Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil July 25 20001 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Regular County Council July 25, 2000 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene Dawson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Also Present: Dan McShane L. Ward Nelson Barbara Brenner Sam Crawford Robert Imhof ANNOUNCEMENTS Absent: Connie Hoag Dawson announced there was discussion regarding collective bargaining negotiations (AB2000 -018) in executive session during Committee of the Whole. APPROVAL OF MINUTES APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, AND REGULAR COUNCIL FOR JUNE 27, 2000 Imhof moved approval. Motion carried unanimously. OPEN SESSION The following people spoke: Pete Kremen, County Executive, addressed the Council about the Vietnam War Veterans Memorial Moving Wall coming to the county from August 8 to August 14 at Hovander Homestead Park. The Bellingham Harborview Lions Club, spearheaded by Francine Kincaid, County Executive Assistant, sponsors it. It is going to be a significant event for this community. It is the first time that the Moving Wall has been this far north. It is going to be open 24 hours per day for the entire time it will be here. There is no admission charge and no donations will be accepted. All of the costs associated with this are from the efforts of the Lions Club and their requests for donations from the private sector. This is what is paying for all of the costs. Over $20,000 has been generated to bring the Moving Wall to Whatcom County. He invited the councilmembers and their friends and families to the opening ceremony on August 8 at 1:00 p.m. The Whatcom Transportation Regular County Council Meeting, 7/25/2000, Page 1 1 Authority (WTA) will provide a free shuttle to minimize traffic congestion and enable 2 people who might not otherwise be able to attend. He thanked the WTA for its 3 cooperation and participation. 4 5 PUBLIC HEARING 6 7 1. AMENDMENT #4 TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN 8 WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM, ESTABLISHING 9 PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 10 AMENDMENTS WITHIN THE BELLINGHAM URBAN GROWTH AREA 11 (AB2000 -248) 12 13 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated 14 this is the same interlocal agreement on which the Council held a joint meeting with 15 the Bellingham City Council. There is an addendum she sent this afternoon and 16 that addresses fees. The new provision says that Whatcom County will collect the 17 fees. The fees for a rezone within the urban fringe will be the same as elsewhere in 18 the county. The fees would be split 40/60 with the City of Bellingham. The City 19 requested that the fees be split 50/50. She recommended 40/60 because the 20 County has to do all the public notices, the mailing, and the posting. She 21 suggested giving the Executive some latitude to negotiate with the City. They will 22 discuss it Monday night. She recommended approval. 23 24 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: 25 26 Tim Reid, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County, stated he would 27 like a copy of the proposed change. He distributed a memorandum (on file). The 28 BIA members would like to include a paragraph in the interlocal agreement that 29 tailor's the agreement and holds it closer to the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 30 insuring that the City of Bellingham maintains their zoning and density within the 31 GMA guidelines, that they don't overstep their bounds and end up forcing some of 32 the density into the County. Realizing there is a close relationship between the City 33 and the county, he encouraged the City and the County to work together. The 34 basis of the amendment would be that there be some requirements that permits be 35 reviewed and that a copy of the zoning density is provided to both the applicant 36 and to the City and the County for review. On a quarterly basis, a report is 37 generated and provided to both the City and the County to ensure that the state's 38 GMA guidelines are being followed. There has been some concern that, with 39 current downzoning densities within the City, which is pushing the density into the 40 County, those zoning densities should have to be made up. The City has put their 41 zoning regulations on hold for the time being. The way the City is addressing the 42 GMA is something that needs to be addressed at the County level. The County has 43 the position to be able to talk with the City and encourage the City to report what it 44 is doing in a timely and effective manner. 45 46 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing. 47 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/25/2000, Page 2 1 Nelson moved approval of the substitute amendment to put it on the table. 2 He questioned the extra time involved in working with the City. 3 4 Goodwin explained that the new process would not slow it down much 5 because of the joint public hearing with both the City and County planning 6 commissions. The City and County planning commissions hold a joint meeting, and 7 then the City Council will consider the rezone before it goes to the County Council. 8 That might delay it as much as a month. Generally, items are waiting about a 9 month before they come to the County Council anyway. She believed it would not 10 take any more time. The rezones should be less likely to be appealed if the City 11 and County are working together. 12 13 Brenner stated that there have been numerous times when there hasn't been 14 any communication between the City and County Councils. This is a good way to 15 have that communication. She planned to go to some of the City's hearings just to 16 hear what they are saying. 17 18 Dawson questioned what the County could do to make sure that the City is 19 following the GMA in keeping the densities up where they should be. Goodwin 20 stated that is an excellent point raised by the BIA. A future joint meeting with the 21 City to discuss that issue would be a good idea. She did not recommend adding or 22 changing the interlocal agreement that night since it was not discussed with the 23 City previously. It would delay adoption of the entire amendment. A joint meeting 24 can be organized. It has been an issue in the urban growth area (UGA). If they 25 can't get density within the UGA, then it is pushed out into the rural areas. The 26 interlocal is an ongoing process so it could be a future amendment. 27 28 Brenner stated she didn't believe there is a problem of including that without 29 having to come back and revisit the interlocal agreement to do it. Goodwin stated 30 that the County and City previously met and agreed to all of the provisions in the 31 interlocal agreement before them. The City has not seen this. 32 33 Brenner stated one of the reasons for doing this is so that the County and 34 City end up agreeing on the way things are supposed to be, in general terms. That 35 is what this says. That is a specific, but it fits into this already. 36 37 Crawford disagreed with Councilmember Brenner. He questioned Mr. Reid 38 about whether this proposed language is being presented to the City. Reid stated 39 that the basic concept has been addressed to the City. They are going to forward a 40 similar copy to the City recommending that they follow up on this. It has been 41 approached in a verbal manner to this point. There has been some hesitancy 42 because it does require the City to provide much more information. Their level of 43 accountability will be raised exponentially. They will not only be responsible to the 44 County, but also to all the stakeholders involved in the process. They inferred that 45 is something that is not desirable to them at this time. 46 47 Crawford agreed that the amendment is a good thing. It also affirms what 48 Goodwin said, that this puts an added dimension that the County has not discussed Regular County Council Meeting, 7/25/2000, Page 3 1 with the City. It would be appropriate to approach this separately. He wanted to 2 see the joint planning commission talk about it. Reid stated this would be 3 presented to the City Council on July 31. They are having a discussion on this. 4 This presentation was to determine how the County felt about it so he can present 5 it to the City at that level. 6 7 Nelson questioned why they would hold a neighborhood meeting that is in an 8 urban growth area. He didn't mind having a neighborhood meeting. He questioned 9 the City's procedures and how they relate. Goodwin stated the applicant contacts 10 all the people within 300 feet and invites them to an informal neighborhood 11 meeting. That is the chance for the developer to explain the project or rezone, 12 hear the citizens' concerns, and answer questions. Both City and County planning 13 staff would be there. A neighborhood meeting was held for the Sandell rezone. 14 Only five or six people attended, but there were some comments brought up and it 15 helped both the staff and the applicant be aware. 16 17 Nelson questioned whether there is a similar procedure in the County. 18 Goodwin stated the County doesn't have neighborhood meetings. The County 19 doesn't even have neighborhood organizations. 20 21 Nelson questioned whether the County notifies the neighbors. Goodwin 22 stated the County notifies those within 300 feet of potential zoning changes. This 23 amendment does add an extra notification requirement. For a large rezone, it 24 would include many people. The small rezones would not involve many people and 25 it is not a big expense. 26 27 Nelson questioned whether the City requested that the amendment be 28 according to City procedures. Goodwin stated they did. She could provide a copy 29 of those procedures. She agreed that it is an additional step that probably is 30 unnecessary, but that is how the City does things. It helps the staff get insight on 31 what the neighborhood thinks and on what they should be researching. She found 32 it useful, even though she preferred not to have an extra meeting. It is an expense 33 for the consultant. She didn't think that it is critical, but the City does. 34 35 Nelson questioned whether the Council could make amendments to the 36 amendment. Goodwin stated the Council could amend it and then send its 37 suggestions to the City. They are going to consider it on Monday, July 31. 38 39 Nelson moved to strike the neighborhood meeting required by the City in 40 section 6B(2) on page 3 of the exhibit 1 to the agreement. They are already going 41 to have a Planning Commission hearing. That is the typical process with 42 notification. That item adds one extra step. If he was a developer going through a 43 rezone in a UGA, which has already been determined to have a greater density and 44 has already gone through hearings as an urban development area, then this 45 neighborhood meeting is a process that is up to the developer. It shouldn't be a 46 requirement. He could understand why the City does it within their areas. Many 47 times, the City changes its zoning in an arbitrary fashion. Perhaps that is its way of 48 addressing the issue. Regular County Council Meeting, 7/25/2000, Page 4 1 2 McShane stated the purpose of the agreement is to work with the City. This 3 is how the City does things. It is a great process. If one lives on the edge of the 4 City, he or she should have some say on how the neighborhood grows. The County 5 should consider doing it. It helps focus the Planning Department. He questioned 6 the number of times that no one shows up at a meeting. It is a good thing. 7 8 Dawson questioned whether the meeting is held in the neighborhood. 9 10 McShane stated they do. It goes beyond the 300 feet, which can be too 11 small in some instances. 12 13 Brenner stated that having a neighborhood meeting might prevent appeals at 14 the tail end of the process because people would feel like they are included. 15 16 Nelson stated the idea of a neighborhood meeting is great. He meets with 17 his neighbors. It is a rural area. However, this is an extra step that is added to a 18 project. It should be up to the project proponent to decide whether he or she 19 wants to host a neighborhood meeting. This process includes many hearings. The 20 public has access in the process. 21 22 Brenner stated she wanted to see the County push the joint hearings so the 23 people don't have to keep going through the process. They should require a City 24 and County joint Planning Commission public hearing instead of making it happen 25 only when possible. 26 27 Motion to amend failed 2 -4 with Imhof and Nelson in favor. 28 29 Nelson moved to amend language in section 6B(3), "A joint City /County 30 Planning Commission public hearing wheneveF pessible." 31 32 Brenner stated that gives the planning commissions an out. There is always 33 something going on. It is important to do those commission hearings together. It 34 is an excellent way for everyone to be in the loop. 35 36 Nelson stated they should then include a timeframe on it. It is not fair to the 37 applicant to have the application held up by one party or the other. 38 39 Nelson questioned whether there is a timeframe. Goodwin stated that the 40 County applications come in December 31 or June 30, and they have to be before 41 the Council before the budget is done in November. The County has a timeframe 42 and would push the City to meet that timeframe. There wouldn't be a time within a 43 six -month period when the two commissions couldn't schedule a joint hearing. 44 45 Nelson amended his motion to change language in section 6B(3), "A joint 46 City /County Planning Commission public hearing wheneveF pessible within a six - 47 month period of application." 48 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/25/2000, Page 5 1 Brenner proposed a friendly amendment to remove the following sentence in 2 number three. 3 4 Nelson stated that if they can't do it within the six months, then there is no 5 process and no one has a hearing. He did not accept the friendly amendment. 6 7 McShane questioned whether the timeframe for these is once per year. 8 Goodwin stated that is correct. 9 10 McShane suggested an automatically scheduled joint meeting once per year. 11 Goodwin stated they could do that. 12 13 Motion to amend carried 5 -1 with Crawford opposed. 14 15 Brenner moved to delete the second sentence in section 6B(3) on page three 16 of the interlocal agreement amendment. 17 18 Motion failed 1 -5 with Brenner in favor. 19 20 McShane questioned whether the City Council discussion is on July 31. Reid 21 stated it is. 22 23 McShane stated he had an interest in this. The BIA has a history of being 24 adamantly opposed to the GMA. He questioned whether the BIA is now embracing 25 the GMA. Reid stated they are not necessarily embracing it. He would have liked 26 to have been faxed this last minute change because the BIA subscribes to the 27 Council packet. He saw some things in the last- minute amendment that he would 28 have commented on. He asked that they hold off on these amendments until they 29 could receive informed public comment. 30 31 Goodwin stated that the only thing that was added was the provision on how 32 they would split the fees. The rest of it was in the packet. There was nothing else 33 new added. That is not a substantial change. 34 35 Motion to approve as amended carried unanimously. 36 37 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING BOATING AND SWIMMING VIOLATIONS 38 (AB2000 -273) 39 40 Imhof explained the intent of ordinance, which is basically to decriminalize 41 the boating infractions and make them a civil violation with a penalty punishable by 42 imprisonment in the County jail for a maximum term of six months or a fine of not 43 more than $1,000. That is an increase of $500. He moved approval. 44 45 Brenner stated the ordinance is not clearly written. She sent a memo to the 46 Prosecutor's Office. The ordinance makes it sound as if they are taking away the 47 criminal offense and making it a civil offense, while still putting people in jail. What 48 it really means is that most things are going to be changed to a civil infraction, Regular County Council Meeting, 7/25/2000, Page 6 1 however they are going to retain certain things that are not going to be changed. 2 There is no jail time for anything that is changed to a civil infraction. 3 4 Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public 5 hearing. 6 7 Imhof restated his motion to adopt the ordinance. 8 9 Motion carried unanimously. 10 11 3. AMENDMENT TO THE CONCOMITANT AGREEMENT ADOPTED WITH 12 ORDINANCE 2000 -002 REGARDING REZONE OF AN 80 ACRE PARCEL 13 IN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED FROM COMMERCIAL FORESTRY 14 TO RURAL FORESTRY (AB2000 -272) 15 16 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated 17 this is an amendment to the concomitant agreement that the Council adopted last 18 year. This is to correct a legal description. There was a lot line adjustment that was 19 under process at the time of the agreement. It is also to change the provision that 20 was written at the time that said the development rights of the Blue Canyon Road 21 parcel would be transferred to the Land Trust or extinguished under the transfer of 22 development rights (TDR) program. The TDR program doesn't allow development 23 rights to be extinguished. This amendment would allow a deed restriction to be on 24 the property as an alternative. She recommended approval. 25 26 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: 27 28 Jack Swanson, 1200 Harris Avenue, stated this is partly his fault because he 29 messed up the legal descriptions. He would like to get that fixed. 30 31 McShane questioned how much of the forestland that was switched from 32 commercial forestry to rural forestry has been logged. Swanson stated there is a 33 lot of hardwood that was not removed when it was logged six or seven years ago. 34 He didn't know the number. His recollection from when this went through the 35 Planning Commission and the Council last year was that there is a good deal of 36 alder and maple remaining from the cut in the early 1990's. 37 38 McShane stated it was second or third growth. Swanson stated that was 39 correct. He couldn't say which growth it is. There is a good deal of marketable 40 timber still on the property that would ultimately be taken. Last year, the Nielsen 41 Brothers forester commented on the timing for that logging into the future. 42 43 McShane questioned whether they took out the Douglas Fir and left the alder 44 and maple behind, which could be marketable, depending on prices. Swanson 45 stated that was correct. 46 47 McShane questioned whether there was any replanting done when the 48 Douglas Fir was taken. Regular County Council Meeting, 7/25/2000, Page 7 1 2 Dawson stated it depends on the percentage. If they left the alder and 3 maple, they may not have been required to replant. 4 5 McShane stated he had a concern about the alder being small trees. 6 Swanson stated that there are big trees in there. He walked the property once. He 7 didn't recall seeing many little fir trees. There are a lot of big maple and alder 8 trees. 9 10 Nelson stated that firs start with alders. 11 12 Dawson stated fir wouldn't grow if there is a lot of alder and maple. 13 14 Imhof stated that it should have been replanted by now according to forest 15 practices and because it is commercial forestry. 16 17 Dawson stated it depends on how much is left. 18 19 Swanson stated his guys are careful about following the rules. If replanting 20 was required, they would have done it. 21 22 Imhof stated this discussion was already held. This amendment is only to 23 clarify the legal description. 24 25 McShane stated he wondered at what point they start the 20 percent 26 harvest. It sounds like they could start the 20 percent harvest now versus waiting 27 a certain length of time for trees to establish themselves. He didn't want it to be a 28 firewood lot. Swanson stated it is not. There is a letter in the record from Aubrey 29 Stargell that talks about the timeframe and the plans. 30 31 Brenner questioned whether this was the same property they came forward 32 with a year ago. 33 34 Dawson stated it is. 35 36 Brenner stated she was bothered a year ago because it is very steep and is 37 bordered by other commercial forestry on three sides. She didn't want to keep 38 eating away at the commercial forestry. She questioned whether the Council has 39 any legal choice on this decision because the permit was in the process. 40 41 Dawson stated this has been voted on and accepted. They are only doing an 42 amendment. 43 44 Brenner stated she didn't support this last year. Swanson stated she did. 45 46 Imhof stated this is just a housekeeping item. 47 48 McShane stated that Councilmember Brenner voted for it. Regular County Council Meeting, 7/25/2000, Page 8 1 2 Nelson stated this provides more protection in the watershed. This is taking 3 and preserving land right next to the lake and an ability to protect against 4 harvesting. It would be left in forestry forever. 5 6 Brenner asked for a diagram. 7 8 McShane stated it is in the packet. 9 10 Nelson stated they are changing the density further up the Y Road. 11 12 Swanson stated the meat of this deals with the Blue Canyon property. They 13 eliminated the density on the Blue Canyon property and substituted the density on 14 the Y Road property. This amendment clarifies how they are going to make the 15 density on the Blue Canyon property go away. 16 17 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing. 18 19 Imhof moved approval of the amendment to the concomitant agreement. 20 21 Motion carried 5 -1 with McShane opposed. 22 23 24 CONSENT AGENDA 25 26 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 27 moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through seven. 28 29 Motion to approve carried unanimously. 30 31 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #00- 32 60 TO PURCHASE PLANT MATERIALS FOR VARIOUS RIPARIAN 33 VEGETATION PROJECTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CENTENNIAL 34 CLEAN WATER GRANT TO ALL RESPONSIVE BIDDERS, SELECTING THE 35 LOWEST PRICE IN THE APPROPRIATE CATEGORY FOR EACH 36 PROJECT, FOR A TOTAL EXPENDITURE THAT COULD BE MORE THAN 37 $35,000 (AB2000 -276) 38 39 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #00- 40 67 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, HARBOR WHOLESALE 41 GROCERY, FOR THE ANNUAL PURCHASE OF COMMISSARY SUPPLIES 42 IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $39,352.56 (AB2000 -277) 43 44 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #00- 45 72 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, DUWAMISH SHIPYARD, IN 46 THE AMOUNT OF $162,706.69 (AB2000 -278) 47 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/25/2000, Page 9 1 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 2 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH & 3 HUMAN SERVICES AND CASCADE VOCATIONAL SERVICES — 4 COMMUNITY ACCESS, TO CORRECT THE TOTAL AMOUNT AND 5 DECREASE FUNDING TO ONE CLIENT FOR THE TERM OF THE 6 CONTRACT, IN AN AMENDMENT AMOUNT OF $13,624 FOR AN 7 AMENDED TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $50,244 (AB2000 -279) 8 9 5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 10 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NORTHWEST CARE 11 ADVOCATES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FAMILY 12 FUNCTIONAL THERAPY (FFT) PROGRAM FUNDED BY THE STATE OF 13 WASHINGTON, TO PROVIDE HIGH RISK YOUTH AND THEIR FAMILIES 14 THE FFT SERVICES IN A CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $55,000 (AB2000- 15 280) 16 17 6. REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO MAKE GRANT 18 I- 200 - 001100 FROM THE GOVERNOR'S JUVENILE JUSTICE ADVISORY 19 COMMITTEE (GJJAC) OPERATIONAL IN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE 20 WHATCOM COUNTY TEEN COURT PROJECT, AND TO ALLOW THE 21 EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO THE NEXT CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 22 CONTRACT WITH NORTHWEST YOUTH SERVICES AS THE 23 IMPLEMENTING AGENCY FOR THIS GRANT, FOR A TOTAL GRANT 24 AMOUNT OF $77,600 WITH WHATCOM COUNTY'S INDIRECT COSTS 25 OF $6960 (AB2000 -281) 26 27 7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 28 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY JUVENILE SERVICES AND 29 NORTHWEST YOUTH SERVICES (BASED ON APPROVAL OF 30 IMPLEMENTING GRANT I- 200 -001 FROM THE GJJAC IN THE 31 PREVIOUS CONSENT AGENDA ITEM), IN THE AMOUNT OF $70,640, 32 WITH WHATCOM COUNTY'S INDIRECT COSTS OF $6,960 (AB2000- 33 282) 34 35 36 OTHER ITEMS 37 38 1. RECONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE REQUEST FOR 39 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN 40 AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE U.S. 41 IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICES FOR RIGHT -OF- 42 WAY USAGE (AB2000 -266) 43 44 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 45 stated there was no recommendation from committee. 46 47 Bob Andersen, David Evans & Associates, 119 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, 48 stated the situation was that the actions the Council took during the last meeting Regular County Council Meeting, 7/25/2000, Page 10 1 did not allow him time to confer with the INS attorneys that are on the east coast. 2 By the time they could review the document that was sent to them, they had some 3 concerns that were conflicts with existing federal statutes. They are fairly minor. 4 He has worked with Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor Dan Gibson. 5 6 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 7 8 Andersen continued to state that he also worked with Senior Civil Deputy 9 Prosecutor Dave Grant, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Randy Watts, and Assistant 10 Director of Engineering Bruce Mills. They were able to resolve the issues. The 11 most essential item is that they tried to set a ceiling for the inspection fees that are 12 in the budget as part of the project. The change from the amount that was sent to 13 the Finance Committee today, which was $7,500, was increased to $15,000 based 14 upon analysis of potential times for the need for inspectors from the County to be 15 on the roads. Mr. Mills and Mr. Watts discussed that amount with him. This 16 amount reflects the discussion. 17 18 Imhof moved to rescind the action taken previously on the matter. 19 20 Motion to rescind carried unanimously. 21 22 Nelson moved to approve the substitute document as presented. 23 24 Brenner stated she would support the amendment, but not the document as 25 a whole. She didn't like the idea of this happening. 26 27 Motion to approve the substitute agreement carried 4 -2 with Brenner and 28 Crawford opposed. 29 30 2. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF MICHAEL 31 WERNER TO FILL THE VACANCY LEFT BY JOE TRIMBLE, TO SERVE AS 32 A MEMBER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 33 NO. 1 ADVISORY COMMITTEE, FOR A TERM THAT ENDS JANUARY 28, 34 2002(AB2000 -283) 35 36 Nelson moved to approve. 37 38 Crawford stated Mr. Werner is a great guy and would do a good job on the 39 committee. 40 41 Motion carried unanimously. 42 43 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A NEW 44 LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR EM'S VINO DISTRIBUTING, 5363 45 BELLAIRE WAY, BELLINGHAM (AB2000 -270) 46 47 Imhof moved to approve. 48 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/25/2000, Page 11 1 Nelson stated he had a question on the zoning in the neighborhood. 2 3 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that the zoning is Urban 4 Residential. It is just outside of the City of Ferndale's urban growth area. They can 5 have a home occupation, but the wine could not be stored in an accessory storage 6 shed, which is what they proposed. It would have to be within the basement or 7 garage. The people agreed that would be fine. They are going to store a limited 8 amount. 9 10 Nelson stated a distributing license is a significant license in the State of 11 Washington. It doesn't limit anyone to a small amount. It can be expanded. If 12 they approve this license, he questioned the requirements if they wish to expand 13 the distributorship. Goodwin stated that, as a home occupation, no more than 25 14 percent of the floor area of the residence is allowed for the business. Anything 15 more than that is not a home occupation and wouldn't be allowed under the zoning, 16 whether or not they had a liquor license. It is an Urban Residential area and a 17 fairly small lot. 18 19 Brenner stated this is right in the middle of a very dense bunch of houses. 20 This sends the wrong message. There are corner stores to do that, not in a 21 residential neighborhood. These are probably very reputable people, but she would 22 never support a liquor license in someone's house. Those houses are very close 23 together. 24 25 Nelson stated they are not selling liquor out of the house. 26 27 Brenner stated they are storing it there. She had a problem doing that in a 28 house. 29 30 Nelson asked how it is distributed. 31 32 Sam Ryan, Planning and Development Services Interim Director, stated she 33 didn't know. They do most of it over the computer and then they have a small 34 storage area. She reminded the Council that liquor licenses are renewed on an 35 annual basis. If there are any problems, the County has a means to address it. 36 The fire marshal visited the site and made the original determination. They didn't 37 have the zoning information at the previous Council meeting. 38 39 Brenner stated this sends the wrong message. She was all for home 40 occupations. A commercial alcohol business doesn't belong in a tight residential 41 area. She didn't want to wait for complaints. 42 43 Crawford stated he agreed with Brenner, but the applicants are trying to do 44 things legally. It would be very easy for the applicant to skirt the law and do what 45 they want. He hated to punish someone for applying for the permits. He 46 questioned whether there was any discussion regarding truck traffic or other similar 47 issues. Goodwin stated the applicant said they have UPS deliveries in a limited 48 volume. It is a rare Italian wine that the applicant wants to important because Regular County Council Meeting, 7/25/2000, Page 12 1 there is no place locally to buy it. The applicant wants to import and distribute the 2 wine. There won't be any semi - trucks coming in and out of the area. She was 3 storing the wine in a 120- square foot storage shed. That is the volume they are 4 talking about. 5 6 Nelson stated he shares the concerns about a liquor business in the 7 community. That is the reason he was reluctant at the previous meeting. He was 8 comfortable with the home business. It is not right for the Council to define what 9 one's home business can be. The square footage is limited. The applicant won't 10 have the capability to expand beyond that. If they wanted to expand, they would 11 have to go to a different area. He would support this. 12 13 Pete Kremen, County Executive, clarified that the Planning Department is not 14 supporting the request. As far as the regulations and requirements go under the 15 scope of its jurisdiction, the applicant has met the requirements and regulations. 16 The public policy decision of whether or not the permit should be granted is with 17 the Council. 18 19 Nelson stated the Council doesn't grant the permit. 20 21 Kremen stated the Council states its approval or not. 22 23 Nelson stated the applicant goes to the state for approval of the permit. 24 25 Kremen stated that is correct. 26 27 Brenner asked why it is necessary since this is done through the computer. 28 29 Imhof stated that someone has to input it. 30 31 Goodwin stated the applicant did not provide that kind of detail. The 32 applicant is importing the wine and then distributing to people who sell it retail. 33 34 Motion carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed. 35 36 37 INTRODUCTION ITEMS 38 39 Imhof moved to accept the Introduction Items, including the RV ordinance, 40 which would have a hearing in two weeks. 41 42 Motion carried unanimously. 43 44 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING 45 ORDINANCE, SECTION 20.92.210, GRANTING THE HEARING 46 EXAMINER THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE COORDINATED WATER 47 SYSTEM PLAN APPEALS (AB2000 -284) 48 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/25/2000, Page 13 1 2. ORDINANCE IN THE MATTER OF APPROVING A CHANGE IN CONTROL 2 OF BLACK ROCK CABLE, INC. FROM PRESENT OWNER TO SEREN 3 INNOVATIONS, INC. (AB2000 -285) 4 5 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET, REQUEST # 9 (AB2000- 6 286) 7 8 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING Whatcom COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO 9 ALLOW FLEXIBILITY IN THE RURAL AND RURAL FORESTRY ZONES 10 FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF RV -S, REVISE RV STANDARDS IN THE 11 URBAN RESIDENTIAL, RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONES, PROVIDE RV 12 STANDARDS IN THE RURAL, RURAL FORESTRY, AND RESORT 13 COMMERCIAL ZONES, AND DESIGNATE ADDITIONAL AREAS IN 14 POINT ROBERTS, WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE TEMPORARY 15 USE OF RV -S (AB2000 -215A) 16 17 18 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS 19 20 McShane explained that the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council ( EFSEC) 21 hearing is going on right now, so he would leave. Also, another hearing will be held 22 on Thursday at Nooksack Valley High School. In the future, he proposed that 23 appointments by the Council to bodies such as EFSEC should be someone other 24 than a councilmember. It has been a substantial blow fiscally. In addition, the 25 County is also acting as an intervener. He questioned whether the Council really 26 needed to do that or should have appointed someone to the Council that it was 27 comfortable with. The City of Sumas just appointed a new person because the 28 previous representative didn't have time. 29 30 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that some of the 31 jurisdictions who have representatives hired individuals from the outside to 32 represent the jurisdiction. 33 34 Crawford stated that the state Department of Ecology (DOE) has a burn ban 35 that begins January 1, 2001 and applies to all urban growth areas of cities with a 36 population over 10,000. The cost of clearing a standard residential lot will go up to 37 $6,000 per acre. Counties have to provide alternate methods of disposal. He 38 questioned whether the County could sue the state because this becomes an 39 unfunded mandate. 40 41 McShane said this issue is being addressed by the Solid Waste Advisory 42 Committee (SWAC) to possibly operate a new county facility for recycling, similar to 43 the clean green operation that the City of Bellingham has. 44 45 Kremen stated that the SWAC met yesterday in Lynden. They had a 46 unanimous recommendation to the County Council to operate a new facility that 47 would be on County property. They would need some money for engineering and 48 preparation. It would be a fairly minimum cost to the entire system and would Regular County Council Meeting, 7/25/2000, Page 14 1 provide a greater access to more people throughout the county. It would also 2 alleviate some of the business at the Lakeway site. The City of Bellingham and 3 other cities were supportive. The County Council will get that recommendation in 4 the near future. 5 6 Imhof stated the clearing operation only takes limbs to four inches. Stumps 7 and everything over four inches are a different issue. The state law doesn't say 8 that the County will provide the service. The state law says that there will be 9 options. There are a number of options now that do chipping. The City of 10 Bellingham already has a burn ban on except for a week in the spring and a week in 11 the fall. They do a lot of grinding now. There is some increased cost. 12 13 McShane stated that a private person could run the site. The problem with 14 the Lakeway site has been that they can't grind. 15 16 Kremen stated they are contemplating contracting out for the new site and 17 also for the Lakeway site. 18 19 Brenner stated that having to do the chipping and shredding is what would 20 raise the cost. 21 22 Crawford stated that is correct. The availability of a facility would not 23 mitigate the cost for the individuals. 24 25 McShane stated that if the law increased the cost to the individuals, there is 26 no reason for the County to sue. The individuals could sue the state. 27 28 Crawford stated he is thinking about the interest of the citizens of the 29 County. There are many ramifications to this. If people don't have the incentive to 30 clear their lots, then the fire hazard is increased. 31 32 Dawson stated one could have a campfire. 33 34 Imhof stated a fire up to three feet is allowed. 35 36 Nelson spoke about Black Rock /Millennium Cable. He understood that the 37 County is moving forward with its public access. He asked for an update. 38 39 Brenner stated she has contacted the City and they are going ahead on their 40 own. It would have been better for the County to work with the City, but the City 41 wanted to start right away. They no longer have a contract with TCI, but the 42 County does. It was her understanding that the County has to keep providing 43 public access, but has to pay for editing. 44 45 Nelson questioned whether the public has access to do public programming. 46 47 Brenner stated the public has access if they have cable -ready material. 48 There won't be access to an editing bay unless the County wants to pay for it. Regular County Council Meeting, 7/25/2000, Page 15 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 Nelson questioned whether the drawback was that the County did not want to increase rates. August 1 is the deadline. Brenner stated the County met with TCI, the County Executive, and others. She understood that the County was going to go with the status quo until the County Council reaches consensus on programming and whether or not to build an editing bay. Lynn Barton stated she was under the impression that AT &T (formerly TCI) is winding down in general as of August 1. As an example, the type of programming she has created as a volunteer will no longer be accepted. Brenner stated that they have to take it if it is cable -ready material. Barton stated there needs to be some clarification. Imhof moved to ask the administration to bring forward the options for public access television. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription These minutes were approved by Council on August 8 , 2000. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Marlene Dawson, Council Chair Regular County Council Meeting, 7/25/2000, Page 16