tourism dollars rather than cut the trees if the development was
44 done in the area outside of the flood plain. It should go through the process to see
45 what could happen.
46
47 Hoag stated the Council has a letter from the state Department of Natural
48 Resources (DNR) recommending denial.
49
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 16
1 Motion carried 4 -3 with Imhof, Hoag, and McShane opposed.
2
3 2001 -J Water & Sewer Amendments
4
5 McShane stated staff brought this forward. The committee recommended
6 approval unanimously.
7
8 He moved to approve.
9
10 Motion carried unanimously.
11
12 2001 -K MRL -Birch Bay Lynden Road
13
14 McShane stated this was in the Natural Resources Committee, which voted to
15 not recommend this item by a vote of 1 -2.
16
17 He moved to approve.
18
19 Motion failed 3 -4 with Imhof, Nelson, and Dawson in favor.
20
21 2001 -L MRL -E. Pole Road
22
23 McShane stated this was for an Agriculture /MRL study area for 130 acres.
24 The Natural Resources Committee recommended not approving this by a vote of 0-
25 2, with one abstention.
26
27 He moved to approve.
28
29 Imhof stated this has been an active pit. It has a good quantity of aggregate
30 in it. The applicants have asked to be in the study area, which is a process that
31 won't get them to an MRL until next year if the study proves that it is needed, and
32 the Council agrees that the materials need to come out of an agricultural area. The
33 Council should put it through the process.
34
35 Dawson agreed that it is an active pit, but she was concerned about putting
36 these in the agricultural areas at all because it makes it difficult for adjoining
37 farmers to farm their lands.
38
39 Brenner stated she visited the property. If they can show that it is not prime
40 agricultural land, she would support it, but the Conservation District office says it is
41 prime agricultural land.
42
43 McShane stated he didn't believe they need to go into this area for resource
44 extraction, geologically speaking. There has been existing mining to the north end,
45 but a significant portion of the property is very viable agricultural land currently.
46
47 Nelson stated that he had a problem with this being classified as a study
48 area. The Council went through a process during its work on the Comprehensive
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 17
1 Plan to put the MRL's into study areas, but he didn't think the intention was to
2 continue putting things in the study areas.
3
4 Imhof stated one couldn't get there from here. One has to be in a study
5 area, and then go into an MRL. There is an existing pit to the south. It is
6 something that needs to be looked at.
7
8 Hoag stated that was not true. The policy adopted was a compromise
9 between the agricultural people and the mining people. It said that this study
10 would determine the quality and quantity of aggregate available outside of prime
11 farmland, and if it is determined that there is a shortage, then they would
12 determine whether all or some of the prime farmland would be opened. That is the
13 first step. Then, they look at sites within agricultural areas. The staff reported that
14 most of the site contains agricultural soils, and is in an aquifer recharge area. In
15 addition, the Agricultural Advisory Committee asked the Council to not approve this
16 item. The Surface Mining Advisory Committee would address this in the future.
17
18 Crawford asked the reason for the abstention in committee.
19
20 Nelson stated he wanted to look at the study area. He has, and is now
21 opposed to this.
22
23 Motion failed 3 -4 with Imhof, Crawford, and Dawson in favor.
24
25 2001 -M MRL - Minaker Road
26
27 McShane stated the Natural Resources Committee voted to recommend
28 approval with a vote of 2 -0, with one abstention.
29
30 He moved to approve.
31
32 Brenner stated the Benners have been involved in gravel mining issues in the
33 past. This is not very much land. Their land has been heavily impacted by the
34 neighboring operation. This is little to ask. It is excellent land for gravel.
35
36 Hoag stated she would abstain from the vote. Debra Benner was the
37 treasurer for her campaign.
38
39 Imhof stated a year ago the land was not very good for gravel.
40
41 McShane stated he had some sympathy for individuals next to gravel pits.
42 This is a good source area. It is a tough lifestyle change to make that step. The
43 applicants are making a decision that would provide an outstanding resource for the
44 county.
45
46 Motion carried 6 -0 -1 with Hoag abstaining.
47
48 2001 -N MRL - Columbia Valley
49
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 18
1 McShane stated the Natural Resources Committee voted approval with a vote
2 of 2 -1.
3
4 He moved to approve. He had a serious question regarding the aquifer
5 recharge area and travel time. He hoped the Planning Commission would make
6 sure it answers that question before it approves this MRL.
7
8 Hoag stated this entire site is within a wellhead protection area. Part of it is
9 within the five -year zone, and part is within the ten -year zone. In addition, it is
10 adjacent to a large subdivision. Two of the criteria for establishing MRL's would be
11 violated by this proposition. One criterion is that they do not have an MRL within a
12 five -year zone. Even in the ten -year zone, they can only get within ten feet of the
13 water table. The second criterion is that it is adjacent to a large subdivision.
14 Criterion six says that an MRL cannot be adjacent to a residential subdivision or
15 properties platted at urban levels.
16
17 Dawson stated she would abstain due to a potential financial conflict.
18
19 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, showed the one -year
20 groundwater travel time, the five -year travel time, and the ten -year travel time on
21 a map. The groundwater falling on this site takes ten years to get to the well. The
22 entire site is within the ten -year zone, and half of the site is within the five -year
23 zone.
24
25 Brenner stated she liked the idea of having gravel in the foothills, but this is
26 an area they may want to develop as a small -town urban area. She didn't think a
27 huge gravel pit belongs in the middle of it.
28
29 McShane stated the way travel time for a wellhead protection area is
30 developed is by the simplest, least expensive way, which is a circle based on the
31 pumping rate and what they may know of the aquifer properties. That doesn't
32 mean that is actually true. That is why there is an appendage sticking up on the
33 map. They went further and recognized that the travel time from the north is quite
34 rapid. There hasn't been a full evaluation because it is not in their interest to do a
35 full evaluation. That is a question this proponent will have to answer if they are
36 going to get this approved. He didn't believe that the map is true or false. The
37 applicant will have to prove he or she is outside of the travel time. If they can
38 prove it, then the problem goes away.
39
40 Second, the applicant proposes buffers and a downzone along the UGA to
41 create buffers.
42
43 Last, there is an existing MRL nearby, which is a bedrock MRL where they are
44 doing blasting. There is a fair bit of disruption in that area from mining.
45
46 Crawford asked if there is an existing or prior mining operation in this area.
47
48 McShane stated there is to the northeast, immediately adjacent. If there has
49 been some mining in this area, it has not been significant.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 19
1
2 Hoag stated the Council has criteria for designating MRL's, and this doesn't
3 match two of them. If Councilmember McShane says there is a chance they might
4 be outside of the wellhead protection area, then the applicant can get that study
5 done, and come back next year asking for approval. They will still be adjacent to a
6 large subdivision. She asked the point of having criteria if they don't weigh things
7 against it.
8
9 Motion failed 3 -3 with Imhof, Nelson, and McShane in favor and Dawson
10 abstaining.
11
12 2001 -0 MRL -Smith Road
13
14 McShane stated the committee did not recommend approval with a
15 unanimous vote.
16
17 He moved to approve.
18
19 Hoag stated there was no map with the application. Also, the Deer Creek
20 Water Association requested that it not be granted.
21
22 Motion failed unanimously.
23
24 2001 -P MRL /Valley View Road
25
26 McShane stated the Natural Resource Committee recommended approval
27 with a vote of 2 -1.
28
29 He moved to approve. This site has a conditional use mining permit on it
30 already. It is pretty much mined out. It has been actively mined recently.
31
32 Hoag stated it looked like an appropriate place to mine. The reason she
33 voted against it was because they are supposed to review MRL's on a seven -year
34 basis. Instead, these are coming forward haphazardly. She asked what would
35 change if this changed from a conditional use permit to an MRL.
36
37 Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated the permit said it allowed mining of ten
38 acres at a time, which would not apply if they got MRL status and abandoned their
39 conditional use permit.
40
41 Motion carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed.
42
43 McShane moved to approve the resolution as amended.
44
45 Motion carried unanimously.
46
47 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING TIDELAND MANAGEMENT ON THE LUMMI
48 RESERVATION (AB2001 -099)
49
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 20
1 McShane reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated the
2 committee decided there would be an effort to re -write some of the letters. Those
3 re- writes have been distributed. He was not sure it was a very good idea to send
4 the letter.
5
6 Hoag stated that packet page 20 is a letter requesting that the issue of the
7 water use be addressed so that it is clarified. The letter is to Bill Black with the
8 Bureau of Indian Affairs.
9
10 Brenner stated it is important to support water conservation, so she would
11 support the letter. She didn't know that the letter was accurate, but they won't get
12 any understanding if they don't send the letter.
13
14 McShane stated there a suit was filed by the Sandy Point Association on this.
15
16 Dawson stated that is a land use issue. They didn't want to get into the
17 water situation. They did try to request some water usage information to show that
18 it would be a nuisance activity under the covenants, in addition to actually violating
19 the land use. They need to have the information for the health and safety of the
20 residents for this summer.
21
22 Hoag stated this doesn't take sides on an issue. It simply states that the
23 residents have brought concerns to the Council.
24
25 Motion carried 5 -2 with Crawford and McShane opposed.
26
27 Dawson moved to send the substitute letter to Secretary Norton regarding
28 protective bulkheads.
29
30 Brenner asked if her amendments were incorporated.
31
32 Dawson stated they were.
33
34 McShane stated they need to think about whether it is a good idea for
35 expensive homes to be built on a sand and gravel spit that is in jeopardy from
36 these storms, from now to perpetuity, regardless of whether there are bulkheads.
37 These people are in harm's way.
38
39 Brenner agreed. They are requesting clarification and information. The
40 amended letter does not take sides. She wanted more information.
41
42 Hoag agreed with Councilmember McShane. That same philosophy applies to
43 the flood plain. They have an obligation to protect lives, property, and
44 investments. To pursue a policy of continuing to allow such things to be done is
45 questionable. That is not what this letter is about.
46
47 Brenner stated she didn't know if the bulkheads are legal, and she wanted
48 clarification on that.
49
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 21
1 Motion carried 4 -3 with Imhof, McShane, and Crawford opposed.
2
3 Nelson stated the last letter was to state Department of Natural Resources
4 (DNR) representative Doug Sutherland regarding issues with the Indian
5 Reorganization Act and the Submerged Lands Act. It deals with title to tidelands.
6 This has been an ongoing issue.
7
8 He moved approval of the letter.
9
10 Hoag stated the committee made amendments to the version in the packet.
11 The first amendment was to the first paragraph, "...bedlands or tidelands.
12 Residents maintain that Tthe Lummi tribe voted...." The second amendment was to
13 the middle paragraph, "As it relates to tribes, we are informed that they must
14 show...." The third amendment was to the next sentence, "It is our belief that
15 44under neither...." The last amendment was to the last paragraph, "The public
16 testifies that it feels intimidated...."
17
18 She moved to change the last word in the letter, and then approve the letter
19 as amended, "...jurisdiction asseFted clarified."
20
21 Brenner stated she was not comfortable with this letter. This is an issue
22 between the landowners and the Lummi Tribe. She didn't see the County's role in
23 this. It is an important issue to Sandy Point and the Lummi Tribe. It is not the
24 County's jurisdiction.
25
26 Dawson stated it is the County's jurisdiction because the Tribe is claiming
27 ownership to the vegetation line. Property owners pay taxes to the ordinary high
28 water line, which is the seaweed line. The property owners pay taxes to the
29 County. The County has a lease on the tidelands where the ferry landing is.
30
31 Hoag stated she didn't want to take sides on this issue, but clarification is
32 needed for the County residents. That is why the County should be involved. The
33 last paragraph refers to public testimony that the public feels intimidated in
34 accessing the beaches and that tribal fish officers have indicated they will confiscate
35 boats and fine fishers $1,000. Another change she wanted to make was to the last
36 paragraph, "Apparently, I +n addition, tribal fish officers have indicated...." The
37 County must represent the constituents in that area.
38
39 Brenner stated this is people's property. Nothing in writing says that the
40 Lummi's will prevent the public from having access to the beach. She's heard
41 people complain about it, but she hasn't seen anything. If they are going to write a
42 letter like this, she wanted to see documentation that the public is being denied
43 access to the beaches.
44
45 Dawson stated letters have been sent to realtors saying that there is no
46 waterfront property for sale on the Lummi reservation. They maintain that the
47 property owners don't have any waterfront property. They also have signs that
48 people are not to walk on the beach. The County has gotten letters attesting to the
49 Tribe's position on this.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 22
1
2 Nelson stated public access is allowed on the waterways in the county.
3 People can use them. There is a perception that the tribes would not allow public
4 access. The County needs to know if this is under state jurisdiction, if the public
5 has a right to the shorelines, or if this is tribal jurisdiction even though the tribes do
6 not own adjacent properties.
7
8 Brenner asked who in the administration has information that public, not
9 private, access is being denied on the beach.
10
11 Dawson stated Portage Island is a classic example.
12
13 Motion failed 3 -3 -1 with Dawson, Hoag, and Nelson in favor and Brenner
14 abstaining.
15
16 Brenner stated she abstained because she didn't have the information that
17 access has been denied.
18
19 Crawford suggested asking County Executive Kremen, who knows Mr.
20 Sutherland personally, to advocate this issue for the County in a very friendly way.
21
22 3. APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES FROM RURAL
23 ONE DWELLING /TEN ACRES (R10A) TO RURAL ONE DWELLING /FIVE
24 ACRES (R5A) (AB2000 -398)
25
26 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated
27 the committee recommended denial unanimously.
28
29 Nelson moved approval of the rezone.
30
31 Hoag stated the committee's motion was to uphold the Planning Commission
32 and staff's recommendations to not approve the rezone.
33
34 Motion failed unanimously.
35
36 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
37 TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.38, AGRICULTURE PROTECTION OVERLAY, TO
38 ENHANCE THE APO COMPLIANCE WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
39 ACT, THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE
40 COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING POLICIES; TO CLARIFY; AND TO ENHANCE
41 PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURE LANDS (AB2000 -356)
42
43 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated
44 the committee voted to recommend amendments, and a hearing would be held at
45 the next meeting.
46
47 S. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
48 DECISION ON FILE NO. APL2000- 00009, FILED BY JONATHAN SITKIN
49 FOR ROBERT AND SUSAN BROOKS, REGARDING THE WHATCOM
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 23
1
COUNTY SHORELINE ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION OF
2
NONCONFORMANCE (AB2001 -032)
3
4
See "Announcements."
5
6
6.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A NEW
7
LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR BOB'S BURGER & BREW, 2145
8
LAKE WHATCOM BOULEVARD (AB2001 -113)
9
10
Hoag moved approval.
11
12
Motion carried unanimously.
13
14
7.
NOTIFICATION BY THE EXECUTIVE OF GRETA LENT AS THE
15
DESIGNATED DSHS REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BELLINGHAM-
16
WHATCOM COUNTY COMMISSION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
17
(AB2001 -114)
18
19
Hoag moved approval.
20
21
Motion carried unanimously.
22
23
24
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
25
26
Dawson moved to accept the Introduction Items.
27
28
Motion carried unanimously.
29
30
1.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
31
ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO INCLUDE THE LAKE SAMISH WATERSHED
32
UNDER CHAPTER 20.71 — WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY
33
DISTRICT, DESIGNATING THE LAKE SAMISH WATERSHED AS A
34
WATER RESOURCE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA UNDER SECTION
35
20,80.730, AND AMENDING SECTION 20.80.634 — STORMWATER
36
SPECIAL DISTRICTS (AB2001 -115)
37
38
2.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
39
MAP FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TWO UNITS PER ACRE (RR -2) TO
40
URBAN RESIDENTIAL FOUR UNITS PER ACRE (UR -4) FOR
41
APPROXIMATELY TEN ACES IN BELLINGHAM'S URBAN GROWTH AREA
42
(AB2001 -116)
43
44
3.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET,
45
SUPPLEMENTAL #3 (AB2001 -120)
46
47 OTHER BUSINESS
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 24
1 DISCUSSION OF THE REQUESTS FOR SUPPORT FROM THE WATER
2 RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA (WRIA) 1 CAUCUSES (AB2001 -121)
3
4 Imhof stated the Finance Committee addressed this item. The
5 recommendation from the committee was to approve the WRIA 1 caucus funding as
6 presented.
7
8 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
9
10 Imhof continued to state that the total funding amount is $69,960.
11
12 He moved approval of the caucus funding as presented.
13
14 Crawford thanked Jeff Monsen and Bruce Roll for helping the councilmembers
15 work on it on a Saturday morning.
16
17 McShane stated the small cities approached the County regarding funding.
18 They've been left out as an initiating government.
19
20 Hoag stated that is the way the law was written.
21
22 Dawson stated the Council should stay within its budget. They appropriated
23 only $50,000. There are only eight months left to the end of the year. The Council
24 should not be creating an expectation that they will spend even more next year.
25
26 Brenner stated that if the County doesn't have these different groups on
27 board, they will not end up with anything. The County needs to help people
28 support it.
29
30 Dawson stated Whatcom County is the only county spending this kind of
31 money for this.
32
33 Hoag stated some of these caucuses may have spent money already,
34 anticipating reimbursement, because that is what the Council said it would do.
35
36 Motion carried 6 -1 with Dawson opposed.
37
38 Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated that the action to approve ten of the
39 Comprehensive Plan amendments is quite significant, and will increase the
40 workload of the Planning and Development Services Department staff considerably.
41 He estimates that these ten amendments should generate a minimum of 1,000 to
42 2,000 staff hours. That will have a significant impact on what the County will and
43 will not be able to accomplish. He suggested working together to set some
44 priorities.
45
46 Nelson asked if these amendments, which they anticipated coming forward,
47 were not budgeted for. Kremen stated they did not anticipate ten amendments.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 25
1 Nelson stated they need to plan for these things in the future. They will
2 always have items come that forward to be docketed. Kremen stated that each
3 amendment will generate a minimum of 100 to 200 staff hours. The Council needs
4 to know that as it moves ahead.
5
6 Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated another issue
7 that is occurring simultaneously is the big increase in permit activity. Because of
8 that, they are willing to move some people within the organization to make sure
9 they meet the needs at the front counter. Also, overall residential growth is very
10 strong in the county.
11
12 Hoag stated she'd wished the administration made those comments prior to
13 the decision.
14
15 Hoag also stated that House Bill (HB) 1832 address a number of the concerns
16 by the Water Conservancy Board, including liability concerns. This bill has come
17 out of the House. It also includes a couple of items she was concerned about. She
18 would provide copies to the councilmembers. If the Council shares her concern, the
19 Council will need to respond in a timely manner.
20
21 Nelson asked if anyone was available to do canvassing on March 23 at 1:00
22 p.m.
23
24 Imhof volunteered.
25
26 Brenner moved to write a resolution and send a letter that the Whatcom
27 County Council supports the administration's position regarding service levels in the
28 Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan, and requests that the Washington Utilities and
29 Transportation Commission (WUTC) not grant any tariff revisions that would
30 eliminate or change curbside recycling requirements in Point Roberts at this time.
31 There has been a request for a tariff revision. The County has a process that
32 includes the County Executive, who would make the determination. The hauler
33 chose not to go through the County's system, and to go to the WUTC instead. It
34 would be unacceptable to have a state agency usurp a County process.
35
36 Nelson asked if the motion was to send a letter to the WUTC outlining the
37 Council's support of the administration's policies regarding curbside recycling, and
38 for no change in the tariff.
39
40 Brenner stated that was correct.
41
42 Crawford stated he supported the motion. He attended the Solid Waste
43 Advisory Committee (SWAC) meeting when the proprietor of the business made his
44 motion, and the SWAC voted it down. He expressed that, if the proprietor wanted
45 to pursue it, then the proprietor should talk to the Council to see what his options
46 were. He was disappointed that the proprietor chose not to pursue local options.
47
48 Hoag stated the motion is for a resolution.
49
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 26
1 Brenner stated it is a resolution to support the administration. The resolution
2 is addressed to the WUTC.
3
4 Kremen asked if it would be more appropriate to address the letter to the
5 County Executive.
6
7 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that in this context it
8 would be most appropriate to send the letter to the WUTC.
9
10 Kremen stated he set up a town hall meeting at 7:00 p.m. on April 10, 2001
11 regarding curbside recycling at the Point Roberts Community Center. He will try to
12 ascertain what the community wants to do with that issue.
13
14 Motion carried unanimously.
15
16 Brenner stated the Public Works Committee approved a recommendation to
17 send to SWAC the idea of revisiting business recycling services. It worked very
18 well, and many people were on board.
19
20 Nelson moved to send a request to SWAC to revisit the business recycling
21 program.
22
23 Motion carried unanimously.
24
25 Brenner stated the Public Works Committee recommended requesting legal
26 staff to give options regarding potentially intervening on a City of Ferndale
27 Comprehensive Plan amendment. A large mall is proposed in the city that abuts
28 the county line. There has not been coordination with the County. The County
29 needs to find out what its options are and get legal advice. There is a 60 -day
30 window. There will be significant impacts in the County. If the County doesn't
31 address it with the Hearings Board, the County will pay for those impacts and won't
32 get any revenue.
33
34 She moved to approve the recommendation.
35
36 Crawford asked if there is going to be a conditional use hearing regarding
37 traffic impacts.
38
39 Brenner stated there may be, but they can go ahead and do something the
40 County doesn't like.
41
42 Crawford asked if this is all within the City of Ferndale.
43
44 Brenner stated it is, but there is a state law that says anytime there are
45 major changes along two jurisdictional lines, the jurisdictions are required to
46 coordinate. There has been no coordination.
47
48 Hart stated that the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) official was
49 not notified in a timely way. He has no record of receiving notification. County
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 27
1 staff advised the need to get on the record, especially for the traffic impacts. The
2 Public Works Department was apparently not notified about that either. If the
3 County was to comment now, the city would still take the comments under
4 consideration during the time of the project.
5
6 Crawford asked if the staff intends to do those things. Hart stated they need
7 the Public Works Department to evaluate the impacts. He'd talked to Jeff Monsen
8 about that. He hasn't gotten an affirmative response at this point.
9
10 Brenner stated the Council needs to get legal counsel on how to proceed.
11
12 Motion carried unanimously.
13
14 Crawford stated he would support something that would allow Scooter Stuff
15 to stay in business. The impacts of such a store do not negatively impact the
16 environment or the neighborhood.
17
18 Nelson stated that they would have to look at how the zoning would have to
19 change. The Council can implement that by a majority vote.
20
21 Brenner stated the store only has a certain time to appeal. If the Council
22 doesn't do anything, they are out of luck. One should not be dependent upon the
23 other.
24
25 Nelson stated they should identify that as a universal area throughout the
26 county.
27
28 Brenner stated she wanted to identify it as an exception because it is so
29 rural.
30
31 Nelson stated they couldn't do that legally.
32
33
34 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
35
36 McShane stated there is the potential for another Energy Facility Site
37 Evaluation Council ( EFSEC) application in the county. If he has time, he may write
38 up an ordinance on EFSEC appointments.
39
40 Grant stated a number of state agencies hired administrative law judges to
41 represent them. That is something that the Council could consider.
42
43 Brenner stated she attended the Northwest Women's Hall of Fame annual
44 recognition banquet. She listed the four women who were recognized and their
45 accomplishments.
46
47 Hoag reported from the Northwest Air Pollution Authority (NWAPA). At the
48 previous Council meeting, she mentioned that they are looking at taking over the
49 burn permitting from DNR. They have not come to a conclusion at this point. She
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
is representing the position that Whatcom County would like to maintain the current
program it has.
Also, NWAPA announced that they are monitoring downwind of Georgia -
Pacific (G -P) for fine particulate matter, in response to the diesel generators that
were set up. NWAPA will monitor every six days. Those reports are available.
They were picking up high levels after the generators were shut down. NWAPA has
asked for more complete information. NWAPA is not responsible, and does not
regulate G -P, which is under the jurisdiction of the state Department of Ecology.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:16 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on April 17 , 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/20/2001, Page 29