HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil October 23 20011
2 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
3 Regular County Council
4
5 October 23, 2001
6
7
8 The meeting was called to order at 7:07 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
21 ANNOUNCEMENTS
22
23 Nelson announced that there was discussion with representatives from
24 the Whatcom County Prosecutors Office regarding two cases of pending
25 litigation (AB2001 -018) in executive session during the Committee of the Whole
26 meeting.
27
28 Brenner read a statement to the public and the press.
29
30 "County legal staff report that certain parties involved in the operations of
31 the Recomp autoclave facility in Ferndale have expressed a desire to seek a
32 negotiated resolution of the legal issues surrounding our recently adopted
33 Infectious Waste Ordinance. The Council has decided to defer all legal actions to
34 seek judicial review of the ordinance or to pursue alternative legal strategies until
35 the possibility of a negotiated settlement can be fully and expeditiously explored.
36 As is customary in such circumstances, the settlement negotiations will be
37 conducted in a confidential manner. If no reasonable progress is made in a timely
38 manner, the Council will proceed with enforcement of the ordinance."
39
40 Crawford stated the request for authorization for the Executive to enter
41 a joint effort by Whatcom County, Water District 10, and the City of
42 Bellingham to enter into a contract between Health and Human Services
43 and Exponent to provide for a mercury source investigation for Lake
44 Whatcom in the amount of $97,000 (AB2001 -336) has been pulled by the
45 Executive due to a potential appearance of fairness conflict.
46
47 Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated he felt there is a legitimate
48 appearance of conflict of interest. He urged the County, City, and Water District to
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 1
1 select an alternate contractor. The process has not yet been determined. The
2 contractor that was selected has past associations with Georgia Pacific. Georgia
3 Pacific is a potential source for the mercury. It is not prudent for any of the entities
4 involved to pursue a study from that party.
5
6 Executive Kremen spoke regarding the 2002 annual budget (on file).
7 Revenues are dropping due to economic activity. Medical benefits for employees
8 are rising. There is gridlock at the state legislative level and unfunded mandates.
9
10
11 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
12
13 BOARD OF HEALTH FOR OCTOBER 2, 2001, AND COMMITTEE OF THE
14 WHOLE FOR OCTOBER 9, 2001
15
16 Dawson moved to approve the minutes with the amendments that
17 Councilmember Brenner proposed.
18
19 Motion carried unanimously.
20
21
22 OPEN SESSION
23
24 The following people spoke:
25
26 Al Hanners, 3007 Plymouth Drive, Bellingham, stated there is mercury in the
27 fish in Lake Whatcom. Mercury in fish is a nationwide problem. It comes from
28 methylmercury that is airborne. He is a retired geologist. He never believed that
29 the mercury in Lake Whatcom in any significant amount came from natural mineral
30 sources. He read from an article in the Scientific News (on file). Mercury is
31 methylated by the action of bacteria, especially in landfills. Mercury is taken in by
32 plants. The fish are in the top of the food chain, except for people, so it becomes
33 concentrated. A member of the Bellingham water department believes that the
34 mercury in Lake Whatcom comes from natural mineral sources. However, that
35 belief has more to do with political science than natural science. Consider the
36 direction of the research that a study should take. Give top priority to the most
37 probable sources of mercury in fish, and not the least probable.
38
39 Alex Cummings, resident, asked that the public process regarding the
40 mercury study in Lake Whatcom be reviewed. She and her husband run a nonprofit
41 called Environmental Exposure Network. They study the effects of toxins in the
42 environment and health. They are a group of nurses, biologists, medical
43 professionals, and other concerned citizens. The city contract says they were
44 looking for someone to investigate, monitor, and to do risk assessment related to
45 fish tissue and human health exposure. Her nonprofit agency should be allowed to
46 apply. That did not occur. She thanked the County for reviewing the situation and
47 the Exponent contract. Exponent has a major conflict of interest with its
48 relationship with Georgia- Pacific. She was not allowed to participate in the process
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 2
or get data and information regarding the request for proposals (RFP) and request
for qualifications (RFQ). She was stonewalled for four and a half months. When
she attended the last Council meeting, she received minutes from a special water
meeting that she knew nothing about. That document said that certain individuals
have been notified of the RFQ and RFP regarding this research process, and there
had been no comments. She wanted to correct Ms. Delahunt's statement. She had
not seen or heard of any documents. She tried repeatedly. It is not true that she
made no comment. She asked to reopen the public process part of the process.
She suggested creating a citizen task force. Many people are doing research, and
they should be included in the process.
Three of the other groups on the contractor list have prior relationships with
Georgia- Pacific. This is a problem. Georgia- Pacific is a pulp chemical plant. They
do have some responsibility. They need to not perpetuate conflicts of interest. Put
a moratorium in place while the studies are going on.
Doug Tolchin, 1211 Cornwall Avenue, Bellingham, stated he was encouraged
to see that the County is working with the City of Bellingham and Water District 10.
He requested that the Council has a public hearing on mercury in Lake Whatcom.
He submitted handouts regarding dumpsites with extremely high mercury levels
from Georgia- Pacific and the State Department of Ecology. It is not just the Y Road
dumpsite in the watershed. There are many other Georgia- Pacific toxic waste
dumps in the Lake Whatcom watershed. He submitted evidence of this fact (on
file). The State needs to provide the funding.
Frank Eventoff, 7086 Atwood Road, Ferndale, agreed with the previous
speakers regarding the mercury in Lake Whatcom. He lives on Atwood Road in
Ferndale. Al Jansen is proposing to build a light industrial complex in the
neighborhood. There are 14 families in the neighborhood. They've held two
neighborhood meetings. There is unanimous agreement that the development will
not serve the quality of life. He asked the Council to think about granting the
rezone for the Ferndale urban growth area (UGA).
Harry Skinner, 6600 Goodwin Road, Everson, stated he came to talk about
the conflict of interest between general public health and government. He
requested the Council to reestablish the independent Health District. The fish alert
was requested two years ago. The County's Health Department administrator at
that time dismissed this call, and fishing in Lake Whatcom continued. The
councilmembers should step back from their overlapping roles in the arenas of
health and general governmental matters. There is an inherent conflict of interest.
Each of these arenas must exercise its office independently to be sure the full range
of its separate mandate is accomplished. Issues of public health should be
advanced vigorously, without any consideration of the impacts such issues might
have on the policy or budgets of any other governmental agency. There will be
conflicts, of course. But they must be resolved in an open forum, not by dismissing
inconvenient public health officials or by issuing interdepartmental memos. The
highest order of government responsibility will always be public health and safety.
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 3
1 Brenner asked why Mr. Skinner believed the previous Health District was
2 better for the public than the current Health and Human Services Department.
3 Skinner stated that the previous board was made up of three County
4 Councilmembers, three City Council Members, and one independent person
5 representing the city or county at large. That was not an ideal constituency. He
6 proposed a board made up of independent people that would not have a dual
7 representation. They must be health- trained and health professionals.
8
9 Brenner stated the County Councilmembers are independently elected.
10 Skinner stated the conflict becomes health versus other County priorities.
11
12 Leonard Lindstrom, resident, stated he's been learning how to talk the
13 dysfunctional language to get along better with people.
14
15 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
16
17 Lindstrom continued to state personal outlooks should not be above common
18 interests in this country, or much violence will be generated. Old habits are hard to
19 break. They need to work together to break bad habits. A majority of one doesn't
20 benefit anyone. He lost his American citizenship when he was in the Navy.
21
22 Matt McLeod, 7076 Atwood Road, stated he is opposed to development of the
23 Jansen property. His main concern is parking lot runoff contaminating the
24 groundwater and his well. He is also concerned about increased traffic in the area
25 and security. This is the wrong time to be building a light industrial park. Many
26 other parks and shopping malls are vacant.
27
28 Kathy Freeman, 7072 Atwood Road, stated she is opposed to Al Jansen's
29 proposed development. There would be an impact on the variety of wildlife they
30 have. She is also concerned about the safety of her children and the quietness of
31 the neighborhood.
32
33 David MacVittie, 7086 Atwood Road, stated he is opposed to the Al Jansen
34 development. He requested public hearing. There is a lot of this type of land
35 already established in Whatcom County. There isn't a need for me. The impact on
36 the neighborhood surrounding the property is residential. It will have quite an
37 impact when people try to get into the neighborhood. Property values will be
38 lowered.
39
40 James Stevens, 7080 Atwood Road, stated he is opposed to Al Jansen's
41 development. He is concerned about the drainage.
42
43 Brian Likkel, 7104 Atwood Road, stated he is opposed to the Al Jansen
44 development. The water table is a big concern. It is very shallow. The business
45 park across the freeway is also owned by Mr. Jansen. It has many vacancies in it.
46 His wife and children ride horses around the neighborhood. They've lived there for
47 13 years. The kids can run around the neighborhood without a problem. He is
48 worried about more traffic emptying into their driveways.
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 4
1
2 Heather Whalen, 3232 Greenwood Avenue, Bellingham spoke in favor of the
3 project. She understands the neighborhood is concerned about the project. The
4 application is being studied for critical areas. Wetlands and SEPA review is being
5 thoroughly studied. This particular application was intended to address one issue,
6 and not the development. Mr. Jansen bought a 72 -acre parcel in 1970. When the
7 Comprehensive Plan was done, the acreage was included in the urban growth area.
8 The urban growth boundary line accidentally followed the section line and not the
9 property line. It is clear that was a mapping error. There was no reason for that to
10 occur. The agenda bill requests a rezone. However, the application does not
11 request a rezone in conjunction with a Comprehensive Plan amendment for that
12 issue. The Planning Commission made the motion. The applicant wants to keep
13 the rezone separate from the Comprehensive Plan issue. The neighbors should be
14 included in some of those meetings so they can discuss what they plan to do.
15
16 Crawford questioned whether the staff or the Planning Commission
17 recommended the concurrent rezone. Whalen stated the Planning Commission
18 recommended the rezone. The original staff recommendation made them separate
19 items. The Planning Commission decided to hear them concurrently. They should
20 be considered separately. The applicant applied for the rezone separately.
21
22 Jackie Steven, 7080 Atwood Road, stated she is opposed to the Al Jansen
23 development. Her family moved there eight years ago because it was open,
24 natural, and private. They never would have purchased their property if an
25 industrial park was in place. The residents should have a choice of where and how
26 they want to live, and not have someone develop something in the neighborhood
27 that they don't want. They have ponds and lakes. The water is a big concern. The
28 traffic noises have gotten higher since the Grandview Park has gone up. Aluminum
29 construction looks cheap and tacky.
30
31 Adam Ward, Bellingham, stated there was an excitement today that an
32 elected official was acknowledging a conflict of interest. If the County continues to
33 pursue and interrogate that conflict of interest, representing the good of the
34 County, there is support for that kind of courage. The Dracula strategy is that if
35 you bring something bad out into the light, it dies. He encourages the Council to be
36 open, receptive, and to engage the public process.
37
38 Mayla MacVittie, 7086 Atwood Road, stated she is against the Al Jansen
39 development. She had a few meetings with Al Jansen. The wildlife and quality of
40 life would be destroyed. The development isn't needed. There are many
41 vacancies. Mr. Jansen's existing light industrial park is not well buffered. It doesn't
42 give her any confidence that Mr. Jansen would do a good job where she is. There is
43 also a water problem in this neighborhood. The wells are only 20 to 30 feet deep.
44 Under that is clay. Putting blacktop over the field would impact the environment.
45 There are eagles in the neighborhood, as well as hawks and great blue herons.
46
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 5
1 Tim Zawicki, 7100 Atwood Road, stated he is opposed to the Al Jansen
2 development. He and his family have lived there for 13 years. He would like to
3 have the least amount of impact to what they've become accustomed to.
4
5
6 PUBLIC HEARING
7
8 1. ORDINANCE CONTINUING A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF
9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR REGIONAL
10 TRANSMISSION PIPELINES OF PETROLEUM, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS,
11 AND NATURAL GAS (AB2001 -122A)
12
13 Imhof removed himself due to a conflict of interest due to a recent
14 employment opportunity. He left the room.
15
16 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated
17 this is a continuation of an ordinance that has already been continued several
18 times. It is a moratorium on new applications for pipelines. A committee is just
19 about done with its work on this information.
20
21 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the Utilities Committee
22 has produced a preliminary report for Council consideration.
23
24 Brenner stated it wasn't scheduled in committee because the Council didn't
25 receive it in time for it to be scheduled on the agenda. It will be scheduled on the
26 Public Works Committee agenda.
27
28 Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
29
30 Rodney Gregory, Auburn, Washington, stated he represented Williams
31 Pipeline, who operates natural gas pipeline facilities in Whatcom County. He asked
32 the Council to end the moratorium. If the County extends the moratorium again, it
33 will miss an opportunity to participate in the federal application to build the Georgia
34 Strait Crossing Project. He's attempted to file the shoreline application, but it was
35 rejected because of the moratorium. He will soon have to file it with the State
36 Department of Ecology (DOE), and the County will miss out in that process. He
37 needs the moratorium lifted so that they can move forward with the Georgia Strait
38 Crossing Project. Pipelines are an integral part of energy infrastructure, necessary
39 for the growth and development of vital communities. Recently, BP /Amoco filed
40 with the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Committee (EFSEC) its potential site study
41 for a 720 megawatt cogeneration plant. Their current facilities are not sufficient
42 enough to supply that plant. The other two potential energy sources for that plant
43 are the Cascade Natural Gas pipeline system, and the potential for the Williams
44 Georgia Strait Crossing project. He's been participating in the County Council's
45 Utility Planning and Advisory Committee. The document the committee submitted
46 is an excellent document. It will be a very good tool to work with.
47
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 6
1 Brenner asked why the County would not be able to participate in discussions
2 because there is a moratorium. Gregory stated that if the County does not accept
3 the shoreline permit application, the County will not have an opportunity to review
4 the application if the state takes the lead in the process.
5
6 Brenner asked if the state would not allow the County to participate in
7 discussions. Gregory stated the County's opportunity to participate may be diluted.
8
9 Hoag stated the County filed to intervene in the Federal Energy Regulatory
10 Commission (FERC) process on the Georgia Strait Crossing project. She also
11 questioned whether Williams can take their application to DOE if the County has a
12 moratorium.
13
14 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that Williams Pipeline
15 could take its application to the State. A potential ramification is that the County
16 may lose the opportunity to be the lead agency in respect to the shoreline permit
17 application. Even if the State was requested to fill that role, the County would be a
18 participant in the process. There may also be a determination that this moratorium
19 may not forestall Whatcom County from accepting the application and processing it.
20 There is still an issue there that is unresolved.
21
22 McShane stated the County could still accept the shoreline application and
23 begin processing it. He questioned whether the County could make an exception to
24 the moratorium and accept the shoreline permit. Grant stated the County could not
25 do that. Karen Frakes has been working with the Planning and Development
26 Services Department to determine whether the moratorium prevents the County
27 from accepting the permit application.
28
29 Carl Weimer, RESources, 1155 North State Street, stated keep the
30 moratorium in place until the committee finishes its work. The Bellingham City
31 Council approved a ten -year franchise agreement, which helps the municipality gain
32 some control over pipeline safety and how pipelines run through the community.
33 They did this because they realize that neither FERC nor the Office of Pipeline
34 Safety is doing much to ensure local community pipeline safety. Whatever the
35 committee comes up with will help ensure the safety of pipelines throughout the
36 rest of the county, outside of the City of Bellingham.
37
38 Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
39
40 Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance.
41
42 McShane stated the DOE would do an adequate job of taking the lead. It
43 would save County staff time. DOE will still review the County's decision to make
44 sure it is complying with its own shoreline management program.
45
46 Grant stated the DOE would not do that without receiving the County's input.
47
48 Motion to adopt carried 6 -0 with Imhof out of the room.
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 7
1
2 Nelson announced that Councilmember Imhof is abstaining from the vote.
3
4 (Clerk's Note: Imhof returned to the meeting.)
5
6 2. ORDINANCE ORDERING THE CLOSURE OF HENRY ROAD AND
7 LONSETH ROAD WEST OF POWDER PLANT ROAD (AB2001 -329)
8
9 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, gave a staff report and stated
10 he received a letter from the BP Cherry Point refinery this summer. There has been
11 an ongoing problem with dumping and unauthorized shooting. They have a
12 concern for the safety of their employees. These two roads are dead -end roads and
13 surrounded by BP property. The Public Works Department recommends that the
14 roads be closed to vehicular travel.
15
16 Brenner questioned whether the roads would still be a public right -of -way
17 available to people to walk or ride bicycles. Mills stated that is correct. There
18 would be a gate going across the road. It is a gate the pedestrians can go around.
19 At this time, BP is not interested in vacating the right -of -way. This is a temporary
20 closure that the County can rescind at any time in the future.
21
22 Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
23
24 Carl Weimer, RESources, 1155 North State Street, Bellingham, stated people
25 are concerned about the road closure and giving the public right -of -way to the
26 private business. The right -of -way is not being given away, just closed to vehicular
27 traffic. The Pacific International Terminals own most of the land owned on both
28 sides of Henry Road. That is where they want to put in the huge new dock. There
29 seem to be three reasons to close the road. One reason is trespassing. He's been
30 going out for years, and none of the property has been marked for no trespassing.
31 Another reason to close the road is to keep people from shooting in the area. There
32 are signs encouraging shooting and hunting along some of these roads. Now, using
33 the excuse of shooting is contradictory to the signs that have been posted over the
34 years. Dumping is a problem out there. He would be in favor to close those roads
35 to vehicular traffic to end that dumping. In reality, they are just going to move the
36 dumping activity back onto the other roads. He suggested a larger road closure
37 that would make it a bigger area for bicycles and walkers, and take care of more of
38 the illegal dumping out there. Yesterday, he found that the gates are already up
39 and the roads are already closed. This hearing is a formality. For the most part, he
40 is in favor of closing the roads to keep people from dumping in the area. They are
41 going to push the problem elsewhere.
42
43 Hoag questioned how long the section of road is that would become a
44 pedestrian route instead of a vehicle route. Weimer stated there is no access to the
45 beach on either one of these roads. They are all upland.
46
47 Hoag stated they received a letter saying one of the roads goes to the beach.
48 Weimer stated Gulf Road goes to the beach, but it is not supposed to be closed.
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 8
1
2 Hoag questioned whether Mr. Weimer could walk around the new gates that
3 are up. Weimer stated he could.
4
5 John Torenz, 2906 Coolidge Drive, stated he agreed with Mr. Weimer. There
6 is a nice beach access on the south side of Henry Street where it dead ends. One
7 would cross private property. He read that there has been 100 incidents reported.
8 On two occasions, security stopped him and his wife as they were walking their
9 dogs. He questioned whether that is considered an incident. He went to the area
10 Sunday morning and found the gates up there. Most people can't close off a road
11 for these reasons. This is a closure of the road to benefit BP. He has nothing
12 against BP, and he sympathizes with the dock workers who had a shooting going on
13 over their heads. However, that is an enforcement issue, not a right -of -way issue.
14
15 Hoag questioned how much of the road they are closing that goes to the
16 beach. Torenz stated it is about a half -mile or a mile.
17
18 Mills stated it is eight- tenths of a mile.
19
20 Nelson questioned why there are gates going across County property
21 already. Mills stated BP was extremely anxious to proceed with this closure, and
22 they were given permission on their own to construct gates, but not to lock them.
23 The gates are up, but not locked. They would have to wait until after this public
24 hearing to lock the gates. BP understood that if this hearing rejects the closure,
25 they would have to remove the gates.
26
27 Nelson questioned who gave them permission to install gates. Mills stated it
28 came from the administration.
29
30 McShane asked about the hunting signs in the area. Mills stated he was not
31 aware of any hunting signs. He talked with Scott Walker, with BP, about hunting.
32 Mr. Walker said people have used the area for target practice. The only area on
33 any BP property where they allow people to use for hunting is the area north of the
34 refinery, off of Grandview Road. Anything else is being done without their
35 permission.
36
37 McShane asked if any of that land has an open space land designation. Mills
38 stated he was not aware of it.
39
40 Nelson stated it is important to know because many times the open space
41 tax designation has a public access criterion.
42
43 Imhof stated there would still be public access.
44
45 Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
46
47 Dawson moved to adopt the ordinance.
48
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 9
1 Brenner stated she was going to support it originally, but Mr. Torenz's letter
2 made her think. It is not fair to close down a road for public access for one
3 business. She can sympathize. They've vacated roads for special interests. This is
4 the first time that she knows of that the County has closed a road. They have to
5 stop the dumping.
6
7 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
8
9 Brenner continued to state that she sees this all over the place. Closing the
10 road for a business is not the answer to the problem. It is going to move the
11 problem. Another concern is about some people who are not as physically fit as
12 most people. The Council needs to make things more accessible to all people, not
13 just those who are physically fit. These roads don't go down to the beach, but it
14 will get people closer to the area. They can't trade one problem for another.
15
16 Dawson stated this is private property. The public has no right to go down to
17 the beach through private property. There are two easements to the beach at the
18 end of Beachway and further north. There are security problems, such as dumping
19 and shooting. This is one of the first areas that a terrorist would consider as a
20 potential target. Secure as many vehicular accesses as they can.
21
22 McShane moved to refer to the Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
23 until the next meeting to address issues of taxation and the shoreline agreements
24 for public access.
25
26 Hoag stated she supported Councilmember McShane's motion. Being the
27 most disabled on the Council, a mile is a long way to walk. She would like to hear
28 more information about the issue.
29
30 Crawford stated he would support Councilmember Dawson's motion because
31 it seems to be a good idea to create a pedestrian area. It addresses a problem that
32 has been brought to the Council.
33
34 Motion to refer carried 4 -3 with Crawford, Dawson, and Imhof opposed.
35
36 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FROM
37 RURAL FORESTRY (RF) TO RURAL AND THE ZONING MAP FROM RF TO
38 RURAL -ONE DWELLING UNIT PER FIVE ACRES (1115A) OR RURAL -ONE
39 DWELLING PER TEN ACRES (R10A) FOR APPROXIMATELY 24 ACRES
40 NEAR MAPLE FALLS (AB2001 -310F)
41
42 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated
43 the proposal is to rezone 24 acres east of Maple Falls from the rural forestry zone to
44 the rural, one dwelling per five acres (R5A) zone. The proposed use is a house, bed
45 and breakfast, and rental cabins. It is about a mile east of Maple Falls on the
46 northern bank of the Nooksack River. Approximately 4.5 acres of the parcel are
47 outside of the flood plain. The rest of the parcel is in the 100 -year flood plain of the
48 Nooksack River.
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 10
1
2 The initial staff recommendation was to deny the application. Staff had
3 concerns that the rezone would allow this lot to be further subdivided up to a four -
4 lot short plat. Concerns regarded flood plain development, the Endangered Species
5 Act, and Comprehensive Plan policies to prevent flood plain development. The
6 Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezone. The land is not
7 heavily forested and not used for commercial timber. The proposed rental cabins
8 and bed and breakfast are consistent with some goals and policies on economic
9 development in the east county. The east county economic development plan also
10 called for additional tourism development in that area. The Planning Commission
11 recommended approval.
12
13 She met with the applicants, who are willing to consider a zone of rural, one
14 dwelling per ten acres (R10A), which is something that could be appropriate for the
15 area. The R10A zone would allow development of the bed and breakfast and rental
16 cabins and tourism development that the applicant wants to do. Currently, the 24-
17 acre parcel has two legal lots of record. With a lot line adjustment, they have two
18 lots anyway. They can only have two lots under the R10A zone. A rezone would
19 not allow further development or any additional residential development than what
20 is already allowed under the current zone. One bed and breakfast facility per lot is
21 allowed in both the rural forestry and R10A zones. One rental cabin per acre is
22 allowed for an educational facility related to forestry or wildlife, which is not very
23 well defined. That was an amendment that was added for the Black Mountain
24 Forestry Center. With some informational materials, walking trails, and signs
25 dealing with salmon or wildlife, the applicant could qualify under Whatcom County
26 Code (WCC) 20.42.155 for an educational facility. The zone would also allow retail
27 sales, a gift shop, meeting facilities, and other activities that would have more
28 impact than if the rezone was to R10A, where those types of facilities wouldn't be
29 allowed.
30
31 There are State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) conditions that deal with the
32 flood plain, shoreline, and habitat issues. Additional landscaping is required. With
33 the revised proposal of R10A, the applicant may still do the tourism - related
34 development without the additional residential development that the staff was
35 concerned about. There is space for the types of facilities they are talking about, to
36 be located outside of the flood plain. The SEPA conditions should be attached if the
37 Council adopts the substitute ordinance for R10A zoning so that additional review is
38 required for any development in the flood plain or shoreline, would require
39 additional water quality review for septic tanks, would require a wildlife habitat and
40 biological assessment, and would require landscaping and buffers along the
41 highway.
42
43 If the Council does not approve the R10A zone, staff recommends denial of
44 the R5A zoning. She's prepared an alternate ordinance for the R10A rezone.
45
46 Brenner questioned whether there would be building sites outside of the flood
47 plain for the R5A zone. Goodwin stated there are building sites outside of the flood
48 plain. If the applicant wants to do a four -lot short plat, the homes could be
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 11
1 clustered outside of the flood plain. The homes would not have to be clustered.
2 They could be four long, narrow lots.
3
4 Brenner questioned whether there is room, without clustering, for five -acre
5 lots with a site for the cabins outside the flood plain. Goodwin stated there is room,
6 but it would make some very unusual, long, narrow lots. She wouldn't recommend
7 that kind of configuration because it would create driveway access issues off the
8 highway and more potential development in the area.
9
10 Brenner questioned whether the Council could stipulate a condition that the
11 driveways would have to be shared at the point of access to the highway. Goodwin
12 stated the Council could require any conditions it wanted on a rezone, with a
13 concomitant agreement.
14
15 Hoag asked about impacts to the property that would not be allowed with
16 R10A zoning, but are allowed with the current zoning. Goodwin stated the zoning
17 amendment approved for the Black Mountain Forestry Center is WCC 20.42.155.
18 That allows meeting facilities and retail sales gift shops associated with a forestry or
19 wildlife education facility, which is not well defined. It could be a small or large
20 facility. Those could have a greater impact if it was zoned just R10A and had a bed
21 and breakfast facility.
22
23 Hoag questioned whether the applicant would be allowed meeting facilities or
24 gift shops if the zoning is R10A. Goodwin stated they might be able to do some of
25 that activity under the cottage industry ordinance. However, the cottage industry
26 ordinance does not allow retail sales unless the product is manufactured on site.
27 There is some provision in the cottage industry ordinance for outdoor recreation
28 facilities in the Foothills subarea.
29
30 Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
31
32 Jack Swanson, 900 Dupont Street, Bellingham, stated he is a representative
33 of the applicants Garry and Judy Mahaffey, and handed out photos and a letter
34 pertaining to the property. The owners are in the process of getting a permit for
35 the house now. The house and garage will be on the left side of the driveway as
36 one enters the property. The bed and breakfast building and rental cabins would
37 eventually be on the right side of the driveway. He concurs with the staff's
38 recommendation of a rezone to R10A. This property is uniquely well suited for the
39 use that the owners want to do. There is no public interested downside to this
40 proposal. The sight is being tastefully developed. The use will bring in outside
41 money to the Foothills area. The employment opportunities would also help the
42 area.
43
44 Lynea Sande, 4821 Sucia Drive, stated she owns a piece of property across
45 the river, due south of this parcel. She attended the Planning Commission meeting
46 on this issue. She was surprised about the Planning Commission not taking the
47 staff's recommendation. As a taxpayer, she believed she hires people to work to do
48 what is right for the public. She is opposed to building a bed and breakfast in the
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 12
1 flood plain. There is no longer 24 acres on that property. It would be okay to put
2 in a bed and breakfast in the area that is further up, where it is safe. She saw a
3 map with a house plan down by the river.
4
5 She called the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) who has had a
6 representative at that property annually for the last 20 years. She contacted ten
7 other bed and breakfast facilities in the area, whose owners say they are not full.
8 This is just another business proposition. She did not want the applicants to divide
9 the property and then sell it.
10
11 Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
12
13 Nelson moved to accept the substitute ordinance to rezone the property to
14 R10A. He talked to people in the Maple Falls area about this application. Everyone
15 was excited about this development for enhancement of the community and the
16 opportunities for additional growth in the business community. Another bed and
17 breakfast owner said this location was perfect for a bed and breakfast facility.
18
19 Brenner moved to amend the motion to include a concomitant agreement
20 that no habitable structures be allowed within the 100 -year floodplain. Goodwin
21 stated the first SEPA mitigation measure says that any future development
22 proposed to be located within the 100 -year flood plain shall require further review
23 and approval, pursuant to the Whatcom County Shoreline Management Program,
24 State Environmental Policy Act, Critical Area Ordinance, and flood ordinance.
25
26 Brenner stated she would rather require that one simply couldn't build in a
27 flood plain, unless there is nowhere else on the property where it is reasonable to
28 build.
29
30 Swanson stated there is no problem with not building residential structures in
31 the flood plain. He asked if it would be possible to build a gazebo or hiking trail.
32
33 Brenner stated she is only talking about structures that are habitable. They
34 would not be allowed within the 100 -year flood plain unless there is no site on the
35 lot that would be available. If there is no reasonable site, the owner would have to
36 work with the County to establish those parameters. Swanson stated that is fine.
37
38 Brenner's motion to add a concomitant agreement carried unanimously.
39
40 McShane moved to amend Finding of Fact 3 to, "...1 dwelling unit per § 10
41 acres...."
42
43 Motion carried unanimously.
44
45 Hoag stated the councilmembers were repeatedly told that this did not have
46 trees on it, could not be forested, and had not been forested. There are tree
47 stumps and trees all over the place. Also, the map shows that any high water
48 would go right through the property. They should not rezone the property at all. If
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 13
1 they rezone the property to R10A, it will be that much easier to rezone again to
2 R5A down the road. If the property stays as rural forestry, she is not concerned. It
3 is not appropriate to have residential zoning in that area.
4
5 Brenner stated it is very appropriate to have residential zoning in that area.
6 It is beautiful. It is a perfect place as long as people aren't building homes in the
7 flood plain.
8
9 Hoag stated there was talk of a recreational vehicle (RV) campground.
10 Swanson stated it is not permitted under R10A zoning.
11
12 Goodwin stated a commercial RV park would not be permitted under rural
13 forestry, R5A, or R10A zoning.
14
15 Hoag questioned the number of cabins that are proposed. Twenty cabins
16 could be built. Swanson stated he didn't know that.
17
18 Hoag questioned whether 20 cabins is allowed under the forestry zoning
19 because of the Black Mountain amendment. Goodwin stated that is correct, but it is
20 not necessarily 20 cabins that are allowed. Twenty sleeping units are allowed. An
21 educational facility could have those same numbers of sleeping units.
22
23 Hoag stated the most restrictive zoning is the rural forestry zoning. As they
24 start allowing the other zones, even if they are going to put all of the structures out
25 of the flood plain, that is a lot of structures to put in one spot.
26
27 Swanson stated the rural forestry allows a conditional use of rental cabins
28 with the associated meeting facilities. The density shall not exceed five sleeping
29 units per five gross acres.
30
31 Goodwin stated a sleeping unit is defined as a room. There is a maximum of
32 three sleeping units per cabin.
33
34 Nelson asked how many acres are in the flood plain. Goodwin stated 4.5
35 acres are out of the flood plain.
36
37 Nelson questioned whether they allow forestry in the flood plain. Goodwin
38 stated one is allowed to do forestry in the flood plain. There are buffers along
39 anadromous rivers that could be as much as the site potential tree height of 200+
40 feet.
41
42 Nelson stated the tree stumps look like they are from the turn of the century.
43
44 McShane agreed. They are turn of the century Douglas Fir stumps. They are
45 Douglas Fir because they are rotted out.
46
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 14
1 Nelson stated the only thing they are seeing is the old cedar, which is from
2 the turn of the century. That is probably the last time it was logged. The potential
3 dollar value of the trees is limited, without taking everything out and replanting.
4
5 Motion to include in the concurrency hearing carried 5 -2 with McShane and
6 Hoag opposed.
7
8
9 CONSENT AGENDA
10
11 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
12 and moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through three and five. Item
13 four was withdrawn from the agenda.
14
15 Hoag withdrew item five. She questioned whether the contractor is to
16 replace the current attorney the County contracts with.
17
18 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated Larry Halvorson is not
19 recommended to continue as the County's labor negotiator. The administration will
20 seek Mr. Halvorson's expertise on some complicated labor law issues. However,
21 the County will not keep Mr. Halvorson as the labor negotiation. The County went
22 through a request for proposals process, and as a result, the County recommends
23 Robert Braun. Mr. Halvorson did not submit a regular proposal, but he did submit
24 supplemental material that the administration could have chosen to use as his
25 proposal. The administration chose to not consider Mr. Halvorson's proposal.
26
27 Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through three carried
28 unanimously.
29
30 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
31 CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
32 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND QS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. TO
33 PROVIDE FUNDING TO REPLACE THE ACCLAIM CLIENT
34 REGISTRATION/ BILLING SYSTEM IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
35 $36,050 (AB2001 -333)
36
37 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
38 CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
39 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND DSHS- MEDICAID OUTREACH TO
40 PROVIDE FUNDING TO ENTER INTO A SUB - CONTRACT WITH THE
41 OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL TO PROVIDE MEDICAID OUTREACH
42 ACTIVITIES TO ASSIST LOW- INCOME FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN TO
43 APPLY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE THROUGH STATE FUNDED
44 PROGRAMS, IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $39,848 (AB2001 -334)
45
46 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
47 AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
48 SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND THE OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL TO
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 15
1 PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO ELIGIBLE LOW- INCOME FAMILIES WITH
2 HEALTH INSURANCE APPLICATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,800
3 (AB2001 -335)
4
5 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
6 JOINT EFFORT BY WHATCOM COUNTY, WATER DISTRICT #10 AND
7 THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL
8 SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
9 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND EXPONENT TO PROVIDE FOR A
10 MERCURY SOURCE INVESTIGATION FOR LAKE WHATCOM, IN THE
11 AMOUNT OF $97,000 (AB2001 -336)
12
13 S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
14 AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND ROBERT R. BRAUN,
15 JR. OF BRAUN CONSULTING GROUP, TO ESTABLISH A RELATIONSHIP
16 FOR PROFESSIONAL LABOR NEGOTIATOR SERVICES PURSUANT TO
17 COUNTY CODE 2.08, IN THE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $46,200 (AB2001-
18 337)
19
20 Crawford moved to recommend approval.
21
22 Brenner stated she's heard from many union employees over the years who
23 are disturbed that the County has an ongoing negotiator outside of County
24 employment. The union employees feel that the money would be better spent
25 working on a compromise on benefits, and it could be done with staff in the County.
26 She would like the County to cross -train its staff enough to work on these things.
27 The County has capable administrative staff. She is tired of paying money outside
28 the County on an ongoing basis. She doesn't mind if it's something unusual that
29 comes up.
30
31 Nelson questioned whether the employees would be willing to not have the
32 union representatives negotiate for them.
33
34 Brenner stated they could maybe negotiate a deal with the union if the
35 County doesn't approve this contract. Offer it as an olive branch. Everyone should
36 work closer together, including the union.
37
38 Hoag stated the employees are represented by professional negotiators and
39 contribute nearly $250,000 annually in union dues, which goes to pay for those
40 negotiators. This contract is for a retainer fee. She questioned whether the
41 attorney would get paid in addition to that fee.
42
43 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated this is the total that is paid for
44 negotiation of all the contracts.
45
46 Motion to approved carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
47
48
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 16
1 OTHER ITEMS
2
3 1. REPORT ON COMMITTEE DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED
4 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
5 PLAN RELATING TO THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
6 (AB2001 -310A)
7
8 McShane reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated this item
9 was held in committee for two weeks.
10
11 2. RESOLUTION SETTING CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING HIGH - PRIORITY
12 AREAS FOR LAND PRESERVATION AREAS IN THE LAKE WHATCOM
13 WATERSHED (AB2001 -331)
14
15 McShane reported for the Natural Resources Committee and moved to
16 approve the resolution.
17
18 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
19
20 Hoag moved to amend Council packet page 17 to add a criterion to the top in
21 the category Proximity to Water Bodies, "Less than 200 feet from Lake Whatcom"
22 and modify the next criterion, "Less than 200 feet from other water bodies." The
23 score for the criteria that is less than 200 feet from Lake Whatcom would carry 150
24 points.
25
26 Right now, there is no differentiation made between what is right on the lake
27 and what is near a creek. Because of the concerns about slopes and the criteria
28 points that are built into the current land use, a property 399 feet away from a
29 creek would score more points than a property by the lake that is being used as a
30 residence. Site specific assessments also lean toward mountainous property.
31 Because they will have limited money available, it is important that they spend
32 money wisely and get the most they can for the money. If someone puts a
33 fertilizer on the grass, next to the lake, it is guaranteed to end up in the lake. If
34 someone does something 399 feet away from a creek in the mountains, there is
35 399 feet of filter before it gets to the creek, and then there is more filtering that
36 occurs before it ends up in the lake.
37
38 She's brought this concept up at previous meetings. The Bellingham City
39 Council was supportive of the idea. Also, the committee that worked on this was
40 supportive. However, it's never been included in any versions that have appeared
41 before the County Council.
42
43 Nelson stated this has been through five iterations. The City of Bellingham,
44 which is spending the money on this, has already approved this resolution. It is
45 now coming before the County Council to approve. Although they need to work on
46 the smaller lots around the lake that may contribute phosphates and so forth, the
47 studies show that the primary loaders of high levels of phosphates are through the
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 17
1 creek tributaries, which come down from those mountainous properties. The high
2 loads are coming in from the tributaries.
3
4 Brenner stated it seems at the end of the tributary there is a cumulative
5 effect. Councilmember Hoag is talking about parcels, and adding another 50 points
6 to parcels close to the water. The motion sounds logical. Steep slopes really funnel
7 pollutants down to the lake. However, they are far away. The two scenarios
8 should at least be equal.
9
10 Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated these are criteria for
11 the County to use. The intent was that all three jurisdictions would adopt similar
12 criteria for their preservation strategies.
13
14 Nelson stated what drove this issue was the City of Bellingham having to
15 develop a funding mechanism for land purchases. That doesn't mean the County
16 has to use it. Roll stated this was to be adopted by all three jurisdictions, so when
17 they brought their respective tools into the consideration of preservation, the
18 County would use these as the first step toward identifying areas they might want
19 to target for various programs.
20
21 McShane stated he recently evaluated a large wetland in Snohomish County.
22 There was no direct impact to the wetland. It turned out that the impacts from the
23 houses closer to the wetlands were less than the houses farther away. The
24 distance isn't critical because, when developing land farther away, the developer is
25 rapidly transmitting water that would normally take a very long time to get to the
26 lake. The same is true with streams. Streams become extremely sensitive to
27 impacts from development. There is always the potential that one would increase
28 the peak flows in the stream. Besides the impact of the development and the
29 runoff from the development, one is also contributing to higher flows, causing
30 erosion down the entire length of the stream. He concurred with the approach the
31 committee took. It is right to treat all water bodies the same within the watershed
32 because it is going to end up in the lake and be worse the farther one is from the
33 lake.
34
35 Dawson stated there is also the prohibitive price of property right on the
36 lake, which would prevent them from purchasing anything upland.
37
38 Brenner stated it seems they should have a chart that shows property near
39 the lake would be equal to something far away that is on a steep slope. It could go
40 either way.
41
42 McShane stated it is so general. They are not going to get it right. This is
43 the first cut. Sometimes, what seems intuitive isn't. There is plenty of flexibility
44 regarding costs. A lot of work went into this, and it works out well.
45
46 Hoag stated, in terms of development farther away from the lake impacting
47 the lake more, that would only occur if those developments sited farther away are
48 closer to the water or at a greater slope and an equal distance that makes it so it's
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 18
1 carried at the same rate as the other. A site farther away from water will not have
2 a greater impact than something that is right on the water. It doesn't happen. A
3 lot of work did go into this. The committee that worked on it said that what is
4 presented is not what they produced. This is what staff produced after the
5 committee made its recommendation. Her amendment better reflects what the
6 committee came up with. There are much larger high priority areas in the
7 mountain riparian areas and not many high priority areas around the lake. The
8 committee recommended additional protection for the intake for water for the City
9 of Bellingham. They would have that additional protection if the criteria provided
10 for additional protection to areas right on the lake. That is gone from this draft.
11 This is really important. They are trying to do something positive in Lake Whatcom.
12 With this, they will end up buying a bunch of vacant forestry land, and not do
13 anything about the development that they need to do something about. They will
14 be wasting tax dollars instead of spending them wisely.
15
16 Motion to amend failed 2 -5 with Hoag and Brenner in favor.
17
18 Motion carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed.
19
20 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 10
21 (AB2001 -330)
22
23 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
24 and stated the committee recommended approval of the substitute ordinance. The
25 allocation of the revenue for the City of Bellingham and Water District participation
26 in the mercury study is still included. They still anticipate doing that study. This
27 simply allocates the revenue, it doesn't spend the revenue.
28
29 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated this only provides in the budget
30 an instrument that projects the revenue and expenditure authorization. The actual
31 approval of a contract would come before the County Council for its approval, to
32 allow the administration to use the expenditure that the Council set aside.
33
34 McShane stated the money that is being set aside is money that is being
35 forwarded to the County by the City of Bellingham and Water District 10. He
36 questioned whether the County's portion is also being set aside. Desler stated it is.
37
38 Hoag stated the memo in the Council packet speaks directly to the
39 contractor. She asked for a clarification in the motion that this money does not go
40 to Exponent. Desler stated the contract has been pulled for consideration. She
41 wants to make sure that, in approving the budget request they are not approving
42 the contract. They are not approving the money to go to Exponent. Desler stated
43 the Council is not approving a contract with Exponent.
44
45 Motion to adopt carried 6 -1 with McShane opposed.
46
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 19
1 4. REPORT ON COMMITTEE DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ANNUAL
2 FERRY RATES (AB2001 -195)
3
4 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
5 and stated this is held in committee until December 11.
6
7 5. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
8 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP TO BRING CONSISTENCY TO THE
9 SOUTHERN UGA BOUNDARY FOR LYNDEN AND THE COUNTY
10 (AB2001 -310C)
11
12 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated
13 the Blankers- Sanders amendment was approved by committee with a vote of 2 -1,
14 with Hoag opposed. The Van Dragt application was approved unanimously.
15
16 McShane moved to forward both to the concurrency hearing docket.
17
18 Nelson questioned whether there is an interest by the councilmembers to
19 separate the two sites and vote separately.
20
21 Hoag stated The Van Dragt property evens out the urban growth area (UGA)
22 boundary and makes sense. The Blankers- Sanders property would be added to the
23 UGA. The property includes 8.5 acres of prime soils agricultural land that is
24 actively, commercially farmed. There was an additional site below that that was
25 originally included, and that had been flooded in recent history, but they removed
26 that land from the proposal. The Lynden UGA is too big. There is no reason to add
27 agricultural land to it. The Van Dragt property makes sense given what surrounds
28 it.
29
30 Brenner stated the original proposal for the Blankers- Sanders property would
31 have made the boundary more regular, but they pulled it back a little in deference
32 to the agricultural land. She always believed Lynden didn't have a lot of area for
33 expanding.
34
35 Hoag stated Lynden has a huge UGA right now.
36
37 Brenner stated Lynden is limited by the agricultural land. This is not a
38 problem.
39
40 Motion carried 5 -2 with Dawson and Hoag opposed.
41
42 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING AND UPDATING THE 1990 POINT ROBERTS
43 SUBAREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
44 ZONING MAP, THE OFFICIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, AND
45 AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
46 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2001 -310E)
47
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 20
1 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated
2 this is amended and approved. They recommended three amendments:
3 • Drop the agricultural protection overlay for Point Roberts,
4 • Drop the north end of Georgia Way from small town commercial and put it
5 into residential, and
6 • Drop the third option in the transitional zoning area.
7
8 McShane moved to hold a public hearing to consider adoption with those
9 amendments on November 27.
10
11 Crawford stated he approves of the Planning Commission recommendation.
12 The reason the Planning Commission made the recommendation it did was to avoid
13 implementing the biggest downzone that has occurred since he has been on the
14 County Council. It was wise for the Planning Commission to provide the third
15 option.
16
17 Brenner stated she wants to have a hearing and keep the three options open.
18
19 Crawford moved to amend the motion to have the hearing, and keep the
20 third transitional zoning option.
21
22 McShane stated the public hearing would more likely address the transitional
23 zoning option if it was removed from the ordinance.
24
25 Crawford withdrew his motion.
26
27 McShane stated it is critical to show that the Council is considering making
28 the change. Some of the people in Point Roberts may have been blindsided by the
29 Planning Commission change because there wasn't much testimony on it.
30
31 Motion to hold a public hearing carried 6 -1 with Imhof opposed.
32
33 7. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP TO BRING CONSISTENCY TO THE
35 NORTHERN UGA BOUNDARY FOR FERNDALE AND THE COUNTY
36 (AB2001 -310D)
37
38 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved
39 to hold a public hearing to consider three options:
40 • Denial of the Planning Commission recommendation,
41 • Change the urban growth boundary, but keep the ten acres in R5A
42 zoning, or
43 • Adopt the Planning Commission version.
44
45 The committee also recommended, of the three options, to deny the Planning
46 Commission recommendation. He so moved.
47
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 21
1 Crawford stated he would recommend to accept the Planning Commission
2 recommendation. The location is ideally suited for light impact industrial use. It is
3 located between the freeway and the power lines, near a major freeway
4 interchange. The proponent has a good plan. He has been in the area for more
5 than 30 years.
6
7 Brenner stated the owner has been in the area for more than 30 years with
8 rural zoning, not with light impact industrial zoning. The neighbors have been
9 there. There is plenty of light industrial zoning in the county. When there are
10 already people living in an area, the Council needs to be sensitive to them.
11
12 Hoag stated there is vacant light impact industrial land across the highway,
13 and owned by the applicant. On this side of the highway, the land is all rural. It
14 would be a peninsula of light impact industrial land jutting into rural land and
15 residential areas.
16
17 McShane stated the vast majority of the property owned by the applicant will
18 most likely be rezoned to light impact industrial anyway. This ten -acre parcel
19 doesn't make a difference. Many neighbors stepped forward. The applicant is
20 talking about using those ten acres to run the creek through it. There is not a lot of
21 assurance for that. This is a perfect scenario for creating a buffer to a rural
22 neighborhood. The light impact industrial use will still go in, but there will be ten
23 acres buffering the residential use. It will be a more effective buffer than what the
24 current code requires.
25
26 Nelson stated he understood the concern to provide light impact industrial
27 land. He's heard that there is an inadequate supply, but that inadequate supply is
28 serviced light industry. This hasn't received services. He would rather wait and see
29 that there is service provided to the light impact industrial area, rather than just
30 taking rural zoning and change it.
31
32 Brenner stated the applicant could use most of the property for buffer
33 without putting it in the urban growth area. Then the neighbors would be assured
34 that it would be used for a buffer.
35
36 McShane restated the motion to have a public hearing on denying the
37 Planning Commission recommendation.
38
39 Motion carried 5 -2 with Imhof and Crawford opposed.
40
41 S. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 1.12,
42 COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES (AB2001 -045A)
43
44 Imhof moved to adopt.
45
46 Hoag stated she would like to see District 2 not include a bunch of
47 Bellingham in it.
48
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 22
1 Brenner stated every district has to include a part of Bellingham in it.
2
3 Hoag stated it doesn't have to. It is a carryover from when councilmembers
4 were supposed to drive through their districts on the way to the job. The way it's
5 set up, they can end up with candidates all from the Bellingham area, and not get
6 adequate representation from the rural areas.
7
8 Brenner stated Bellingham is a major part of Whatcom County. If the
9 Council doesn't want them involved, then it should not take their tax money.
10
11 Motion carried unanimously.
12
13 9. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
14 ANDREA OLAH, MICHELLE EVANS AND GERALD LARSEN TO THE
15 MARINE RECOURCES COMMITTEE (AB2001 -339)
16
17 Imhof moved approval.
18
19 Motion carried unanimously.
20
21 10. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
22 GEORGE BOGGS TO THE SALMON HABITAT RESTORATION CITIZEN
23 ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2001 -340)
24
25 Nelson moved approval.
26
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28
29 11. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
30 MICHAEL WOODKE TO THE NORTHWEST SENIOR SERVICES BOARD
31 (AB2001 -341)
32
33 Imhof moved approval.
34
35 Motion carried unanimously.
36
37 12. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF JANE
38 RELIN TO THE ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES ADVISORY
39 COMMITTEE (AB2001 -342)
40
41 Dawson moved approval.
42
43 Brenner asked which position is being filled.
44
45 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated he believed it is a social services
46 position.
47
48 Motion carried unanimously.
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 23
1
2 13. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
3
GEORGE BOGGS, JEFFREY CANAAN, TERRI NOTEBOOM, SHERMAN
4
POLINDER, JOHN STEENSMA, JOHN GILLIES, JEFFREY BEDLINGTON,
5
ROGER VANDYKEN, CHARLES ANTHOLT, MICHAEL BOXX, RUSSELL
6
SIMONSON, THOMAS THORNTON AND ROB DHALIWAL TO THE
7
AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2001 -343)
8
9
Dawson moved approval.
10
11
Motion carried unanimously.
12
13
14.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO SIGN AN
14
APPLICATION FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE FOR AGATE BAY GOURMET &
15
GROCERY, 2530 NORTHSHORE ROAD, BELLINGHAM (AB2001 -344)
16
17
Nelson moved approval.
18
19
Motion carried 6 -1 with Imhof opposed.
20
21
15.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO SIGN AN
22
APPLICATION FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE FOR SAMSON ESTATES
23
WINERY, 1861 VAN DYK ROAD, EVERSON (AB2001 -345)
24
25
Dawson moved approval.
26
27
Motion carried unanimously.
28
29
30
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
31
32
Dawson moved to accept the Introduction Items.
33
34
Motion carried unanimously.
35
36
1.
ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2002 WHATCOM COUNTY UNIFIED FEE
37
SCHEDULE (AB2001 -346)
38
39
2.
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR COUNTY AND
40
STATE PURPOSES IN WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON, FOR THE
41
YEAR OF 2002 PURSUANT TO HOME RULE CHARTER SECTION 6.10
42
(AB2001 -347)
43
44
3.
ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINAL 2002 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET
45
AND RESTRICTING THE EXPENDITURE OF CERTAIN FUNDS THEREIN
46
(AB2001 -348)
-f
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 24
1 4. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR WHATCOM
2 COUNTY CONSERVATION FUTURES PURPOSES FOR 2002 (AB2001-
3 349)
4
5 5. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR COUNTY ROAD
6 PURPOSES FOR 2002 (AB2001 -350)
7
8
9 OTHER BUSINESS
10
11 Brenner stated there is a concern about mail. Everything the federal
12 advisory says that they are supposed to look out for is what the County Council
13 gets on a daily basis. She moved to make a statement and send out a press
14 release that mail without a return address may not be opened due to the concerns
15 that have been raised at the federal level about mail because of the anthrax
16 concern.
17
18 Nelson stated it is appropriate for the staff to have the right to make those
19 decisions. He suggested a friendly amendment that such letters be set aside. If
20 councilmembers choose to have them or have the Sheriff look at them, they should
21 have the opportunity.
22
23 Brenner agreed. The public needs to understand that their letters may not
24 be opened if they don't include a return address. If members of the public want to
25 remain anonymous, they can call or send an email.
26
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28
29 Brenner stated the Canyon Lake property has had a problem with the roads
30 being messed up. Crown Pacific has concerns, and the roads have been locked up.
31 She's received complaints about the gate being locked. Crown Pacific has now
32 reopened the gate, but they want to work with the County to finance the continued
33 protection of the road. She talked to the Parks Department about forming a
34 committee to work on it.
35
36
37 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
38
39 Hoag stated she attended the National Association of Counties (NACo)
40 conference. She met a supervisor from California who has now been assigned to
41 the national homeland task force. One of the policies they are considering for
42 adoption is that communities that have airports should have more federal funding
43 for increased security. She pointed out the issue of borders.
44
45 Brenner stated she accompanied Pete Kremen, Hal Hart, and Jim Thompson
46 to Paradise and Peaceful Valley to look at legal problem areas. She would like the
47 Council to consider using Public Works money to bring dumpsters to the area twice
48 per year to inspire property clean up. It would be an ounce of prevention, and it
Regular County Council, 10/23/2001, Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
will cost a lot to do enforcement. She suggested that the administration bring a
proposal to the Public Works Committee.
McShane stated the County lost a great public servant, Bob Anderson, to a
motorcycle accident recently. Mr. Anderson played an important role on the Flood
Advisory Committee, and ran the Project Review Committee for a couple of years.
He will be missed.
Brenner stated she never attended a memorial service that had such a broad
spectrum of County employees.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side 8.)
Brenner continued to state that she will miss Bob Anderson, and he was a
good friend.
Nelson stated the Regional Support Network retreat for the Vision of Hope is
November 1 and 2 at the Skagit Valley Casino.
Hoag stated the adjudicatory hearings begin October 29 for Sumas Energy 2
(SE2).
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated he has also been appointed to
the Homeland Security Task Force by the President. They are meeting with
Governor Ridge, Tommy Thompson, and Norm Manetta to deal with a number of
homeland security issues. He asked for the councilmembers' help in identifying the
key issues that are critical as a part of the proposal. He is asking fire officials, law
enforcement officials, and emergency management officials to assist in developing
the appropriate response. They will put forward questions specifically about the
border issues with Governor Ridge.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:18 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, 10/23/2001, Page 26