HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil October 9 20011
2 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
3 Regular County Council
4
5 October 9, 2001
6
7
8 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
9 Nelson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
10
11 Also Present: Absent:
12 Dan McShane None
13 Marlene Dawson
14 Connie Hoag
15 Barbara Brenner
16 Sam Crawford
17 Robert Imhof
18
19
20 ANNOUNCEMENTS
21
22 Nelson welcomed the Boy Scout Troop 23 in attendance and who are earning
23 their citizenship merit badge.
24
25 Nelson announced that there was consideration of an appeal of the
26 Hearing Examiner's decision on File No. APL2001 -0007, filed by Concerned
27 Neighbors of Lake Samish, regarding "Sleepy Hollow" subdivision
28 (AB2001 -283) in executive session during the Committee of the Whole meeting.
29
30 Crawford moved to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision.
31
32 Motion carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed.
33
34 Nelson announced that there was also discussion with Senior Deputy
35 Prosecutor David Grant regarding pending litigation (AB2001 -018) in
36 executive session during the Committee of the Whole meeting regarding Sumas
37 Energy 2.
38
39
40 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
41
42 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001; REGULAR
43 COUNTY COUNCIL FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001; WATER RESOURCES
44 WORK SESSION FOR SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
45
46 Brenner stated she submitted amendments. She moved approval of the
47 amended minutes.
48
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 1
1 Motion carried unanimously.
2
3
4 SELECTION OF CANVASS REPRESENTATIVES
5
6 COUNCIL TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO CANVASS REGULAR,
7 SPECIAL, AND QUESTIONED ABSENTEE BALLOTS FROM THE
8 NOVEMBER 6 GENERAL ELECTION. CANVASSING MEETINGS ARE
9 SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 16, 19, AND 21 AT 9:00 A.M., WITH
10 SIGNING TO TAKE PLACE AT 1:00 P.M. ON NOVEMBER 21.
11
12 Brenner volunteered to canvass for one day.
13
14 Nelson stated the remaining dates would be assigned later.
15
16
17 OPEN SESSION
18
19 The following people spoke:
20
21 Kerry Chappell, 1121 Roland Street, stated the Bellingham Herald reported
22 on the Mount Baker Planned Parenthood rent agreement. She requested a copy of
23 this agreement. She requested that funds be designated to the Health Department
24 for public warning announcements regarding sexually transmitted diseases (STD's).
25
26 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the administration has not
27 received a signed copy of the agreement yet. When it does, he will send a copy to
28 Ms. Chappell.
29
30 Muriel Terry, 5199 Drayton Harbor Road, Drayton Harbor Residents
31 Association spokesperson, stated the County Council approved an ordinance
32 designating land as a provisional short term planning (STP) area. This was to be
33 followed by a permanent STP designated area if the owners could show progress in
34 getting sewer service. She requested a two -year extension, as is provided for in
35 the ordinance. They have been delayed because of the City of Blaine's problem
36 solving their sewer problems. A proposed regional facility would necessitate the
37 flow of sewage from Semiahmoo along a long line to the Birch Bay water site. It
38 would be the same line as is needed by the Drayton Harbor residents. Drayton
39 Harbor residents can assure that the line is viable. They must wait for Blaine to
40 obtain funding for and install the lines for the regional facility. Blaine is attempting
41 to get federal funding, in cooperation with the Lummi Nation. She submitted the
42 executive summary and a map of the treatment plant and flow line.
43
44 Nelson asked the procedure for extension.
45
46 Brenner asked if it has to be time specific.
47
48 Imhof stated it has to be time specific.
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 2
1
2 Nelson stated he would talk to the Planning Department to make sure it is
3 addressed.
4
5 Terry stated the regional plan would be phased in over several steps. It is
6 scheduled for completion in 2004. The City of Blaine has to raise more than $32
7 million.
8
9 McShane stated he could schedule the issue in his committee.
10
11 Crawford asked when the current deadline is. Terry stated the ordinance
12 was approved in November 1999 and signed in December 1999, and is for two
13 years.
14
15 Ally Cummings, resident, stated she and her husband are nurses and run a
16 research company. A recent scoping document was released about Lake Whatcom.
17 She tried to get this document so they could do research on Lake Whatcom. She
18 and her husband did not have a chance to bid on the contract. She read her letter
19 into the record (on file). She encouraged the Council to read the scoping document
20 she and her husband wrote regarding the mercury in Lake Whatcom.
21
22 Larry Jacoby, 2300 Mosquito Lake Road, spoke on the Conservation Futures
23 fund tax. The tax began in 1991. The Executive's Office administers the tax. The
24 use of the fund is not to be used through eminent domain. He changed agricultural
25 land to residential, and had to pay seven years in back taxes. The Nesset Farm is
26 held in trust by the Land Trust. They went through the same thing he went
27 through, and its tax payment was exempt because it is going to be a County park.
28 Mr. DeSpain has not filed a conditional use permit, which is required for a park in
29 any area in the county. Last May, the Council made it impossible to have a park in
30 agricultural land. Now, Nesset Farm can't be a park. He applied to build a bridge
31 and has paid $1,200. The County has not paid for one permit for the park
32 development.
33
34 Brenner stated the Nesset Farm is parkland.
35
36 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated it is not a park yet.
37
38 Jacoby stated the County paid four times what it is worth. The timber can't
39 be cut, so it isn't worth anything. The Council just filled the pockets of the Land
40 Trust.
41
42 Brenner stated she would put this issue into the Public Works Committee.
43
44 Tom Pratum, 2241 Northshore Road, stated he supports what happened to
45 the Nesset Farm. He would comment on the impervious driveway issue. He
46 encouraged the Council to keep the regulation as it is. Permeable driveways are
47 desirable. He just tore out an asphalt driveway and put in permeable pavers. The
48 Planning Commission recommendation is based on the assumption that all
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 3
1 impervious surfaces are the same. They are not. He is also concerned that the
2 Planning Commission recommended that stormwater treatment systems not treat
3 for oils and heavy metals anymore. They only treat for sediments. Leave the
4 restriction as it is.
5
6 Martha Gross, Superior Court Commissioner, stated they involved over 300
7 adults and youths in the teen court program. An evaluation was done of the
8 program. Youths who go through the program have a higher success rate and
9 lower recidivism rate. Also, 31 of the youths who held responsible positions in the
10 teen court were previously adjudicated youths. They are making positive
11 contributions. This is a role model program for the state.
12
13 Nelson asked if there is a selection process for the kids who contribute.
14 Gross stated they are self - selected by the schools. The offenders are second
15 offense diversion kids. The Prosecutor has the option of filing a case in criminal
16 court or diverting cases. These are kids who have been through the system at least
17 once.
18
19 Dave Ernst, 7208 Lankhaar Road, Lynden, quoted Wendell Berry, in response
20 to the events of September 11, 2001. Promote self- sufficiency. Reconsider and
21 renew efforts to protect natural resources, including soil, water, and air. Protect
22 and restore ecosystems. Teach children that they cannot spend and consume
23 endlessly. Learn to save and conserve.
24
25
26 PUBLIC HEARING
27
28 1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE SPEED LIMIT ON HAXTON WAY
29 (AB2001 -321)
30
31 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, submitted a map (on file) and made
32 himself available for questions.
33
34 Nelson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
35 hearing.
36
37 Imhof moved to adopt the ordinance.
38
39 Motion carried unanimously.
40
41 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20,
42 RELATING TO NONCONFORMING SURFACE MINES AND SURFACE
43 MINING IN RURAL, AGRICULTURAL, RURAL FORESTRY, AND
44 COMMERCIAL FORESTRY ZONES (AB2000 -301)
45
46 Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
47
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 4
Nate Kronenberg, 2351 E. Pole Road, stated the agenda bill says the intent of
the proposal is to address impacts to neighbors, agricultural land, and water
supplies. This document is flawed in terms of responding to that intent. None of
the proposed changes respond to impacts to neighbors. The document was passed
through the Surface Mining Advisory Committee (SMAC) and Planning Commission
before being forwarded to the Council. Both the SMAC and Planning Commission
are dominated by surface mining advocates. The SMAC was created to provide a
voice to rural residents. It is a failure.
He visited 30 of his neighbors living in the area of surface mines, and who
lived there before the surface mining. They all urged the Council to defer the
decision until the residents can address the Council on the issue, without being
intimidated by surface miners and their lawyers.
Harry Skinner, 6600 Goodwin Road, Everson, submitted a petition with
approximately 110 signatures. The Council has a chance to correct an imbalance
between public input and paid surface mining lobbying. Allow for two neighborhood
meetings to open up to meaningful neighborhood response. The agenda bill needs
work because:
1) It's stated conclusions are incorrect.
2) It contradicts and ignores major goals and policies in Comprehensive Plan.
3) It defines mine expansion only in terms of footprint, and not in terms of
depth to contaminate vulnerable groundwater.
4) Critical terms relating to surface mining are not defined.
5) It is based on an unjustifiable premise that mineral resource lands (MRL's)
enjoy a most favored status in this county.
6) Whatcom County shares jurisdiction with the State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), and enforcement has become confused and impotent. Over 90
percent of the mined areas in the county are un- reclaimed.
7) It is based on manipulated and unsubstantiated estimates of the long-
term gravel supply.
8) It is not supportive by a comprehensive regulatory program. Without the
program, Whatcom County is out of compliance with the Growth Management Act.
9) The Planning and Development Services Department is allowing
agricultural lands to be converted to recreation lakes as a way to reclaim exhausted
surface mines, which is in direct conflict with Comprehensive Plan provisions to
protect agricultural land against such rezoning without due process.
10) Whatcom County hasn't established a program to ensure the needs and
rights of its rural citizens are met.
11) It is incomplete because the text does not resolve the stated intent of
the ordinance or the numbered findings, which are its premise, such as impacts to
neighbors, to groundwater, agricultural land protection, and appropriate levels of
mining.
12) It is incomplete because there is no provision for quantifying and
certifying critical technical text elements, which makes the ordinance un-
enforceable.
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 5
1 13) It is incomplete because it addresses only those nonconforming mines
2 outside of MRL areas, instead of all nonconforming mines. Over half of the county's
3 mines are nonconforming.
4
5 Hold two citizen meetings before going forward with this ordinance.
6
7 Brenner asked how a mine is nonconforming if it is in the MRL. Skinner
8 stated the MRL was intended to set aside mineral resources. There is no special
9 provision that gives it any special provision that gives them an ability to get permits
10 more easily.
11
12 Phyllis Kronenberg, 2351 E. Pole Road, Everson, stated she is a rural resident
13 and gravel pit neighbor for over 20 years. She has had ample opportunity to be
14 involved in the conflict between rural residents and surface mining as it relates to
15 the quality of life, sense of community, and preservation of rural lifestyles. These
16 important values and concerns have been intensified by the continued expansion
17 and proliferation of surface mines in rural residential zones. This item addresses
18 some of these conflicts, but it has failed to answer some of her concerns.
19
20 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
21
22 Phyllis Kronenberg continued to state that although the bill proposes to
23 address impacts to water supplies, it fails to prohibit digging into the water table in
24 gravel pits. This prohibition would protect both quantity and quality of
25 groundwater, and ultimately the drinking water. The bill details the surface mine
26 reclamation process. Reclamation is a required element of gravel mining by the
27 DNR, however little reclamation has taken place over the years. Local enforcement
28 has been lacking. There is little reassurance in the proposed measures to ensure
29 conformity. Surface mining regulation enforcement has been dismal. Enforcement
30 officers have not responded to complaints in a respectful and timely fashion. This is
31 not addressed in the agenda bill. Finally, The destruction of rural residential and
32 agricultural lands to recreational lakes is a sorry excuse for failure to reclaim gravel
33 mines. This is also not addressed in the agenda bill. Given the significant number
34 of impacts to neighbors that are not addressed, she proposed that the bill be
35 revised according to rural residents' recommendations.
36
37 Gary Dahl, 2875 E. 56 Vista, agreed with Nate Kronenberg and Harry
38 Skinner. He submitted a petition from his neighbors asking for postponement of
39 the decision. His neighborhood has come on board within the last few months.
40 They are trying to work something out for their neighborhood.
41
42 Roger Ellingson, City of Sumas, encouraged the Council to follow the
43 recommendation of the Natural Resources Committee to eliminate terraces. Sixty
44 percent of lands are on terraces. A six percent slope limitation could create curious
45 farms.
46
47 Direct staff to come up with a definition of farm enhancement, in consultation
48 with the farming community and Conservation District scientists. Adopt a six -acre
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 6
limitation on mining in agricultural lands. The uncertainty of the ability to reclaim
lands necessitates a slow process. Follow up with scientific tests to see if
reclamation is done properly. Hire staff that is familiar with reclamation process
and farmland soils.
Dave Ernst, 7208 Lankhaar Road, stated surface mining should not take
place in prime agricultural soils. The language is poorly written. Crucial
requirements are missing, such as a requirement that the land mined be a farm,
that the miner be a farmer, and that the land will be farmed after mining. It
requires the County to not enforce its own code if doing so would require a miner
without a permit to stop mining. The idea of mining in prime agricultural soils and
in fragile watersheds is wrong. He read sections WCC 20.83.020(2) and (3) into
the record. His neighbor has spent the past 15 years mining out 40 acres of prime
agricultural soil, has a conditional use permit, and has violated many of the
conditions of his permit. The County refuses to enforce those conditions. In June
of 2000, he filed a complaint listing numerous items of noncompliance. He has had
no response from the County, beyond a brief phone call saying the mine is going to
close. However, the mine is still open and working. The operator continues to
operate in noncompliance, before the stated operating hours.
Hoag questioned whether the complaint about the operating hours was
reported to staff. Ernst stated he did not this time. He has made complaints in the
past. They generally get no response.
Ernst continued to state that his neighbor wants to expand his mine. He will
not have an opportunity to comment other than at this hearing. Under the present
code, the neighbor would not be allowed to expand. Strike section three of the
paragraph, even if they don't eliminate commercial mining in the agricultural zone.
McShane asked the current status of the conditional use permit (CUP), and
how much of the mine is currently permitted. Ernst stated the CUP is for 40 acres.
The majority of it has been mined out. A large mountain of material is stockpiled,
more than the amount the CUP allows the miner to have open.
Brenner stated this ordinance would only allow a maximum of 15 percent or
six acres. This property is already bigger than six acres. Ernst stated there is
nothing in the ordinance about a six -acre limit. The owner can expand his permit,
three acres at a time without getting an additional conditional use permit.
Darlyn Del Boca, 7208 Lankhaar Road, stated she has spoken to the Council
many times in the past, and submitted all her testimony given over the past 15
years on this issue. She read her letter into the record (on file).
Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, stated the Natural
Resources Committee has done a good job in going through the information it
received and in putting forward a recommendation. Her September 11 letter
addressed her issues. Three issues have come forward tonight. The first issue is
additional mining in the agricultural zone. They are talking about removal of knolls
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 7
and ridges for farm enhancement. They have been allowed to do that for almost
ten years. To date, the number of acres that have been disturbed under that
ordinance is zero. The second issue is whether or not the time is right to approve
the ordinance. They could debate this for a lot longer. For those people who have
rights as adjoining property owners, she believed those people would request that
this ordinance be approved immediately. This addresses concerns regarding
nonconforming uses. This ordinance addresses nonconforming uses in detail. The
third issue is one brought up by Mr. Ernst and Ms. Del Boca regarding section (3) of
the nonconforming use section. The language they referenced distinguishes
between permits that the County already has versus nonconforming pits. One can't
operate under a permit and be nonconforming. It does not allow one to expand a
permit. One needs to get an additional permit if he or she goes beyond the
permitted acreage. This section does not allow someone to move around mining
without additional permitting.
Hoag questioned whether a nonconforming mine permit be interpreted as a
previously approved County surface mining permit. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated
no. A surface mining permit is an actual permit that was issued before the County
adopted its conditional use process. There are probably three or four surface
mining permits that are left out there in the county. They are for a designated
piece of property, acreage, and volume. That is the name of the permit.
Hoag questioned whether a nonconforming pit could have a surface mining
permit. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated a surface mining permitted site is not a
nonconforming pit. The site is permitted. A nonconforming pit is something that is
not allowed under the zone. If one has a permit, one is allowed under the zone.
Hoag stated the Lummi Island quarry was originally a nonconforming pit, and
then it became a designated MRL. She questioned whether this nonconforming
language would not apply because it is within an MRL. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated
that once in an MRL, the permit is an administrative approval permit. It is not a
conditional use permit. It falls in a different section of the code. That process is for
a pit in an MRL and that the MRL criteria have to be satisfied. If a miner wants to
expand acreage or rate of extraction, he or she has to go through that process.
Linda Compton Smith, E. Pole Road, asked the Council to keep the neighbors
in mind when considering gravel mines. They are not overly dramatic whiners.
They are people who love their homes and Whatcom County. Every day, they work
to do their best to make a good life. They don't have money for lawyers to
represent them, or have the time to attend meetings to be well informed. They
have to put their trust in the councilmembers to ensure balance. More people
haven't spoken up about their concerns because they are afraid to speak publicly,
or they don't have time to be involved. Neighbors are afraid of the gravel pits
encroaching on their quality of life, degrading the land, contaminating their water,
and decreasing the property values. Future generations will have to pay for it in
the end. As the gravel companies buy out more and more farmland, it is
imperative that wise planning decisions are made today, not tomorrow.
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 8
Ben Craft, 3550 Alm Road, Everson, stated gravel operators are not
terrorists. They are shrewd businessmen and women who are somewhat
insensitive to the neighborhood they are invading. They can't fault gravel operators
for making as much money as they can and not being concerned about problems
they bring to the neighborhood. The only way to fight the gravel issue is with
money. There is no way the average person can compete with the money the
gravel industry has. Government is for special interests, at times, instead of the
public. Have more public meetings before adopting this item.
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, addressed section (3) on Council packet page
239, which talks about the rules for nonconforming expansions not applying if there
is an existing conditional use or surface mining permit. That advice came from the
legal counsel. If someone has a vested, legal permit, the County can't take that
away and require the person to get a new permit later. Also, people have testified
that it doesn't apply to mining operations in the mineral resource land overlay zone.
They may want to add language, "doesn't apply to those who have obtained
administrative approval." There is a different process in the MRL's, and it might be
good to specify that.
Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
McShane moved to recommend approval of the ordinance that came out of
the Natural Resources Committee. One issue is requiring that mining in the
agricultural zone be reclaimed to agricultural use. This Council already did that this
past year. The MRL areas now need to be reclaimed to agricultural use. One is not
allowed to mine in the agricultural zone unless it is only for agricultural
enhancement. The specific reference is in Whatcom County Code (WCC)
20.40.136.
This ordinance has just to do with conditional use mines, referred to as the
"pac -man" mining approach. The way this current amendment is written, it will
stop that approach. It is the most prudent and beneficial thing to stop some of the
conflicts with conditional use mines. Most of the complaints are on conditional use
mines. This will put an end to the pac -man approach, if passed as written. It
doesn't address the MRL issues or the conflict that was created by creating MRL's,
particularly with the Pole Road residents. He is frustrated that the Council hasn't
received advice yet from the Surface Mining Advisory Committee (SMAC) about that
conflict. It is a separate issue that should be addressed in the future. This is not
the place.
Hoag stated this was not scheduled in the Natural Resources Committee
meeting earlier in the day. The changes were made on September 11, when she
wasn't there. She would make motions for amendments later in the discussion.
Dawson moved to accept language suggested by the Agricultural Advisory
Committee, Council packet page 237, as a substitute for number four, "The aetivity
will enly Femeve sand eF gFavel knells eF Fidges and will net exeavate FfleFe than 2'
belew th . . - 'and e'evatteen ef the knell eF ildge being Fengeved and will be
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 9
1 FeStOFed te SUFFeunding elevations. The surface mine shall net exceed thFee acFes
2 at any ene tinge. PFieF te mining additienal acFeage, Feclangatien shall be
3
4 t+99-e. The activity will only remove sand or gravel knolls or ridges and will not
5 excavate below the minimum land elevation of the knoll or ridge being removed. In
6 addition, a cumulative maximum of 15 percent of the parcel area, not to exceed six
7 acres in total may be mined."
8
9 Brenner stated she assumed that everyone knew about the 15 percent
10 condition, because she'd seen it before. She would support the motion. Some of
11 the concerns that were raised will be alleviated. She didn't want to vote on this
12 ordinance tonight because they received new written comments. However, this is
13 an important motion. The most important thing in agricultural land is to make it as
14 efficient as possible for the farmer to farm. Anything else is supposed to be
15 incidental and only for enhancement.
16
17 Nelson stated there were several meetings in committee about this. He is
18 against the motion. He looked at some of these sites. One site was larger than six
19 acres. A knoll was removed where the corn came from. Other sites don't have the
20 same production because of the water table and other issues. They have not had
21 any permits for this, so he is not sure that there is a lot of farm enhancement going
22 on. However, there are times where farmers need to enhance their lands to
23 increase their production for the intended use. Some of the sites are larger than
24 six acres. The Council is limiting it to an arbitrary number that may or may not
25 help a farmer. Have the criteria in place for how to replace the farmland, bring the
26 farmland back into production, and only allow mining three acres at a time. That is
27 one of the reasons he was willing to support the ordinance.
28
29 Brenner stated the Agricultural Advisory Committee supports these limits.
30
31 Imhof stated the criteria are sufficient here to allow for the needed removal
32 of knolls and ridges to the amount needed to approve the property being applied
33 for. The 15 percent and six acre limit does not take into a large parcel with a very
34 high knoll or ridge. Corn on one part of the field is 12 feet tall. On the knolls the
35 corn is about three to four feet tall because of sandy ground without water. He
36 wouldn't support an amendment that picks numbers out of the air rather than
37 letting the acreage and geography dictate how much should be removed.
38
39 Dawson stated that any mine of more than six acres should go through an
40 MRL process. Adjoining property owners have to get economic productivity from
41 their land. Mining exposes dust that is destructive.
42
43 Hoag stated it has been apparent from the farmers' testimony that mining is
44 difficult, and not a compatible use. The Agricultural Advisory Committee was put
45 together to hear from farmers about farming. The Conservation District works with
46 the farmers regarding soils. The Conservation District says that proposed changes
47 would progressively erode the land base available to farmers in this county, and the
48 goal should be to improve farmland. Otherwise, mining should not be conducted in
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 10
1 the first place. The Agricultural Advisory Committee recommends that the Council
2 retain the original intent of the farm enhancement program, which was to allow
3 minor alterations of field topography to further ease farm machinery use on the
4 property. The Agricultural Advisory Committee goes on to say that, for that reason,
5 a size limitation for activities is preferred. She supported the motion.
6
7 Nelson stated he asked that it go to the Agricultural Advisory Committee
8 originally because of the three -acre limit. The committee felt that if a specific limit
9 was not recommended, the three -acre limitation would be placed on the regulation.
10 The committee felt that, because there is not a lot of proposals, they would rather
11 see the capability to utilize the land in a way to get the best production. Their
12 concern was that the Council would stick with the three -acre limitation, and they
13 wanted at least double that amount. Don't start tying the farmers' hands.
14
15 Motion to amend carried 4 -3 with Imhof, Nelson, and Crawford opposed.
16
17 Hoag moved to amend Council packet page 237, item 20.40.165(1), "...RCW
18 and conforms to the following criteria and those of Whatcom County Code
19 20.84.220." This language was suggested by the City of Sumas representative.
20 WCC 20.84.220 is the surface mining code. The language directs people where to
21 look.
22
23 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
24
25 Motion carried 5 -2 with McShane and Imhof opposed.
26
27 Hoag moved to amend by reinstating language on Council packet page 237,
28 item 20.40.165, "(6) Final topography blends in with the natural contours of the
29 land without the requirements of off -site backfill." The following items would be
30 renumbered accordingly. The Agricultural Advisory Committee recommends this
31 language because it is the original language and should be maintained. The staff
32 also supports the language to eliminate concerns about contaminated things being
33 used as backfill.
34
35 Imhof questioned who removed the language, and why.
36
37 Hoag stated the Planning Commission removed it, and they didn't say why.
38
39 Motion failed 3 -4 with Hoag, Dawson, and Brenner in favor.
40
41 Hoag moved to amend Council packet page 238, item WCC 20.40.165(12),
42 "Owners shall submit an approved reclamation plan with their application to the
43 county providing for:...." This was recommended by the City of Sumas
44 representative. It clarifies that the plan needs to be approved when it is submitted
45 with the application.
46
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 11
Aamot stated that when a person submits a plan now, the County processes
it to various agencies at once. If the language were changed, they would have to
do the steps sequentially.
McShane stated the amendment provides a heads up about having to consult
the Conservation District. The applicant must do some of the legwork before
bringing in an application.
Imhof stated the process is through the County. The applicant won't know
that he or she has to go to the Conservation District until he or she comes to the
County.
Roger Ellingson, City of Sumas representative, stated there was a conditional
use permit (CUP) application. No reclamation plan was submitted with the CUP
application, so the public could not comment on the reclamation plan. That is the
reason for the recommended amendment.
Nelson stated they have a weak process with the Lake Whatcom watershed
regarding forest practices through the State Department of Natural Resources. The
County can only request that the applications can come forward. The amendment
would help make sure that the steps are followed.
Hoag stated the most important part of the motion is that the reclamation
plan comes with the application. It doesn't matter if the plan is approved or not by
the Conservation District before submittal. She restated and amended her motion
to amend Council packet page 238, item WCC 20.40.165(12), "Owners shall submit
a reclamation plan with their application to the county providing for:...." Later in
the code it says that the reclamation plan has to be reviewed and approved by the
Conservation District. This amendment requires that the reclamation plan be filed
in the beginning.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend Council packet page 238, item WCC 20.40.165(13),
"...released within twe years after completion Of SUFface mining successful
completion of surface reclamation; provided that reclamation...." The State
Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED) pointed out
that a reclamation plan may not be done in two years. They suggested that,
instead of a two -year limit, the County replace the language. When the land is
successfully reclaimed, the miner gets the money back. Otherwise, upkeep of the
reclamation could be neglected.
Imhof questioned who determines if reclamation is successful.
Hoag stated County staff would make that determination. It is not rocket
science.
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 12
1 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated DNR would be useful in
2 ascertaining whether the land has been reclaimed. Absent DNR determination,
3 County staff could make the determination.
4
5 Nelson stated the DNR is not involved unless it is over three acres.
6
7 Hoag stated the miner would have to prove that plants and vegetation are
8 established and growing for wetland mitigation regulations. This is the same thing.
9
10 Imhof stated the issue is taken care of in the language already. They
11 continue to hold the money until it is reclaimed. The reclamation plan should
12 include the requirement that the plants are alive and well after two years.
13
14 Nelson stated that if they leave it arbitrary, they are not doing anyone a
15 service.
16
17 Brenner stated she liked the term "successfully." If the trees aren't taken
18 care of for two years, some will be lost. They can begin to tell when trees aren't
19 taken care of. She trusts the County staff to tell when reclamation is successful.
20
21 Motion failed 3 -4 with Hoag, Dawson, and Brenner in favor.
22
23 Hoag moved to amend language on Council packet page 239, item WCC
24 20.83.020(3), "(e) Exceeding the five year average rate of mineral extraction or
25 processing established pursuant to WCC 20.83.151." That language was originally
26 in the ordinance, and the Planning Commission struck it.
27
28 McShane stated the staff recommended getting rid of the rate of extraction
29 average on nonconforming uses, and the Planning Commission put it back in.
30 Then, it was not put in the document here. It is missing. The recommendation is
31 there, but it is in a different section of the code. Aamot stated it is in a different
32 regulation that was proposed to be deleted, but the Planning Commission kept the
33 regulation. The regulation is not in this ordinance because it is not being changed.
34
35 Hoag stated that under this section, the definition of a nonconforming surface
36 mining operation is given. She asked if that would apply to the other section. She
37 questioned whether the other section would kick an applicant into this section.
38 Aamot stated would be prohibited to exceed the five -year average rate of
39 extraction.
40
41 Hoag withdrew her motion.
42
43 Hoag moved to amend Council packet page 239, section 20.83.020(3),
44 "...within the mineral resource lands overlay zone that have obtained administrative
45 approval." She questioned whether that is administrative approval for expansion.
46 Aamot stated they become an MRL through the legislative process. Then, they
47 need administrative approval to mine. They may mine in an MRL now without
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 13
1 administrative approval. If they have administrative approval, then the
2 nonconforming section doesn't apply.
3
4 Motion carried unanimously.
5
6 Hoag moved to amend Council packet page 240, item 20.83.020(4),
7 "...mining operation existing at the time of the adoption of this ordinance, if all of
8 the following...." It is for clarification that the County won't take action against
9 someone while he or she is in the process of getting a conditional use permit.
10 Aamot stated the definition of nonconforming use requires that a mine without a
11 permit is illegal. It is not nonconforming.
12
13 Hoag stated this amendment was a recommendation from staff. Aamot
14 stated he didn't think staff made that recommendation.
15
16 Hoag stated she was told that this was for people who might get caught after
17 making changes.
18
19 Motion failed 1 -6 with Hoag in favor.
20
21 Brenner moved to hold in Council for two weeks to read comments that
22 they've received. Close the public hearing.
23
24 McShane stated this has been before the Council for a year and a half. This
25 does not apply to MRL's, so it won't address the problems people have with the MRL
26 designation that are in conflict with residential properties. The Council has already
27 worked on agricultural reclamation. The farmers need to reclaim to agricultural
28 status. This addresses the major issue of repeated small pits being conditionally
29 permitted three acres at a time. The sooner the Council approves this, the more
30 likely they will prevent those types of applications coming forward.
31
32 Hoag asked how the Council would address these concerns by the citizens.
33 The Council should commit to doing something about the problems of people living
34 next to gravel mines. Nothing has changed year after year. The SMAC only has
35 one citizen representative against many industry representatives. The one citizen
36 quit. Do something about the people who are not being taken care of and about
37 the violations that occur over and over.
38
39 McShane stated holding this item will not be of any benefit. Those issues are
40 important. Councilmembers have invested a lot of time and effort in this ordinance.
41 One issue is the makeup of the SMAC. They might need to revisit that issue, but he
42 is not going to do it over the next two weeks. He is not going to think of the gravel
43 issue in the next two weeks, while other councilmembers want to go over
44 something that has been before the Council for a year and a half. He supports
45 making a commitment to address the issues. The Council has asked the SMAC to
46 provide advice on these issues, but that is not related to this issue.
47
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 14
1 Brenner stated she didn't know for sure that none of the information received
2 is not related to what the Council is doing. She would be surprised if there is not
3 something in this material regarding this ordinance. All she is asking for is time to
4 read the comments.
5
6 Motion failed 2 -5 with Hoag and Brenner in favor.
7
8 Hoag questioned whether the Council's action tonight does not supercede
9 what it's done previously for requiring agricultural land to an agricultural use.
10 Aamot stated that outside of an MRL, there is still the five -foot requirement to be
11 above the water table. This language adopted tonight doesn't affect that.
12
13 Hoag stated that in the agricultural zone, excavations do not occur within five
14 feet of the seasonal high water table. That is not in the rural zone. She asked the
15 reason. Aamot stated in the agricultural zone, they have an agricultural use. In
16 rural developments, there could be five -acre developments with residential lakes.
17 There is a different end use in the agricultural zone, where they are farming, versus
18 a residential rural setting.
19
20 Hoag stated she has concerns about the effects on the water table. The
21 letter from CTED says it has been documented that gravel mining in the water table
22 degrades water quality. She moved to amend Council packet page 236, by adding
23 a subsection of WCC 20.36.159 that has the same language from the agricultural
24 zone, "Excavations will not occur within five feet of the seasonal high water table
25 level."
26
27 McShane stated subsection (8) discusses excavation within the zones of
28 contribution.
29
30 Hoag stated that is only for designated wellhead protection areas.
31
32 McShane stated that issue could be addressed, but he is not prepared to do it
33 now. The bigger issue is whether recreational lakes are appropriate in the rural
34 district, if it's not in a wellhead protection area or not affecting people's drinking
35 water wells. That should be discussed in the future, but not at this time..
36
37 Dawson agreed, and stated they could take time to look at habitat
38 enrichment.
39
40 Hoag stated there have been complaints from people in the rural zone about
41 that window open to the aquifer under them. It doesn't have to be in a designated
42 wellhead protection area to end up in people's drinking water.
43
44 Motion failed 2 -5 with Hoag and Brenner in favor.
45
46 Nelson stated the ordinance as amended is on the floor. He would vote
47 against the ordinance. He spent much time out in the field and in many meetings.
48 The big question is the acreage amount. Everyone's intentions are good, and this
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 15
1 goes a long way from what they have currently. However, the Council has had
2 much testimony from the agricultural community regarding terraces. They are
3 gutting the farmers' capabilities.
4
5 Brenner stated she wants the terrace language back in the ordinance.
6 However, she would vote for the ordinance because the regulation is better than
7 what it was.
8
9 Motion to adopt the ordinance as amended carried 4 -3 with Imhof, Nelson,
10 and Crawford opposed.
11
12
13 CONSENT AGENDA
14
15 Imhof reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
16 moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through three.
17
18 Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through three carried
19 unanimously.
20
21 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
22 CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
23 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND THE WASHINGTON DENTAL
24 SERVICE FOUNDATION TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE SECOND
25 YEAR OF A GRANT ASSURING MEDICAID - ELIGIBLE CHILDREN
26 ACCESS TO DENTAL CARE AND ORAL HYGIENE EDUCATION, IN THE
27 CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $45,000 (AB2001 -326)
28
29 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
30 CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC
31 WORKS RIVER AND FLOOD DIVISION AND THE WASHINGTON
32 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CONSERVATION CORPS (WCC) TO
33 PROVIDE FUNDS FOR A SIX PERSON WCC CREW TO IMPLEMENT AND
34 MAINTAIN RIPARIAN RESTORATION PROJECTS IN THE CONTRACT
35 AMOUNT OF $50,000 (AB2001 -327)
36
37 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ACCEPT A GRANT
38 FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE
39 FUNDING TO THE PORT OF BELLINGHAM TO UPDATE THE COUNTY
40 COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (CEDS) IN
41 COOPERATION WITH THE PARTNERSHIP FOR A SUSTAINABLE
42 ECONOMY, IN THE GRANT AMOUNT OF $80,000 (AB2001 -328)
43
44
45 OTHER ITEMS
46
47 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FROM
48 RURAL FORESTRY (RF) TO RURAL AND THE ZONING MAP FROM RF TO
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 16
1 RURAL -ONE DWELLING UNIT PER FIVE ACRES (1115A) FOR
2 APPROXIMATELY 24 ACRES NEAR MAPLE FALLS (AB2001 -310F)
3
4 McShane reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated this
5 comes forward from the committee with a recommendation for denial and to have a
6 public hearing. If the Council does not accept the Planning Commission
7 recommendation, it has to have a public hearing.
8
9 Crawford stated it is a good possibility to make this more palatable by
10 changing the proposed R5A zone to a proposed R10A zone designation.
11
12 McShane moved to not include this item in the Comprehensive Plan
13 amendment concurrency vote and to set a public hearing.
14
15 Dawson asked if it makes more sense to make an amendment before the
16 public hearing.
17
18 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the Council has to hold a
19 public hearing to consider whether or not to approve the Planning Commission
20 recommendation. For proper advertising of the public hearing, the Council might
21 want to make a motion to hold a public hearing on the proposal to rezone from RF
22 to R5A, and consider a rezone to R10A instead.
23
24 Hoag stated they should also include in the advertisement that there may be
25 consideration of a change to R10A. She also supports denial of the project. There
26 is a considerable difference on what would be allowed on the property if the
27 property is zoned R10A. Up to 20 cabins could be built on the property. Five - sixths
28 of the property is located in the floodplain.
29
30 Imhof stated he is also not excited about the proposal.
31
32 Brenner stated she has no problem with an R5A zone in a floodplain for the
33 use of recreational cabins, but she will support the motion.
34
35 McShane stated his motion is to deny inclusion of this item in the
36 Comprehensive Plan concurrency hearing, and to set a public hearing.
37
38 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
39
40 McShane continued to state that if a councilmember wants to consider
41 changing the proposed rezone to R10A, then he or she should make a motion that
42 they consider R10A as part of the public hearing, and advertised as such.
43
44 Nelson offered a friendly amendment to include a possibility of an R10A
45 rezone.
46
47 McShane did not accept the friendly amendment. The motion is to deny the
48 rezone and set a public hearing.
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 17
1
2 Nelson stated a motion could be voted down, and an alternative motion could
3 be proposed.
4
5 Motion to deny the Planning Commission recommendation and schedule a
6 public hearing failed 3 -4 with Imhof, Hoag, and McShane in favor.
7
8 Nelson moved to hold a public hearing and include the possibility of the R10A
9 rezone.
10
11 Motion carried 5 -2 with Imhof and McShane opposed.
12
13 2. WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT,
14 REASONS FOR ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING MRL-
15 MINAKER ROAD — AS NUMBER EIGHT OF THE INITIATED TEN
16 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED
17 ZONING CHANGES FOR CONSIDERATION IN 2001 (AB2001 -310H)
18
19 McShane reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated the
20 applicant wants to withdraw, with the condition that the County Council initiates it
21 for the 2002 Comprehensive Plan review. He moved to accept the withdrawal of
22 the Benner mineral resource land (MRL) application without acting on the Planning
23 Commission recommendation, and to place the same application on the docket for
24 the 2002 County Council initiated Comprehensive Plan amendments.
25
26 Hoag stated she would abstain because the applicant was her campaign
27 treasurer.
28
29 Motion carried 6 -0 -1 with Hoag abstaining.
30
31 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
32 GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
33 AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE JOINT
34 INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A BENEFICIAL RE -USE
35 FACILITY FOR STREET WASTES IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
36 $150,000 (AB2001 -316)
37
38 Imhof reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
39 moved approval.
40
41 Motion carried unanimously.
42
43 4. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PETTY CASH FUND FOR THE COUNTY
44 COUNCIL OFFICE (2001 -323)
45
46 Imhof reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
47 moved approval.
48
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 18
1 Motion carried unanimously.
2
3 5. ORDINANCE AMENDING AND UPDATING THE 1990 POINT ROBERTS
4 SUBAREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
5 ZONING MAP, THE OFFICIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, AND
6 AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
7 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2001 -310E)
8
9 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated
10 this item is held in committee for two weeks.
11
12 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY
13 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ALLOW PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER
14 SYSTEMS WITHIN SMALL TOWNS, RESORT/ RECREATIONAL
15 SUBDIVISIONS AND THE GATEWAY INDUSTRIAL TRANSPORTATION
16 CORRIDOR (AB2001 -310G)
17
18 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved
19 to accept the Planning Commission recommendation and send to the
20 Comprehensive Plan amendment concurrency hearing.
21
22 Motion carried unanimously.
23
24 7. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.71, WATER
25 RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT (AB2001 -322)
26
27 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved
28 to hold in committee. The Planning Commission did make some changes. If there
29 are any amendments to the Planning Commission recommendation, such as going
30 back to the Building Industry Association's original proposal, the Council has to hold
31 a public hearing. The committee has not yet made any recommendations for
32 amendments.
33
34 Hoag stated she supported holding it in committee. There is a lot of
35 information the Council should know before voting on this. There are concerns
36 about not treating oils and contaminating heavy metals in the swales. In addition,
37 changing the pervious driveway regulation from required to encouraged needs to be
38 discussed.
39
40 Nelson asked how driveways are going to meet the mandate to treat oils and
41 heavy metals.
42
43 Brenner stated the Planning Commission went further. That is the only
44 reason she would support holding it in committee. She didn't have any problem
45 with changing the driveway regulation to "encourage."
46
47 Motion to hold in committee fails 3 -4 with Brenner, Hoag, and McShane in
48 favor.
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 19
1
2 Crawford moved to approve the Planning Commission recommendation. The
3 paragraph regarding use of alternative surfacing materials is flawed. Since
4 enforcement on this began mid - summer, it has caused distress for a number of
5 people who are in the process of construction in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
6 People are now facing financial difficulty because they can't get certificates of
7 occupancy and payment on construction loans until this is decided. This ordinance
8 is not ideal, but it will alleviate the situation until the Council can look at alternative
9 ordinances that make sense. If the Council does not pass this, it will have to have
10 another public hearing. He urged the Councilmembers to adopt the ordinance. He
11 also expressed his commitment to work on a paragraph regarding the use of
12 alternative materials.
13
14 Hoag stated she is against the motion. This ordinance is something that the
15 Planning Commission sent over. The language that Councilmember Crawford
16 objects to is the language that he passed as Planning Commission chair, with the
17 exception that driveways were put in under a requirement for pervious materials
18 rather than an encouragement. That was done after weeks of dealing with the
19 issue in the Planning and Development Committee. Unless they have some way to
20 encourage use of pervious materials, an owner will use asphalt. The velocity and
21 amount of run off causes problems. Decrease the amount of impervious surfaces in
22 the Lake Whatcom watershed. That was the point of this ordinance. The reasoning
23 that went into this was to come up with something that respected homeowner
24 responsibilities and budgets, while protecting drinking water. The way the Planning
25 and Development Committee wanted this to be applied is not happening due to a
26 fault in the wording that was chosen. The previous Planning and Development
27 Committee did not want pervious materials to be required if there were site
28 constraints that made it not feasible. The wording they used was "unless site
29 constraints make use of such materials detrimental to water quality." For example,
30 if someone chooses to use gravel, but lives on a steep slope that will cause erosion,
31 there is no benefit to the water quality. Staff says that this is written so that the
32 person would have to use porous cement, which is very expensive. They can
33 address the problem by fixing the language. She doesn't want asphalt driveways
34 where they don't need them. This is a well- thought out ordinance. Time and
35 consideration went into this. She objected to the comments that were made by
36 Councilmember Crawford to the Planning Commission. They were not accurate. He
37 said the committee meetings were late at night. However, they never met at night.
38 Councilmember Crawford said this was snuck through. However, this change was
39 made in June, and adopted in December. That is hardly snuck through. There
40 were many meetings. It was in the Council packet for many meetings. It is not
41 appropriate that councilmembers wield their influence at the Planning Commission.
42 The Planning Commission is supposed to be advisory.
43
44 Brenner stated it is fine that some people don't support using the word
45 "encourage" instead of "require," but the majority of Council supported that
46 language and requested that it go through the Planning Commission. The Planning
47 Commission added the extra wording. She supported encouragement, not
48 requirement of alternatives for driveways. She can't support the Planning
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 20
1 Commission recommendation because they went further than the Council wanted.
2 She is sorry to make people wait longer. The Council's motion was just about the
3 driveways, and the Planning Commission should have stuck to that issue. The
4 implication that people have to be forced to use alternatives bothers her. One
5 person testified that he voluntarily took out his asphalt driveway. There are plenty
6 of incentives to encourage people. Driveways are a safety issue. The County
7 should let residents do asphalt if they need to.
8
9 Dawson stated asphalt is a safety issue in a number of different situations.
10 Gravel driveways can cause pain for people in wheelchairs. Those options have to
11 be made available to people. They encourage people by educating them. The
12 County is asking people to use bioswales, infiltration systems, and stormwater
13 treatments if they have paved driveways, but the option needs to be there.
14
15 Nelson asked where oils and heavy metals come from.
16
17 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated staff recommended
18 stormwater treatment. The language regarding heavy metals was taken out by the
19 Planning Commission. The Public Works Department suggested striking out heavy
20 metals because there is not the technology in a bioswale. The idea was to run it
21 through a bioswale. Cattails in a bioswale will take up some of the heavy metals.
22 The Planning Commission agreed to take out "heavy metals." That is fine with
23 staff. The runoff will still run through a bioswale, but it won't have to be a bioswale
24 that will remove heavy metals.
25
26 Nelson stated the Council addressed the six -year road program recently.
27 There was much testimony because the County will redo the North Shore Road.
28
29 Richard Duane, Engineering Manager - Development, stated North Shore is
30 on the six -year plan.
31
32 Nelson stated the Council heard much testimony from the public regarding
33 bike trails. He asked what the County would use for materials on bike trails.
34 Duane stated bike trails would have a specific safety issue if there were a surface
35 that is less than asphalt or concrete.
36
37 Hoag stated bike paths do not have to be pervious materials in Lake
38 Whatcom. That is consistent. The County Council did not take a vote on a motion
39 to send this item to the Planning Commission.
40
41 Crawford stated the Building Industry Association (BIA) applied for this text
42 change.
43
44 Hoag stated the Council brought the issue up.
45
46 Brenner stated most of the councilmembers said they didn't want this
47 regulation, and supported it going through the process. She didn't think the BIA
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 21
1 should have to pay for the text change. The Council should have initiated it.
2 Technically, the BIA paid for this amendment, not the Council.
3
4 Hoag stated the Council did not take a vote, and didn't have a majority of
5 members express the sentiment on this issue. She asked the councilmembers to
6 vote against the motion. What people would be required to do is more onerous
7 than the requirements they are removing. Requiring stormwater runoff from paved
8 driveways and parking areas into a bioswale is asking for more than an impervious
9 driveway. The applicants who have come forward have a site constraint issue. The
10 other applicants don't want to spend the money, and in some cases it is cheaper to
11 put in impervious surfaces.
12
13 Nelson questioned whether the total area that would be allowed for
14 impervious surface would change. Goodwin stated that has not changed. The total
15 area of impervious surfaces allowed is 50 percent in the urban residential zones
16 and, 10 percent in the rural zones, and 20 percent in the rural residential zones.
17
18 Nelson stated someone who puts in an impervious driveway is further limited
19 in the percentage allowed for total construction. The incentive for using pervious
20 materials is to allow a larger house.
21
22 Hoag stated some people might be within their impervious surface limit, but
23 don't need to put in an asphalt driveway. She questioned why the Council would
24 want to allow an asphalt driveway in the watershed.
25
26 Motion carried 4 -3 with Hoag, Brenner, and McShane opposed.
27
28 8. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
29 DECISION ON FILE NO. APL2001 -0007, FILED BY CONCERNED
30 NEIGHBORS OF LAKE SAMISH, REGARDING " "SLEEPY HOLLOW"
31 SUBDIVISION (AB2001 -283)
32
33 See "Announcements."
34
35
36 INTRODUCTION ITEMS
37
38 Imhof moved to accept the Introduction Items.
39
40 Motion carried unanimously.
41
42 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 1.12,
43 COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES (AB2001 -045A)
44
45 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 10
46 (AB2001 -330)
47
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 22
1 3. ORDINANCE CONTINUING A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF
2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR REGIONAL
3 TRANSMISSION PIPELINES OF PETROLEUM, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS,
4 AND NATURAL GAS (AB2001 -122A)
5
6 4. ORDINANCE ORDERING THE CLOSURE OF HENRY ROAD AND
7 LONSETH ROAD WEST OF POWDER PLANT ROAD (AB2001 -329)
8
9
10 OTHER BUSINESS
11
12 Brenner stated she worked with the County Executive on a letter to the
13 President of the United States concerning problems at the Canadian border. She
14 submitted a draft of the letter. She moved to approve the letter. She read the
15 letter into the record.
16
17 Brenner stated there are two typos in the letter that need to be corrected,
18 "...since the goal of the teen terrorists is to weaken..." and "...the war against
19 tuts terrorism and vital to...."
20
21 Nelson questioned the location of the five border crossings, as mentioned in
22 the letter.
23
24 Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated there are crossings in Blaine, the
25 truck stop, Sumas, Lynden, and Point Roberts.
26
27 Crawford stated the border patrol does not staff the points of entry. The
28 Customs officials staff the entries. They are asking for additional customs agents.
29 He suggested that what they are asking for is mentioned in the beginning of the
30 letter.
31
32 Hoag requested that the letter include the County Council Chair's signature.
33
34 The Council concurred.
35
36 Motion to send the letter with the amendments suggested 6 -1 with Imhof
37 opposed.
38
39
40 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
41
42 McShane stated the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) hearing
43 at Nooksack Valley High School is next Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the
44 environmental impact statement for Sumas Energy 2.
45
46 Hoag stated the hearing would also address wetland issues.
47
48 McShane stated he didn't think they are discussing wetlands.
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 23
1
2 Brenner stated she heard recently that Whatcom County has been chosen to
3 be one of the 13 counties to set up a residential community for violent sexual
4 predators. Whatcom County was never involved in any decision - making process.
5 She strenuously and vigorously objects to the decision. Whatcom County has more
6 than its share of mentally ill persons because of its proximity to the border. When
7 people try to cross the border, they are turned back. The people end up in the
8 community. This will drain the County economically. It is also very dangerous.
9 She would like to work on a letter of opposition with the County Executive.
10
11 Brenner moved to object to this decision and the process by which the
12 decision was made. There was no public process. It will take a lot of mental health
13 dollars and criminal justice dollars to deal with these people. The most logical thing
14 is to have a centrally located facility in King County. Whatcom County already
15 takes more than its share, and has not objected. At the Mental Health Board
16 meeting, they discussed how they cannot take care of housing right now. There is
17 a waiting list for people who are not violent and dangerous. This is outrageous. It
18 is not fair.
19
20 Nelson suggested a friendly amendment that this also goes before the
21 Regional Support Network.
22
23 Brenner accepted the friendly amendment, but this is time - critical.
24
25 Hoag stated she would not support the friendly amendment. Send it
26 concurrently.
27
28 Nelson agreed to send it concurrently.
29
30 Hoag stated she sent a letter to her local legislator. She encouraged the
31 Council to do the same. She asked the Council Chair to write a letter to the State
32 Senator.
33
34 Brenner stated she already offered to do that. She strenuously objects to
35 the decision and the lack of public process.
36
37 Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated he has a problem with the concept of
38 the program that has been laid out by the State Department of Social and Health
39 Services (DSHS) and the legislature. He also questions the feasibility, viability, and
40 equity in the proposal.
41
42 Hoag asked the Council Chair to send an email to the senators and legislators
43 letting them know that the Council will follow up with a written letter.
44
45 Motion to send a letter of objection carried unanimously.
46
47
48 ADJOURN
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on November 27 , 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Regular County Council, 10/9/2001, Page 25