HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil March 21 20001
2
3 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
4 Regular County Council
5
6 March 21, 2000
7
8
9 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene
10 Dawson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
11
12 Also Present: Absent:
13 Dan McShane None
14 L. Ward Nelson
15 Connie Hoag
16 Barbara Brenner
17 Sam Crawford
18 Robert Imhof
19
20 ANNOUNCEMENTS
21
22 Dawson announced there was consideration of appeal of the building
23 official's decision on file no. COM99- 00443, filed by Robert Marr, regarding
24 determination of timeliness (A62000 -092) during executive session in
25 Committee of the Whole.
26
27 Imhof moved to uphold the administrator's decision.
28
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30
31
32 OPEN SESSION
33
34 The following people spoke:
35
36 Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley, spoke on five issues. First, there is a difficulty
37 with the County Council website. She could not access the Council's supporting
38 documentation. Give the public that access. Second, please approve the land
39 acquisition in Canyon Creek. Third, please approve the power transmission line
40 moratorium. She spoke against the Sumas 2 resolution of support. She was
41 opposed to construction of the facility. Fourth, do not approve the item to make
42 the Lake Whatcom interceptor a higher priority. The principal issue is that its
43 justification, as presented in the documents, has a number of allegations of
44 impropriety, presumptions, and statements, such as that the project will help stop
45 overflows. It is a false statement that says there are no Environmental Protection
46 Act (EPA) or State Department of Ecology (DOE) orders regarding pollution in the
47 lake. It is listed on the 303(d) list. The document claims that it may benefit the
48 watershed and may have negative impacts, which can be mitigation. It will
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 1
1 definitely have negative impacts. She questioned whether mitigation by
2 stormwater overflow can be done.
3
4 Daryl Ehlers, 2366 Halverstick Road, spoke against the transmission power
5 lines. He questioned why anyone would have to leave the room when the Energy
6 Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) has to come forward. The testimony
7 provides more information about whether the project is good or bad. The project is
8 being shoved down their throat. If the Council does not totally understand, they
9 should vote for a moratorium until there is a definite yea or nay. He runs a labor
10 camp. There is an average of forty people, with lots of children. The camp was
11 created many years ago. The houses are close to the road. The power lines are
12 going to go through the camp, where children are present. There is still evidence of
13 the true dangers of electricity. He has a very nice park with trees that, if the power
14 lines go through, will have to be removed.
15
16 Andy McCombs, Bellingham, was concerned about what the moratorium
17 might do to the Public Utility District (PUD) and the line they are building. Any
18 moratorium that would stop this would be against the people. In 1930, the state
19 voted to allow PUDs. A PUD is coming in and the ratepayers in the County are
20 going to have a choice of providers. Councilmember Hoag says the moratorium is
21 just concerning the power line to the north. He asked Hoag to abstain from voting
22 due to the possible conflict of interest. He did want Councilmember Hoag to have
23 the time to prove that she didn't have a conflict of interest. There is no reason to
24 slow down the PUD project. He worked for the power company and understands
25 what power lines are all about.
26
27 Hoag stated she was attacked during the committee meeting. She asked to
28 clarify how this came about. She is married to someone who works for Puget
29 Sound Energy (PSE). He is an electrical engineer. What occurred in this case is
30 that Sumas Energy 2 came forward with proposed lines to go through Whatcom
31 County.
32
33 (Clerk's Note: McShane left the meeting.)
34
35 Hoag continued to state that a Whatcom County ordinance, enacted in
36 response to an initiative, says that any lines greater than 115 kilovolt (kv) have to
37 be in existing corridors and in industrial areas. However, they planned to run
38 greater amperages down the 115 kv lines than they typically hold. She was
39 concerned about the effects. Greater amperage loads on smaller lines increase the
40 negative impacts. The public requested a moratorium. She put forward a
41 moratorium to review information from experts and find out if the County ordinance
42 adequately addresses the issue. Regarding the PUD lines, she thought they all
43 were in Bellingham's jurisdiction. She received a letter that says two poles are in
44 the County's jurisdiction.
45
46 McCombs requested assurance that the Council would not hinder the PUD
47 project.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 2
1 Hoag questioned whether the PUD poles within the County's jurisdiction are
2 going to be higher than standard 115 kv.
3
4 McCombs stated they are not.
5
6 Hoag questioned what the amperage levels would be. The PUD was not on
7 her agenda.
8
9 Harry Pagels, Cedar Grove Mobile Home Park resident, spoke.
10
11 (Clerk's Note: McShane returned to the meeting.)
12
13 Pagels stated the park residents are not opposed to building new homes on
14 Yew Street Road. They are opposed to the disregard of their property rights by the
15 same development. The mudflow from that development pollutes a lake in their
16 park. The lake has become dirty and brown. It has become the settling pond for
17 the construction site above them. The developer has built retention items that are
18 supposed to hold that water until the mud sifts down into their retaining tank.
19 Their pipes go under Yew Street Road and into the park and their lake, which feeds
20 into Lake Padden. They fought this for several years. They tried to dredge out the
21 lake. Today, the mud level is two feet higher than when they first dredged it. They
22 can't keep the lake clean without County help.
23
24 Dawson stated one councilmember visited the site and the retention items
25 were not properly installed. A stop work order will be issued. The residents would
26 have to get an attorney to get compensation for other damages.
27
28 Pagels stated the developer could tie them up in court for years.
29
30 McShane stated there has been a violation and a fine was assessed, but he
31 didn't know the details. He submitted photos to the County that he took last
32 Tuesday.
33
34 Brenner stated the County was given assurance by County staff that they
35 would look into it. County staff would require corrective action if they found
36 violations.
37
38 Bob VanWeerdhuizen, 7026 Noon Road, Everson, stated he was concerned
39 about the power line. They went through this ten or twelve years ago. It seems
40 that this is going too fast. The line plans to go through his front yard. He has peat
41 ground that is 30 feet deep, and wanted to know what would hold up the poles
42 when the wind starts blowing. It is a concern. Also, his kids own 280 acres with
43 two houses. They want to buy another 30 acres from him that has a couple of
44 houses. The county won't let his son build a house. They used to be able to
45 cluster.
46
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 3
1 Hoag stated a committee is working on the subdivision of land in agriculture
2 zoning. They have not yet made their recommendations to the Planning
3 Commission. That is in process. There is nothing at the Council level at this point.
4
5 VanWeerdhuizen asked why this is not moving forward. He asked if they
6 could still cluster develop.
7
8 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated they could cluster but it
9 depended on the zoning. With agricultural zoning at one home per 40 acres, they
10 could put in seven 40 -acre pieces.
11
12 Dawson suggested they work on it together.
13
14 Grant Stewart, Blaine Public Works Director, presented a letter from the
15 mayor of Blaine, John Hobberlin. He appealed to the County to reconsider the
16 proposed Washington Community Economic Revitalization Team (WA -CERT)
17 ranking. This project regarding the issue of wastewater in Blaine is imperative. He
18 has worked on this issue for his entire tenure with Blaine. WA -CERT is a critical
19 step. They recently spent $2.3 million to build an industrial road that serves 100 +
20 acres of industrial zoned land. They have the power and the sewer collection
21 system. It is ready to build and develop. Without WA -CERT, Blaine faces a very
22 significant potential moratorium on new connections. WA -CERT is designed for
23 areas impacted by forestry and fisheries, which Blaine is. He asked Council to
24 reconsider the ranking. He submitted a letter from Drayton Harbor Shellfish
25 Protection District Advisory Committee in support of Blaine's WA -CERT proposal.
26
27 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated he was concerned with the County
28 buying the timber rights of the Canyon Creek parcel. They hoped to make a
29 demonstration parcel of good forestry practices. They keep saying through the
30 Growth Management Act (GMA) to keep the forest industry viable, yet they
31 continue to keep land out of production. The forest service is changing its idea of
32 what to do with forestland. They have multiple uses now. It will be important to
33 keep forestry in production. He questioned whether logging subsidies recreational
34 uses in forest lands.
35
36 Doug Thomas 1916 Blakely Court, Bellingham Cold Storage President and
37 Chief Executive Officer (CEO), spoke on the transmission line moratorium. This
38 ordinance, if passed, will kill their project with the PUD. It seems that
39 Councilmember Hoag was unaware that a small portion of the project was in the
40 County. However, he was at a PUD public meeting eight weeks ago when her
41 husband read a letter from her opposing their project. Apparently she knew then
42 about the proposal.
43
44 Hoag stated she didn't know it was in the County's jurisdiction. She thought
45 they were in the City of Bellingham's jurisdiction and would not be affected by the
46 moratorium ordinance.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 4
1 Thomas stated Puget Sound Energy (PSE) would be in favor of the
2 moratorium ordinance because it would kill their project and the threat of any
3 competition in the County. Also, because of a Washington Utilities and
4 Transportation order some years ago that guaranteed a rate of return on any cost
5 to serve PSE customers, any future underground power lines would only add to
6 their overall gross revenue. The more they spend, the more they make. They are
7 being served by the highest priced utility company in the state, by virtue of that
8 phenomenon. He suggested that the County Council not become the PSE
9 protection agency. Permitting processes, such as the State Environmental
10 Protection Act (SEPA) and conditional use permit (CUP) processes, have been
11 developed and have adequately served in accepting or denying projects such as
12 this. They are not intended to protect monopolies or to squash competition.
13
14 Hoag stated she got a copy of the letter Thomas sent. It said their contract
15 runs out June 2001. Thomas stated that was correct.
16
17 Hoag stated the Council is asking for a moratorium for 60 days to review the
18 effects of putting higher amperage loads on 115 kv lines. She questioned how a
19 60 -day moratorium would kill a project if the PUD decides not to serve until June
20 2001. Thomas stated once a mechanism is in place, such as tax, it can be
21 extended and increased. He was fearful of that phenomenon. If the County has
22 concern for the Bellingham Cold Storage /Georgia- Pacific project, then it should be
23 excluded from this process.
24
25 Hoag questioned whether a 60 -day moratorium would kill the project.
26 Thomas stated it would.
27
28 Mike Kaufman, 1620 Huntley Road, stated he is a member of Neighbors
29 Opposing Power Encroachment (NOPE). He helped write Initiative 490. Many
30 people in the audience have become experts in the field of the power line issue due
31 to involvement with NOPE. A result of I -490 was a $26 million project that turned
32 into a $13 million project. No new land was used for the project. The NOPE
33 members put on the table the best of 25 models. It shows what citizens can do
34 when educated in the process. He called the utilities to get involved with the
35 Comprehensive Plan. One of the goals, 5A, says they must specify clear process for
36 determining appropriate locations for future needed utility facilities, including
37 electric power facilities greater than 55 kv. So far, the Comprehensive Plan hasn't
38 been followed. Maybe no one knows that section exists. He went to the January 4
39 meeting in Sumas. He talked to the Sumas Energy consultant from Portland.
40
41 (Clerk's Note: McShane left the room.)
42
43 Kaufman continued to state that the criterion for drawing the lines was only
44 based on population density. They can do better. He suggested that they give
45 some time to educate. He supported the moratorium.
46
47 Jeremy Brown, 3217 Greenwood Avenue, discussed the proposal to oppose
48 the breach of the lower Snake River dams. He asked them to pass a resolution
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 5
1 supporting the breach in the dams as the only reasonable opportunity to fulfill the
2 law, the Endangered Species Act, which is the only option to recover the fish to
3 sustainable levels within 50 years. He asked the Council to review the science,
4 which supports that option. There is no credible peer review in science that
5 supports any other alternative. He is a commercial fisherman. Many of the
6 fisherman have lost jobs due to the losses of fish in the Snake River, Columbia
7 River, and the Nooksack River. It is not about irrigation. The water temperatures
8 will be lower. The only thing this is about is cheap subsidized transportation.
9 There are plenty of good cost - effective alternatives available. He asked that they
10 review the science and not support the resolution opposing the breaching of the
11 dams.
12
13 Barry Shaffer, 7537 Canyon View Drive, stated he is in the Canyon Creek
14 area. He is a member of Glacier Springs Property Owners' Association Board of
15 Directors, but doesn't represent their views. The association believes the County
16 made a commitment to protect their property against the effects of flooding when
17 they partnered with the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA). He asked
18 that the Council not break faith with the property owners. He didn't want his family
19 to have to run for safety in the middle of the night because the County turned its
20 back on them.
21
22 Dawson stated that item was tabled in the Finance Committee.
23
24 John Asmundson, 708 Poplar Drive, stated he is a Georgia- Pacific (G -P)
25 employee. He responded to questions addressed to him by councilmembers
26 regarding the moratorium's effects on the PUD project. One question was relative
27 to amperage and the PUD amperage. The combined load of G -P and Bellingham
28 Cold Storage (BCS) is between 50 -60 megawatts, which is a little over 500 amps at
29 a 115,000 -volt delivery. That compares to the PSE co- generation plant in
30 Bellingham that generates 165 megawatts and puts out over 1,400 amps on those
31 wires. It is fed on a loop system. Assuming the power system splits evenly, 700
32 amps would be on each loop. If a loop breaks, all 1,400 amps would go on one
33 loop. The combined load of G -P and BCS is 1/3 of the output of PSE. It is relatively
34 lower amperage compared to existing 115 kv lines in the City of Bellingham. A
35 second question was relative to why the PUD project exists and why G -P was trying
36 to leave PSE. He read from the G -P contract that said the customer is required to
37 sign a 20 -year transportation contract, created by PSE, with PSE. They've been
38 struggling for three and a half years to get the contract from PSE, but they refuse.
39
40 Patricia Woodall, 5572 Everson Goshen Road, stated the EFSEC agency just
41 issued its draft environmental impact statement (EIS).
42
43 (Clerk's Note: McShane left the meeting.)
44
45 Woodall stated it is a 400 -page document that is very technical. The
46 comment period is 30 days. The Attorney General has a duty to respond on behalf
47 of multiple entities in the state. She has asked for an extension of that 30 -day
48 response time. It was denied. She wrote a letter to the Council requesting an
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 6
1 extension, due to the length and complexity of the document. If the 30 -day
2 comment is not extended and the permit is on the fast track, and if the hearings
3 are held in June, then the only thing that stands between citizens and the plant is a
4 moratorium on the power lines. The County has the power to extend the
5 moratorium an additional 30 days. The plant will not be built if it has nowhere to
6 transmit the power. Sumas 2 originally said they would send the power to Canada,
7 but the DEIS said no one in Canada wants it. She asked the Council to give them
8 the additional time the community needs to determine whether or not the plant will
9 have an adverse effect on the county. It doesn't appear EFSEC will do that.
10
11 (Clerk's Note: McShane returned to the meeting.)
12
13 Geoff Menzies, 988 W. Laurel Road, on behalf of Drayton Harbor Shellfish
14 Protection District Advisory Committee supported the Blaine WA -CERT proposal. He
15 asked the Council to consider tabling the item and reconsider prioritization of the
16 project. WA -CERT places Blaine on the map for potential funding to improve the
17 sewer treatment and collection system. Reducing overflow was a high priority in
18 the 1995 closure response strategy. Completing the plant improvements is a high
19 priority in the current closure strategy. Sewage overflows and possible leaks in the
20 underwater force main were cited in the 1995 and 1999 sanitary surveys. Blaine
21 recently discovered a problem with the cathodic protection of the new force main,
22 which has only been in place for two or two and a half years. The City of Blaine and
23 the State Department of Ecology are negotiating a consent order that will identify
24 specific improvements over the next ten years. That will help Blaine maintain
25 compliance with their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
26 permit. The existing 1994 sewer plant is invalid. Funds secured through WA -CERT
27 can be used to develop a comprehensive plan. The 1994 sewer plant was
28 dependent upon the site at Semiahmoo Spit, which Blaine has probably lost as a
29 long -term site for a sewage treatment plant. Currently, the adverse tide is a flood
30 tide. Blaine's sewage collection system is suspect as a major contributor to
31 pollution and the closure of commercial and recreational harvesting. Economic
32 revitalization is a big portion of the WA -CERT points. Addressing this problem will
33 likely result in an upgrade in Drayton Harbor. The Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers
34 Association is ranked three. Shellfish growing is a natural fit for displaced workers,
35 particularly fishers, whose skills are a great match for shellfish harvesting.
36
37 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
38
39 Menzies continued to state that there are lots of acres suitable for shellfish
40 harvesting and it would add to a diverse economy in Drayton Harbor. It is a long -
41 term, environmentally friendly industry. There is community support, jobs
42 potential, and significant connection to watershed planning efforts that don't
43 necessarily come through in the proposal's language.
44
45 Dan Taylor, 717 - 15th St., Bellingham, Park Commission Chair, urged them
46 to go forward with purchasing the Goodyear Nelson timber rights at Canyon Creek.
47 Mr. Wiesen raised good points, but this is not the time and place. This is the last
48 piece of a puzzle they've worked on. It is on the Nooksack River corridor, it will
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 7
1 have salmon enhancement, visual character will be lost with logging, and they
2 should not give up the gift of the donation. He urged the Council to go forward.
3
4 Sherilyn Wells, 1020 Geneva, supported the power line moratorium. She is
5 against corporate welfare. She thanked Councilmember Hoag for her letter to
6 Governor Locke. It was an intelligent and cogent summary of the issues involved in
7 this matter. When personal attacks start happening, it means one is getting
8 uncomfortably close to framing the truth. The study produced by a research group
9 on electromagnetic fields (EMF) found that they were extremely serious issues
10 demanding stronger regulatory response. The research group was concerned about
11 effects on children. Power lines will go by homes with children. The Council is
12 being given a false choice if it's given information that they have to support an
13 economic strategy that will harm people. That is not the only choice the county is
14 given. She asked that they stop the long -term trend of privatizing profits and
15 socializing costs. Costs can be measured in terms of children's health and
16 neighbors quality of life. They are only asking for 60 days to do a more
17 comprehensive look at the issue.
18
19 Dean Rogers, 1712 High Noon Road, stated a vote for the moratorium is not
20 necessarily a vote against the project, but it very well may mean a vote for the
21 people they are sworn to represent.
22
23 Dave Hillar, 5079 Noon Road, stated he is in favor of the moratorium and
24 opposed the Sumas Energy 2 expansion.
25
26 PUBLIC HEARING
27
28 1. RESOLUTION VACATING OF A PORTION OF STH STREET, A.K.A.
29 TELEGRAPH ROAD, FILED BY DAVID EVANS & ASSOC. FOR WARE
30 FAMILY VENTURES, ET.AL. (AB2000 -066)
31
32 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, stated the proposed road
33 vacation is off the easterly dead end of Telegraph Road, east of James Street. The
34 Public Works Department is in favor of road vacation. There is question of whether
35 that easterly portion of the road was ever opened. The public benefit is that it
36 would nix any industrial and residential traffic to the Irongate Development. It will
37 help transition the properties on the north and south sides of the road. Those
38 properties are also in favor of the vacation. He submitted a substitute resolution.
39 The City of Bellingham is in favor of the road vacation, but asked for a utility
40 easement. The proponent is willing to do this.
41
42 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
43
44 Darren Simmons, David Evans and Associates, 119 Grand Avenue, submitted
45 documents. He represented Ware Family Ventures. The proposal is to vacate the
46 easterly 220 feet of Telegraph Road right -of -way, which abuts the Irongate
47 Industrial Park. The right -of -way is 60 feet wide and is less than one -third of an
48 acre. There are three benefits. The first is the elimination for potential of truck
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 8
1 traffic through a residential area. The County and the City came to the conclusion
2 that a road through there is not a viable option. Traffic is served through
3 Bakerview Road, so there is no reason to allow truck access through this area. The
4 second benefit would be to property owners to the north. They are interested in
5 providing a buffer between the proposed development to the south, Northern
6 Meadows Estates. There would be a berm area. The third benefit would be that
7 the unused county right -of -way would be purchased by private entities and enter
8 the tax roles. There are other issues. The first is that the emergency vehicle
9 turnaround has been changed to the north and will be used as a driveway for the
10 owner to the north. The City and County agreed with the option. In building
11 consensus for approval, they coordinated with Bellingham Planning Director Patricia
12 Decker, the Bellingham Public Works director, and the Fire Chief Mike Lee. All
13 concurred with the proposal.
14
15 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
16
17 Nelson moved to approve of the substitute resolution.
18
19 Crawford assumed that Bakerview Road would be the main arterial. He
20 asked if there are plans to expand Bakerview Road. He was concerned they were
21 cutting off cross - traffic. Mills stated the area may be annexed into the city, who
22 would make the determination to expand. The Irongate area is also served off of
23 the Hannegan Road.
24
25 Motion carried unanimously.
26
27 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTERS 20.83
28 AND 20.38 REGARDING NONCONFORMING LOTS AND LOT
29 CONSOLIDATION (AB2000 -075A)
30
31 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the Council and Planning
32 Commission have been working on this for several years. The new ordinance is a
33 good balance between what some councilmembers want to do to protect property
34 rights and still protect the agricultural land, forestry land, Lake Whatcom
35 watershed, and other critical water areas, and other environmental issues. Lots
36 would be consolidated if the property is in the same ownership but doesn't meet the
37 zoning, is less than one acre, is located within the Lake Whatcom watershed or
38 another critical area, or is zoned agriculture or forestry. There is a new
39 administrative relief process. There is a new criterion that the lot must be at least
40 60 feet by 60 feet. The Planning and Development Committee recommended that
41 it be reduced to 40 feet by 40 feet, exclusive of building setbacks. A building site
42 that is located outside of a critical areas, has water and septic /sewer, is at least 40
43 feet by 40 feet, and meets the additional conditional use criteria in Whatcom
44 County Code (WCC) section 20.84.220 will automatically be granted relief. That is
45 an administrative process that is less time intensive and less expensive than the
46 current conditional use process. Staff recommends that the Council adopt the
47 ordinance.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 9
1 Hoag stated the committee made a correction on packet page 137, finding
2 13, "...to eliminate reduce situations in which it is applied..." Another change made
3 in committee was on page 140, section .072(2), "That each lot has a building site,
4 exclusive of building setbacks, at lease s+*y forty feet wide and s-im4y forty feet
5 deep,..." She wanted this held for two more weeks. She asked a question of staff
6 during committee and they didn't have an answer. Anything less than an acre
7 would be consolidated in the areas that are outside of critical areas, however they
8 will be granted relief if they are at least 40 feet by 40 feet. Some of the rural areas
9 have hundreds of lots platted in the 1890's. She wanted to know how many lots in
10 the rural areas would be affected. Planning staff can provide that answer in two
11 weeks.
12
13 McShane asked what the lot size was originally. Goodwin stated there is no
14 minimum now. A lot of the lots in the County are 20 feet. Lot size is not
15 considered now, but they have to be able to get sewer and water.
16
17 Nelson questioned whether the year change from 1959 to 1955 changes the
18 quantity. Goodwin stated it does not. Most were done at the turn of the century.
19 The only way they can determine the quantity is to count them on the map.
20
21 Brenner stated any lots in Geneva would not be part of this.
22
23 Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
24 hearing.
25
26 Nelson moved approval.
27
28 Hoag stated her concern about the possibility of creating mobile home parks
29 in the middle of nowhere is not unfounded, according to Sylvia Goodwin. The
30 requirement for septic in a mobile home park could be satisfied with a community
31 septic system. Some of the plats have hundreds of lots. The Council should take
32 two weeks and get the answer on how many are out there.
33
34 Dawson stated she agreed with the concern.
35
36 Brenner stated the concern with lot consolidation was with the sensitive
37 areas. They've worked on that. It is not fair to take away someone's property
38 rights if there is no environmental effect. Many people have benefited. Lots that
39 exist now wouldn't be allowed because the zoning has changed. This punishes
40 everyone who didn't have the money to develop their lots a long time ago, but have
41 paid their taxes. If lots are not in sensitive areas, agriculture, or timber areas, then
42 the owners deserve the same rights. Knowing the amount of plats won't change
43 her vote.
44
45 Dawson stated they have to look at the cumulative impacts when zoning
46 goes into effect.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 10
1 Crawford questioned whether the motion included the changes made in
2 committee.
3
4 Nelson stated it does.
5
6 Hoag stated the motion in committee to change the minimum requirement to
7 40 feet by 40 feet was her motion. She wanted to honor people's investment if
8 they bought a neighboring lot with the intent of building on it. She was concerned
9 about the paper plats that were filed back in the 1890's and are sitting out there.
10 Anyone can come along, purchase that land, and be vested under the new
11 ordinance. They are not vested under the existing ordinance. They were
12 consolidated. They should take another look at it.
13
14 Nelson stated he was not comfortable with lot consolidation at all. A lot of
15 hard work went into this. Overall, they are not looking at a large area in the
16 county. A lot of platted lots from the 1800s were around the communities, not in
17 the rural areas. If they don't take some steps, they won't have anything.
18
19 Motion carried 5 -2 with Hoag and Dawson opposed.
20
21 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 99 -071 REGARDING THE
22 PROVISIONAL SHORT TERM PLANNING AREA FOR THE DRAYTON
23 HARBOR PORTION OF THE BLAINE URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2000-
24 126)
25
26 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated there are two options in
27 the Council packet. The Planning and Development Committee recommended
28 option two on page 145. The issue begins on page 146. When the Council
29 previously approved the short -term planning area, they included the area along
30 Lincoln Road, west of Harborview, only if the water district could do a latecomer
31 agreement. The water district stated that is not legal and asked the Council to
32 reconsider. The ordinance would strike the language regarding the latecomer
33 agreements and also remove a small piece of property along Lincoln Road, east of
34 Harborview. That area leaves a few lots along Harborview Road. It cuts across
35 KARI Radio, and takes out four lots along Lincoln Road. Those are areas in which
36 people did not want or could not afford sewer. Since they cannot be charged a
37 latecomer fee, they could be excluded and the sewer lines could go around them.
38 In the event they ever wanted sewer later, they could buy into it later and the
39 Council could amend this at that time. She recommended adoption.
40
41 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
42
43 Muriel Terry, 5199 Drayton Harbor Road, stated she made some changes to
44 the map created during the committee meeting. There are seventeen property
45 owners on the north side of Lincoln Road, between Harborview and the Blaine Road.
46 Twelve of those owners want to be in the short -term planning area because they
47 want to petition for sewer and to subdivide their land. Three others take various
48 positions. KARI Radio would go for a low -cost sewer. The Highleys want to be in a
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 11
1 short -term planning area and want free sewer. The Senates said they did not have
2 enough information to make a decision. She brought all the polls she sent to the
3 residents. She asked that the Council consider those twelve owners who may not
4 be able to get sewer before the Council decides whether or not to put the area in a
5 long -term planning area. Only five owners don't want the sewer.
6
7 Hoag questioned whether the people are charged according to how large
8 their lot is or what their front footage is. Terry stated it will be based on the front
9 footage of the property. Unfortunately, the water district looked at a requested
10 local improvement district (LID) from three years ago. Those assessments would
11 have been very high. The LID they are requesting now involves more owners and a
12 larger area. The cost should be much lower. The district has not reviewed what
13 the assessment will be. The City of Blaine will probably have to move their sewer
14 treatment plant. If they bring it down Drayton Harbor Road, which they may do, it
15 would make the assessment much lower for everyone. Once the area is a short -
16 term planning area, they can request grants, according to the Council of
17 Governments.
18
19 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
20
21 Crawford moved to accept the recommendation of the committee and
22 approve option two with the redrawn line from committee. He felt bad that two
23 neighbors are spoiling that one street's opportunity to get sewer. However, he
24 didn't want to force sewer on people that didn't want it.
25
26 Imhof stated he proposed making Lincoln Road the southern boundary and
27 take out the gerrymander line. It is not effective or efficient to run sewer that way.
28 There are twelve people that want to be considered and five that do not. The water
29 line already goes down the street. For efficiency sake, the sewer should do likewise
30 and make it a clean boundary.
31
32 Nelson concurred with Imhof. These were Urban Residential four units per
33 acre (UR -4) designated zones. If sewer and water became available, people who
34 bought property did so with the anticipation that the UR -4 zone would be
35 implemented. The sewer district is to determine where the line goes. The Council's
36 job is to designate the short -term planning area and let them work out the details
37 on how it will be implemented. He moved an amendment to strike the
38 gerrymander line that has been proposed.
39
40 Brenner opposed the amendment. The lots who want in the area have little
41 frontage. The people who want out have big frontage. It is not the Council's
42 business to bankrupt peoples' properties. Many of the properties have just
43 upgraded their septic systems. All but one had been upgraded. This does not
44 preclude the district from letting the pipes go through. If they want to hook up
45 later, they can by a latecomer agreement. The County can't order that though.
46
47 Hoag agreed with Brenner. The cost of this has been one of the reasons
48 people have said not to take the section out, because others won't be able to afford
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 12
1 to put it in. It stands to reason that the costs imposed by those who don't want to
2 be included would be tremendous. Some of these people stated they only wanted it
3 at a reasonable price. Once the Council decides to create this, the people are stuck
4 with it. It isn't right to include those who want to be included, especially those with
5 large parcels who would have to pay a lot. She didn't support the amendment.
6
7 Nelson stated they are going to exclude the area that has one parcel in which
8 the owner wants no -cost sewer, one parcel in which the owner doesn't know
9 enough to make a decision, and one parcel in which the owner okayed the sewer at
10 a small amount.
11
12 Motion to amend carried 4 -3 with Hoag, Brenner, and Crawford opposed.
13
14 Goodwin stated that they are back to option one that leaves the map as it is.
15 She suggested they approve option one.
16
17 Crawford amended his motion to consider option one.
18
19 Hoag stated they need to consider the people who live in the area that do not
20 want this. They will be forced to pay for this. They are on the outside boundary
21 and they can be excluded. Some of these people are second and third generation
22 and are farming their land. The sewer cost estimate in Terry's letter was one -third
23 of the actual cost
24
25 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
26
27 Hoag asked the councilmembers to put themselves in the property owners'
28 shoes, and to not force people to pay for this.
29
30 Nelson stated that they still have to go through a process with the sewer
31 district. It doesn't force anyone into anything.
32
33 McShane stated an option would be to consider dropping the area from
34 short -term planning area status.
35
36 Brenner stated she supported this all along, but wouldn't support the vote
37 this way. This may force people to sell their property. The councilmembers need
38 to start putting themselves in other peoples' shoes.
39
40 Crawford agreed with Brenner. His desire to see the project go through
41 overrides his frustration with the councilmembers who would not think about
42 redrawing the line. It needs to happen in that area. The Council has declared a
43 health emergency. It is also an area that was compromised by the requirements of
44 growth management, in a negative way. This was a negative impact of the rules
45 that came out of growth management. Sewers will address the issue and fix it.
46
47 Motion carried 5 -2 with Brenner and Hoag opposed.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 13
1
2 CONSENT AGENDA
3
4 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
5 moved approval of items one through six.
6
7 McShane withdrew items three and five.
8
9 Hoag withdrew item number one.
10
11 Motion to approve items two, four, and six carried unanimously.
12
13 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO PURCHASE
14 TIMBER RIGHTS FROM THE GOODYEAR NELSON TIMBER COMPANY
15 USING CONSERVATION FUTURES FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
16 $750,000 (AB2000 -133)
17
18 Hoag stated the Conservation Futures funds are not intended just for
19 purchasing parkland. It was also intended to purchase development rights in
20 agricultural areas to help preserve agriculture and to purchase development rights
21 in critical areas. This is not an appropriate use of this. The Council originally
22 received the property with the understanding that the area would be logged. The
23 deal should be done as it was originally presented, in which the area near the river
24 was to be preserved. It is not appropriate to spend $750,000 to prevent the entire
25 thing from being logged.
26
27 Imhof moved approval.
28
29 Nelson gave background. This was property the County received in trade.
30 There were reserved timber rights appraised in the amount of $2 million, but they
31 recognized a value of $1.7 million. An anonymous donor came forward with
32 $500,000 with the agreement that the timber could not be logged. That leaves the
33 remaining purchase price for the timber rights at $750,000.
34
35 Dawson stated someone suggested the area be a demonstration property for
36 the Black Mountain Forestry Center. The Parks Department has a partnership with
37 the Black Mountain Forestry Center. She wanted this put back in committee. It is
38 a lot of money to spend when they can spend it on other things. She was not
39 against logging, and the trees would be replanted.
40
41 Brenner stated the Council doesn't have that option. She understood
42 Goodyear Nelson changed their perception of what could and could not be done.
43 She wanted it to be selectively logged, but the donor was not negotiable to
44 selective logging. She didn't want the County to lose it and she didn't want it to be
45 clear -cut.
46
47 Dawson questioned whether the donor understands the significance.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 14
1 Brenner stated the donor understands. There is no compromise.
2
3 McShane thanked those who brought this forward. The County was fortunate
4 they were able to tap into a donor. He was worried about the message the County
5 would send if they did not accept the donation. The land is a key piece of land in
6 the South Fork Valley. There will be a string of County -owned land. They will be
7 able to do things with fisheries and recreational activities.
8
9 Hoag stated the County already has the land, but not the timber rights. She
10 asked if the timber rights are for one time only. Once logged, the future timber
11 rights belong to the County. She suggested that the $500,000 be used to purchase
12 the corridor along the river only, and allow the rest to be logged. Both the donor
13 and the timber company are taking an all -or- nothing stance. She didn't support tax
14 payers dollars going to prevent logging on something that is okay to log.
15
16 Brenner stated it is not just $750,000 of taxpayer dollars. The Conservation
17 Futures levy was designed for this. This may not be the best way, but the County
18 has a lot invested in it and it is an important piece of property,
19
20 Dawson stated it is a renewable resource. She would rather invest money
21 into a resource that is not renewable.
22
23 Crawford stated he was in favor of the motion because the County is getting
24 a $1.7 million value for $750,000. That is a good deal.
25
26 Motion carried 5 -2 with Hoag and Dawson opposed.
27
28 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
29 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
30 AND THE NOOKSACK SALMON ENHANCEMENT ASSOCIATION,
31 AUTHORIZING NSEA TO PROVIDE PLANNING, TECHNICAL
32 ASSISTANCE, AND OVERSIGHT OF PLANTING AND MAINTENANCE
33 WORK SUPPORTING RIPARIAN RESTORATION WORK ON DRAINAGE
34 DISTRICTS, COUNTY FLOOD, AND NSEA PROJECTS, FUNDED BY THE
35 DOE CENTENNIAL CLEAN WATER GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $95,000
36 (AB2000 -134)
37
38 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
39 FLOOD CONTROL WORKS AGREEMENT WITH WHATCOM COUNTY
40 PUBLIC WORKS, WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE
41 DISTRICT (FCZD), AND DIKING DISTRICT NO. 3, FOR
42 CONSTRUCTION OF A SET -BACK LEVEE NEAR THE ERODING BANK AT
43 RITTER ROAD, IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,526.88, WITH THE COUNTY
44 SHARE OF $9,221.50 (AB2000 -135)
45
46 McShane asked if there was any discussion between the County engineers
47 and the diking district about whether they had a permit to do this work.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 15
1 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated they received permission to move
2 ahead with this work. There is some question about whether the work that has
3 been accomplished to this point has been done within the context of having the
4 permission. Something will have to change. The County staff's presumption is that
5 those adjustments can occur as they move ahead with the project. If they don't
6 get a permit, other adjustments will have to occur.
7
8 McShane stated DOE will issue a notice of violation and a notice of correction.
9 The work was not permitted. The work that was done is in clear violation of any
10 possibility of getting a permit. Without surveying, one can see that the dike is
11 higher than existing dikes in the area. The procedural issue is that the diking
12 district did work without Flood Control Zone District approval initially. Secondly, it
13 violated the County shoreline program. Also, the County Council and the Flood
14 Control Zone District has a Comprehensive Flood Plan. This project doesn't fit with
15 the plan at all. He was concerned that they would link the County with the illegal
16 activities of the diking district.
17
18 Monsen stated this is not a clean project. Procedurally, there are issues.
19 They are a long way away from another permit to do any long -term stable work in
20 the area. This process has gone on for two years with little to show for it. It will
21 cover expenses that they didn't have in the bank to cover. It is not uncommon for
22 the County to participate in these types of projects. He understands there needs to
23 be correction in the area, whether it will have to be a long -term or short -term
24 correction. There are issues that have to be resolved.
25
26 McShane stated the district would be coming forward for more money.
27 Monsen stated that is possible.
28
29 McShane questioned whether the County would be hooked in to paying for it,
30 no matter what. Monsen stated approving this would not create any obligation of
31 the County to pursue further cooperative action.
32
33 McShane stated someone would have to foot the bill for an illegal piece of
34 work. Monsen stated the message should be sent that acquisition of service needs
35 to follow protocol.
36
37 Nelson questioned what will happen if nothing is done and the diking district
38 is out of money. Monsen stated the district would pay what they can until there is
39 another year of assessment.
40
41 Nelson questioned whether the land is protected from erosion. Monsen stated
42 he didn't know about the long -term protection. It is a step toward a project. This
43 project cannot stand alone. The type of material was intended to be incorporated
44 into a longer term project.
45
46 Nelson asked if the longer approach has gone through the Flood Control Zone
47 District Advisory Board. Monsen stated until a design is approved and permits are
48 in hand, he didn't know what the long -term plan would be.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 16
1
2 Brenner stated that two years ago they declared it an emergency. That
3 changes the rules quite a bit. There was the case of a person who did some land
4 disturbance work to protect his home and family. He was sued, and won the
5 lawsuit in a jury trial. The County deserves the same respect. Those people
6 worked hard and they tried to do it right. They are not getting any cooperation
7 from the state. The County needs to send a message that a person is not
8 guaranteed coverage by the County if he or she doesn't have permits. This is
9 something they need help with. The residents came to the County and the County
10 felt it was an emergency.
11
12 Hoag agreed with Brenner. Buzz Strickland has tried to get help. He's tried
13 to go through all the proper channels. Trees fall into the water. Every time he
14 submitted a project, he received buy -off from one agency and denial by another
15 agency. He finally got to the point of hiring a private engineer. They were assured
16 that it would be okay when the Corps of Engineers put them on hold due to the
17 Endangered Species Act (ESA). They have done everything they could by the book.
18 This project should have been done a long time ago.
19
20 Imhof stated this won't guarantee that the project will get done. It will only
21 make a difficult decision worse. He questioned whether the money will be
22 incorporated into the long -term program that will be permitted, when the County
23 spends the money. He was not sure about that. He didn't like how the project was
24 carried out.
25
26 McShane stated he understood that they got cheap material from concrete
27 rubble. It is not engineered at all. It may provide overflow protection but will not
28 address the erosion problem, which is their main concern. The County will send all
29 the diking districts the wrong message if they approve this. It is the wrong
30 message to give them the 80 percent without cooperation of the Whatcom County
31 Comprehensive Flood Plan and the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District.
32 He understood the concern that they have been trying to get permits.
33 Unfortunately, the days of throwing rock into the river are over. They are opening
34 problems in their commitment to ESA.
35
36 Nelson moved approval. He questioned whether the Flood Control Zone
37 District Advisory Committee approved the 80 / 20 expenditure. Monsen state they
38 did.
39
40 McShane asked if the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee knew
41 there was no permit. He attended that meeting the committee did not know there
42 was no permit.
43
44 Hoag stated the money they requested was for a levy behind a dike so that if
45 it eroded, it would not wipe out the farmland behind it. Monsen stated that was the
46 intention. Originally, the concept was a stopgap measure. The material that was
47 imported would be incorporated into ultimate solutions. Because of material type
48 and the way it was constructed, that is still the intention.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 17
1
2 Hoag stated this is not on the river bank. Monsen stated the exemption from
3 the shoreline regulation is that it be set back and be no greater level of protection
4 than what was already in place, but it is higher, so it is out of compliance.
5
6 Imhof stated there is no armor on it to prevent erosion as it is constructed.
7 When the soil erodes to the dike, if there is no armor, the dike will fall into the river
8 and end up in Bellingham Bay.
9
10 Brenner stated they should encourage the state and County to work on it
11 before it erodes away.
12
13 Motion carried 5 -2 with Imhof and McShane opposed.
14
15 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
16 JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
17 UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, FUNDING THE ONGOING
18 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE COUNTY'S FIVE STREAM
19 GAGES WITHIN THE EARLY FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM, IN THE
20 AMOUNT OF $ 33,990, WITH THE COUNTY SHARE OF $24,190
21 (AB2000 -136)
22
23 S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
24 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC
25 WORKS DIVISION OF ENGINEERING — RIVER SECTION AND
26 REICHHARDT & EBE ENGINEERING, INC. TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING
27 DESIGN AND ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OF PERMITTING OF THE RITTER
28 ROAD RIVERBANK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF
29 $16,920, WITH AN AMENDMENT AMOUNT OF $5,000 (AB2000 -137)
30
31 McShane stated they are spending a fair amount of money on the site. The
32 engineering is up to $17,000. He questioned the cost that all citizens would have
33 to pay if the site ultimately gets permitted for erosion control protection.
34
35 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the only figure is around $200,000
36 to $250,000. The first project was about $50,000.
37
38 McShane stated the concern is that some of the permitting and spending on
39 engineering is based on what the cost may be. At some point, it will come before
40 the County Council. It would be an incredibly liberal thing to shell out money from
41 residents who don't live in the flood plain and pour in $250,000 for one property.
42
43 Brenner stated she didn't intend to pay that much money, but wanted a
44 solution for the district to come up with money and grants.
45
46 Nelson moved approval. They set up the 80/20 program to give
47 responsibility to the diking districts. If they can't do this small amount of money,
48 they won't come up with 20 percent of $250,000. It behooves the Comprehensive
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 18
1 Flood Control Management Plan to get these problems fixed. That is why the
2 County supports the diking district in their endeavors, while making them
3 responsible for 20 percent.
4
5 Hoag stated the farmland and the homes behind this are worth more than
6 $250,000.
7
8 Motion carried 5 -2 with McShane and Imhof opposed.
9
10 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
11 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF
12 BELLINGHAM TO PROVIDE FUNDING SUPPORT FOR THE COMMISSION
13 AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, WITH THE CITY FUNDING AMOUNT
14 OF $30,000 (AB2000 -138)
15
16 OTHER ITEMS
17
18 1. ORDINANCE IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON APPLICATIONS FOR
19 CONDITIONAL AND /OR LAND USE PERMITS FOR ELECTRICAL POWER
20 TRANSMISSION LINES CARRYING 115,000 VOLTS (AB200 -127)
21
22 Hoag reported for Natural Resources Committee and stated there were two
23 versions in the packet and two substitute versions that reflect changes suggested
24 by legal counsel and Planning and Development staff. The basic changes were to
25 add emergency language, to exclude 115,000 volt lines that were in districts
26 classified as industrial, and to add the findings that substantiate the emergency.
27 The difference between the two ordinances is that the first one is the one that was
28 introduced as un- amended. When they introduced it at the last meeting, they
29 failed to introduce it as amended. The second ordinance is amended to remove the
30 first five or six "Whereas" statements. It is also written in non - emergency
31 language, so they would have emergency and non - emergency language, depending
32 on supporting votes. The emergency version would become effective immediately.
33 The non - emergency version would become 10 days after the Executive's signs the
34 document.
35
36 Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated there is a ten -day
37 period in which the Executive has to sign it. If the Executive doesn't sign it, it goes
38 into effect ten days after the ten -day time period. The emergency ordinance was
39 introduced at the last meeting. That ordinance that was introduced called for a 60-
40 day moratorium. The other proposed moratorium is for six months, as outlined in
41 the option two ordinance. The non - emergency ordinance needs to be introduced
42 because it is substantially different than what was introduced at the previous
43 meeting.
44
45 Hoag stated she asked Frakes the question of whether they can pass the
46 ordinance as an emergency or as a non - emergency and how many votes it takes.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 19
1 Frakes stated that wasn't true. She was never asked anything about a
2 moratorium. She was asked a generic question about an emergency ordinance.
3 She had no indication a moratorium was proposed. It is not something she could
4 have foreseen.
5
6 Hoag stated she sent this over to legal counsel the day after the last
7 meeting. She asked what the differences would be if they adopt it as an
8 emergency or as a non - emergency.
9
10 Frakes stated she addressed those issues. This is an entirely separate issue
11 regarding introduction. She said Councilmember Hoag never asked her that
12 question.
13
14 Hoag stated it was in her memo.
15
16 Frakes stated it was not.
17
18 Hoag stated it is in her memo. During committee, staff recommended the
19 "Whereas" statements in the emergency ordinance.
20
21 Brenner questioned whether they would have a problem if they did a non -
22 emergency ordinance with the sunset date at 60 days instead of six months.
23 Frakes stated she didn't think they would have a problem. She was concerned
24 about the difference between 60 days and six months.
25
26 Brenner questioned why it was changed from 60 days to six months.
27
28 Hoag stated it was on Frakes' advice.
29
30 Frakes stated it wasn't on her advice. She advised Councilmember Hoag that
31 the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) allowed her to do a moratorium for up to
32 six months. Councilmember Hoag was the one who chose to put six months in the
33 ordinance.
34
35 Hoag stated that was not correct.
36
37 Hoag moved approval of the substitute emergency ordinance.
38
39 Nelson stated they need to look at the process in which the power lines are
40 going to be put in the community. They should look at effective competition, but
41 doesn't want the county crisscrossed with lines. He was not sure a moratorium is
42 the way to go. Bellingham Mayor Mark Asmundson is putting together a committee
43 of citizen involvement. He would rather do that than jeopardize a project. At the
44 current time, the only existing proposal involves two power poles. The draft
45 environmental impact statement (DEIS) says that they are required to put in
46 possible routes. No one has applied for permits or a site construction. They need
47 the ability to look at those power lines when they are proposed. They have
48 conditional use permitting processes. The County needs more than that. On the
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 20
1 other hand, a moratorium that prevents industries from putting lines into the cities
2 is not fair to the companies who have worked hard on their projects. He would not
3 support a moratorium but would support a committee to look at corridors and
4 current lines and forcing the companies to utilize all current power systems and
5 grids. The intent of a moratorium is good, but the damage done is not worth it at
6 this time.
7
8 Dawson stated she has a letter from Asmundson about creating a task force
9 to look at these issues. Because Bellingham Code Storage and the Public Utility
10 District (PUD) is a city issue, they should exclude that issue from the ordinance.
11 She moved to amend by excluding the Bellingham Cold Storage /Public Utility
12 District /Georgia- Pacific project.
13
14 Imhof stated there is a conflict in the Blaine area where they are trying to
15 run new lines to Semiahmoo. The process in place has adequately served them.
16 They have the conditional use permit (CUP) process. It goes to the Hearing
17 Examiner. He holds hearings, makes recommendations, makes findings, and talks
18 to the professionals. He makes recommendations and the Council can make further
19 conditions. The Council has all the options and the mechanism to review projects.
20 He would not support the moratorium.
21
22 Hoag stated the amperage levels are 50 to 60 megawatts on one 115 kilovolt
23 line for the total to serve Bellingham Cold Storage and Georgia- Pacific. She
24 proposed the moratorium in response to citizen concerns because of proposed lines
25 that would carry 330 megawatts on a 115- kilovolt line. The concern is not with
26 lines that carry typical loads of 50 to 60 megawatts. The concern is about the lines
27 that are proposed for the county from Sumas Energy 2. They are engineering now
28 for these lines and are trespassing on people's property. They have no idea when
29 an application will be submitted. She is married to an electrical engineer. Electrical
30 science says that they create tremendous electromagnetic fields (EMF), resistance,
31 and greater interference when huge loads are run on small lines. If the same 330
32 megawatts are on a 230 - kilovolt line, there would be fewer negative impacts. They
33 can't do that because 230 - kilovolt lines are supposed to stay in existing corridors.
34 That was the purpose of the initiative. That was the purpose of the County
35 ordinance. There is a proposal to get around the ordinance by putting more power
36 on a 115 kilovolt line than was ever intended. If this company can propose to do it,
37 any company can propose to do it. A moratorium will provide a chance to call in
38 experts to see if the County ordinance is adequate to address the concerns that
39 exist. They will create hazards if they allow this to continue.
40
41 Dawson restated her amendment, "WHEREAS the current PUD project with
42 Georgia- Pacific and Bellingham Cold Storage is largely a city issue and is exempt
43 from this ordinance."
44
45 Hoag stated she didn't have a problem with those poles if they run 50 to 60
46 megawatts on them. She asked legal if they could preferentially select someone
47 out from the moratorium. They are asking for 60 days to call in experts and review
48 this. Their contract doesn't expire until June of 2001.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 21
1
2 Frakes stated they cannot preferentially select out one project and exclude it
3 from the effects of the ordinance.
4
5 (Clerk's Note: Dawson's motion was not voted on.)
6
7 Hoag stated the point of what they should be doing is to call in experts and
8 review the issue.
9
10 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
11
12 Crawford stated they proposed the moratorium two weeks ago. He
13 questioned what has happened in the past 14 days and what they've found out.
14
15 Hoag stated they've been talking with legal counsel and Planning staff about
16 how to have a proper format on the moratorium.
17
18 Crawford stated he has done research on this in the past 14 days. He didn't
19 think Sumas 2 should think that it is going to be easy to get power lines across the
20 county. They haven't applied for it. At the same time, misinformation was given to
21 him that he had corrected very clearly by talking to experts. One expert is the
22 chief electrical engineer at Intalco. The misinformation continues to go on. There
23 was a National Institute of Health study released last year that was quoted during
24 testimony given during Open Session. The testimony concluded that the study
25 found serious and grave impacts of EMF. He has that study and read it. That is not
26 at all what the study's conclusions were. He didn't understand why it is being
27 represented that way. He is not in favor of a moratorium at this time. They should
28 bring in the experts. A moratorium has nothing to do with whether or not the
29 County is going to hear from experts about this subject. He questioned where a
30 moratorium would get them.
31
32 Brenner stated all the moratorium gets them is breathing room. That is all
33 people are asking for. It won't be a hardship on anyone. Supporting the
34 moratorium does not mean they don't support the project. She doesn't support the
35 project, but people deserve to have their concerns aired before the potential of this
36 happens.
37
38 Hoag stated Comprehensive Plan policy 5J -1 says that they consider the need
39 for new standards regarding EMF as new information regarding EMF becomes
40 available. When the County Council adopted the initiative, it was clear that 115
41 kilovolt meant a typical 115 kilovolt line. They are looking at a power plant that
42 would be the largest gas -fired power plant in Washington State. Half of that power,
43 330 megawatts, goes down a 115 kilovolt line. They should make sure they don't
44 get an application for that until they've had a chance to review the implications. If
45 the councilmembers are sure they won't get an application in the next 60 days,
46 then there is no reason not to support the moratorium. The moratorium can only
47 be extended with the vote of the Council. If they feel there is sufficient information
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 22
1 at the end of the 60 days, then they are done. This is not an open -ended thing.
2 They have been told this is a real possibility. It makes no sense to not declare a
3 moratorium, when they have the information and the public has requested a
4 moratorium, if there is the possibility of finding out that the transmission lines are a
5 bad thing.
6
7 Dawson questioned the language regarding six months.
8
9 Hoag stated they can amend the emergency ordinance to remove the
10 emergency language if they fail to have the votes to pass it as an emergency.
11
12 Dawson restated the motion to approve option one, which is the emergency
13 ordinance.
14
15 Motion failed 3 -3 with Imhof, Nelson and Crawford opposed and McShane
16 abstaining.
17
18 Hoag moved to amend option one to delete the emergency language.
19
20 Motion to amend carried 5 -1 with Imhof opposed and McShane abstaining.
21
22 Hoag moved to adopt option one as amended.
23
24 Motion failed 3 -3 with Imhof, Nelson, and Crawford opposed and McShane
25 abstaining.
26
27 Nelson moved to direct staff to put forward a task force through the Planning
28 and Development Committee to look at issues regarding regulatory requirements.
29 It doesn't matter if they file a permit if there are not regulatory requirements. They
30 need those to impose restrictions, if that is the intent.
31
32 Hoag stated she would begin bringing in experts into the Planning and
33 Development Committee to discussing changing the ordinance so that it properly
34 protects the public.
35
36 Nelson asked the intent of the Council. They need to give direction to staff
37 about what this is going to be.
38
39 Hoag stated it would go into Natural Resources Committee.
40
41 Motion to study the issue carried 6 -0 with McShane abstaining.
42
43 (Clerk's note: The Council took a five - minute break at 9:35 p.m. End of tape
44 two.)
45
46 2. DISCUSSION AND REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REGARDING THE
47 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT (AB2000 -132)
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 23
1 McShane reported for Natural Resources Committee and stated the portion of
2 this item regarding the structure and function diagram was held in committee. The
3 other three portions were recommended for approval. They recommended that staff
4 support the assessment and implementation phase. He moved approval of this first
5 item.
6
7 Brenner stated she didn't want to see anything come forward without
8 competitive research on who would do the project. She understood the U.S.
9 Geological Service not being able to compete. She didn't have a problem with Utah
10 State, but didn't want the processes done this way anymore.
11
12 Hoag wanted the opportunity to review where Utah State University came
13 out with their assessments and recommendations on instream flow. Staff said they
14 could provide that information. She recommended that this be held for two weeks.
15 It is very important and very controversial. It is important that the people who do
16 this work have the same philosophy that the County does.
17
18 Dawson agreed with Hoag and moved to refer to committee for two weeks.
19
20 Imhof questioned whether that would interfere with the Planning Unit
21 meeting. They keep putting this stuff into committee. The Executive sits at the
22 table with other people. The County is always holding things up. They are starting
23 to look like a bunch of idiots because of the holdups to move forward with the plan.
24
25 Dawson stated the Council is very detailed.
26
27 Hoag stated they need a basis for approving something. The Council should
28 be given more information up front if they want to move more quickly.
29
30 McShane stated the councilmembers need to take some responsibility. This
31 was brought forward a week ago. If these were concerns, the councilmembers had
32 a week to do the research. Staff would have taken the time to get the information
33 to the councilmembers. To sit on it for a week and then sit on it another couple of
34 weeks is not appropriate and is unfair to the Planning Unit. It makes it difficult for
35 the Planning Unit when the County constantly does not take a stance.
36
37 Dawson agreed with McShane. Councilmembers should have been giving
38 questions to staff. She withdrew her motion. Councilmember Hoag had a good
39 question and a reasonable request, but unfortunately it was not timely.
40
41 Brenner stated the request to know their background and philosophy was
42 raised a week ago at the Water Resources meeting.
43
44 Hoag stated she agreed with not holding up the process, however she has
45 too much to do and could not do her research in a week. She won't vote for
46 something she hasn't researched. No other councilmember has checked that
47 information. It is important to get that information first.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 24
1 Motion to go ahead with assessment carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed.
2
3 McShane stated the next three items were the technical team proposals for
4 water quality, water quantity, and water instream flow teams. The proposals are all
5 similarly written. Committee approved an amendment to packet pages 20, 23, and
6 26 to delete a sentence under the staffing section, "The need to hire dedicated
7 technical tearn staff is not anticipated." and to add a language to the Budget
8 section, "...to the tech team. The budget will provide for technical assistance and
9 review as requested by the Planning Unit. A budget for operations..." He so
10 moved.
11
12 Brenner stated she would support the amendment because it is better
13 language, but staff should not staff the technical teams. Staff has too much
14 control. She suggested that there be a committee that is made up of staff and the
15 representatives with the expertise from the private sector. She doesn't understand
16 why they wouldn't want other experts.
17
18 Nelson stated nothing prohibits staff from using experts.
19
20 Brenner stated they should initially do it with staff and other experts.
21
22 Nelson stated they don't know who the experts are and what they need.
23
24 Brenner stated they don't want people on there who are not qualified.
25
26 Hoag suggested additional language to alleviate Councilmember Brenner's
27 concerns.
28
29 McShane amended his motion to include language in the staffing section,
30 "...Initiating Governments' staff, affd the Planning Unit staff, and others identified by
31 the Planning Unit."
32
33 Motion to amend carried unanimously.
34
35 McShane moved approval of all three technical teams, as amended.
36
37 Motion carried unanimously.
38
39 Hoag stated the fifth item was held in committee.
40
41 3. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS RELATIVE TO CANYON CREEK ALLUVIAL
42 FAN AREA, REGARDING A REQUEST FROM THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE
43 DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO ENACT A MORATORIUM ON
44 NEW DEVELOPMENT AND TARGET THE AREA FOR A VOLUNTARY
45 BUYOUT PROGRAM (AB2000 -114)
46
47 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
48 stated this item was held in committee.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 25
1
2 4. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE INEZ HOYT
3 AND S.P.I.E. OPEN SPACE APPLICATIONS (AB2000 -088)
4
5 Hoag reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated this item
6 was jointly discussed with three members of the City Council and three members of
7 the County Council. It does not need Council action. There was unanimous
8 approval of the Whatcom County Planning and Development Committee jointly with
9 the Bellingham City Planning Committee.
10
11 7. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S
12 DECISION ON FILE NO. COM99- 00443, FILED BY ROBERT MARR,
13 REGARDING ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY FEE (AB2000 -092)
14
15 See "Announcements."
16
17 8. RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 99 -016 AND RE-
18 PRIORITIZING WHATCOM COUNTY PROJECTS FOR THE WASHINGTON
19 COMMUNITY ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION TEAM (WA -CERT)
20 (AB2000 -049)
21
22 Brenner moved to prioritize the City of Blaine's overflow mitigation project as
23 number two and prioritize the Port of Bellingham /City of Blaine's Blaine Harbor
24 economic revitalization project as number six. Everything else would be moved
25 down.
26
27 Nelson stated the criterion with the heaviest point score was that the project
28 directly helps citizens affected by the decline in timber and fisheries industries. For
29 those individuals, the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers' project was higher than
30 Sustainable Options. He couldn't support putting Sustainable Options as the most
31 important project because there are direct impacts to the fishing industry. He
32 didn't see that Sustainable Options have raised any money yet, and they've been
33 on the priority list before.
34
35 Hoag stated she believed they had a matching grant. The project includes
36 re- training fishers and loggers. She recommended that they put the Water District
37 #10 Lake Louise Road interceptor project to the bottom of the list due to the
38 repeated concerns they've heard.
39
40 Brenner accepted as a friendly amendment Councilmember Nelson's
41 suggestion to make the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers project number one.
42
43 Dawson restated the motion to prioritize the list;
44 1. Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers
45 2. City of Blaine wastewater treatment plant relocation and overflow
46 mitigation
47 3. Sustainable Options planning feasibility study for community
48 agriculture institute
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 26
1
2 Motion carried 5 -1 with Imhof opposed.
3
4 Hoag moved to put the Water District #10 Lake Louise Road interceptor
5 project to the bottom of the list.
6
7 Imhof stated he wanted to move it to number four because of the sewage
8 overflow problems in the lake. This is a way to prevent that and move forward with
9 the job that needs to be done with the drinking water source.
10
11 Motion failed 2 -5 with Hoag and McShane in favor.
12
13 Imhof moved put the Water District #10 Lake Louise Road interceptor project
14 to number four on the list.
15
16 Brenner spoke against the motion because this is not going to promote
17 economic development in the county. She liked the Point Roberts pier construction
18 project and the Land Trust trail project because they will help tourism.
19
20 Hoag stated the Canyon Lake trail is going to help displaced timber workers
21 to do that stuff. This is money that is supposed to be focused on displaced timber
22 and fisheries workers. She did not support moving that item up on the list.
23
24 Dawson stated many displaced timber and forestry workers are working in
25 construction.
26
27 Motion carried 4 -3 with Hoag, McShane, and Brenner opposed.
28
29 Imhof moved that the rest fall in order.
30
31 Motion carried 4 -3 with McShane, Hoag, and Brenner opposed.
32
33 Motion to approve as amended carried unanimously.
34
35 9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A NEW
36 LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR VIDEO LA GLORIA, 7310
37 EVERSON- GOSHEN ROAD, SUITE B, EVERSON (AB2000 -139)
38
39 Imhof moved approval.
40
41 Motion carried unanimously.
42
43 10. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
44 JOSEPHINE DAVIDSON, LOUIS BRYAN AND JONETE WATERS REHMKE
45 TO THEIR FIRST FULL TERM ON THE NORTHWEST SENIOR SERVICES
46 BOARD, WITH A TERM END DATE OF JUNE 30, 2003 (AB2000 -140)
47
48 Nelson moved approval.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 27
1
2 Motion carried unanimously.
3
4
5 OTHER BUSINESS
6
7 Dawson stated there was a resolution from Franklin County regarding the
8 Endangered Species Act (ESA). They are proposing to send this to President
9 Clinton. It says they should change ESA to provide incentives for the protection of
10 endangered species through empowering citizens to freely and voluntarily assist in
11 their protection.
12
13 Hoag asked if they are proposing to not require that anyone do anything.
14 She suggested getting rid of "freely and voluntarily." It is not a reasonable
15 request. The second "Whereas" statement regarding breaching the Snake River
16 dams is very important. The councilmembers did not address that item it their
17 letters.
18
19 Brenner moved to refer it to the Natural Resources Committee.
20
21 The Council concurred.
22
23
24 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
25
26 Imhof stated there was discussion during the Finance Committee regarding
27 hiring Ezgov.com to implement online payment of County taxes and fines. There
28 was a presentation before the Council and the department heads about e-
29 commerce. The company will provide $75,000 of software and $30,000 of support
30 for Whatcom to become a showcase for the West Coast. It pays to spend $1,000 to
31 go to some of these conferences and make connections with the people who are on
32 the cutting edge. It was money well spent.
33
34 Dawson stated this is the first conference Nelson went to.
35
36 Nelson stated it was a collective effort including Imhof and Desler. Strategic
37 planning efforts for Whatcom County have been to move ahead with technologies.
38
39 Nelson stated the Forestry Forum dates have changed for the April and May
40 meetings.
41
42 Hoag stated the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) will have a
43 meeting on April 4 on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). That is a
44 Council meeting date. They have scheduled a hearing in the Council Chambers on
45 April 3 in addition to the meeting on April 4.
46
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
McShane stated the Natural Resources Committee discussed establishing
surface mining advisory committee. He wanted to make sure this is comfortable
with the entire Council. They are close to resolving the committee's scope.
McShane also stated the legislature passed a bill requiring licensing
geologists. They should amend the Critical Areas Ordinance to reflect that
legislation.
McShane stated he will be in Washington D.C. to speak on forestry issues for
a group that has hired him as a representative.
Brenner stated she sent a memo regarding revisiting recommendation #12
from the Medical Waste Task Force. That should be an agenda item for next Board
of Health meeting. It is regarding stocks and cultures being treated onsite.
Brenner also said Custer residents talked to the Public Works Committee
about Williams Pipeline. It is the company's habit to say one thing and do another
and to trespass on peoples' property. The company promised to be at her meeting,
but they didn't show up. They lied about not having enough notice, because they
had three weeks' notice. She would work on a revision of the "bad boy" law that is
in effect in other communities. It has been upheld in court.
The Council concurred to include the Medical Waste Task Force item on the
next Board of Health agenda.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:23 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on April 18 , 2000.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/21/2000, Page 29