HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil March 7 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
March 7, 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
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Sam Crawford
Robert Imhof
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Absent:
L. Ward Nelson
Dawson announced there was discussion regarding current
collective bargaining negotiations (AB2000 -121) and discussion with
Senior Deputy Prosecutor Karen Frakes regarding pending litigation
(AB2000 -018) in executive session during Committee of the Whole. During
the meeting, the Committee of the Whole voted to support the Garretts in
their Birchwood court appeal. The vote count was 4 -3 with Brenner, Hoag,
and McShane opposed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS:
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR FEBRUARY 8 AND 22, 2000;
REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JANUARY 11 AND 25 (ORIGINALLY
SCHEDULED FOR APPROVAL ON FEBRUARY 22) AND FEBRUARY 8
AND 22, 2000
Hoag moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Leonard Lindstrom, 2858 W. Maplewood, Bellingham, stated they need
mature people who can talk to each other on the social problems.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 1
1 Greg Ebe,2212 Birch Bay Lynden Road, Custer, stated he represented the
2 Agriculture Preservation Committee. He thanked the Council for forming the
3 Agricultural Advisory Committee. There has been some concern raised about the
4 Public Utility District (PUD) review of water rights. He would like the study to move
5 forward. He believed the problem exists on paper only. The PUD, as an elected
6 body, is an accountable body who could perform the study. Their staff has always
7 acted fairly and efficiently.
8
9
10 PUBLIC HEARING
11
12 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 6.04.050, DOG
13 LICENSING (AB2000 -094)
14
15 Crawford explained that he wrote the ordinance. The intent of the ordinance
16 is to reinstate a multiple dog - licensing fee specifically for the purpose of allowing
17 this type of license for livestock protection guardian dogs. He proposed that the
18 annual fee be $65 per year.
19
20 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
21
22 Kathi Seaman, 4853 Reese Hill Road, Sumas, asked the Council to reconsider
23 the multiple dog license and enforcement of the leash law in Whatcom County.
24 Eliminating the kennel license does nothing but increase revenue to a privately
25 owned business. This is unearned or free revenue since there is already an existing
26 list of persons with kennel licenses. All that is necessary is to go out and collect the
27 additional fees. When the request for proposal (RFP) for the County animal control
28 services was awarded, a contract was entered into with a set amount of public
29 funds to be paid for certain duties to be performed. She wanted to see the animal
30 control officers' time being spent impounding loose animals instead of targeting the
31 responsible dog owners that keep their animals confined, whether they are licensed
32 or not. If the leash law was enforced more strictly, it would allow the animal
33 control agency to increase their revenue by collecting fines associated with animals
34 running loose and provide a greater service to the community as a whole. The two
35 main reasons for a dog license are pet identification and general revenue. There
36 are other, better methods to identify a dog. The two best methods are the
37 microchip and the tattoo. Neither of these identification methods can be removed
38 from the animal. Impound fees for animals running around should be paid for by
39 the owners. A kennel license is not a reward for having multiple dogs and will not
40 encourage someone to have more dogs. The community uses multiple dogs to
41 guard livestock or to be raised as show dogs, hunting dogs, and assistance dogs.
42
43 Ian Balsillie, Brookfield Farms, Maple Falls, stated he has livestock guard
44 dogs to protect his sheep and goats. Guard dogs are needed to protect the sheep
45 from predators such as coyotes and cougars. The agricultural economy in the
46 county is in dire straits. They don't need profit margins cut further by increasing
47 dog licenses. Because of the guard dogs, they are able to coexist with the wildlife
48 rather than shooting the predators.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 2
1
2 Susan Donato, Security Specialists Plus (SSP) - Preferred Animal Care
3 Administrator and Whatcom County Animal Control Director, stated the initial
4 proposal made by SSP- Preferred Animal Care was for a flat $65 fee for multiple dog
5 licenses. They still support that. It would be difficult to differentiate between
6 guard dogs and other dogs. There is no reason to make it harder on multiple dog
7 owners. She felt a neutral stance is best. It would be difficult to enforce and
8 determine whether the dog serves the purpose of guarding the livestock. It also
9 sets a concerning precedent about whether people want a special fee to have guard
10 dogs for their families.
11
12 Doug Maier, 810 Van Wyk Road, stated he has a farm where he raises sheep,
13 goats, and foul. He asked the Council to support the multiple dog license. They
14 need to protect livestock from predators. Using livestock guard dogs is one of the
15 most successful methods of doing that. The guardian dogs are not companions or
16 pets. The original intent of the fee was to have control over the pet dog population.
17 His dogs are not pets. The pet dog population is one of his biggest predator
18 problems.
19
20 Howard Verbeek, Lynden, stated the kennel license should be kept as it is.
21 The coyotes are more of a problem in the county. If they need to raise revenue,
22 they should require cat licensing.
23
24 Kent Bradley, Goshen Road, stated he has a small sheep operation, and the
25 domestic dog is more of a concern than coyotes or natural predators. The only
26 problem he's had has been with domestic dogs. He trains stock dogs, and there is
27 a difference between stock dogs and guardian dogs.
28
29 Hoag questioned whether he would be covered under the ordinance since his
30 dogs are not guardian dogs. Bradley stated he didn't know. His working stock
31 dogs do not have a primary purpose of predator protection, but it is a side benefit
32 of what they do.
33
34 Gary Stephanson, 1622 Grandview Place, Ferndale, stated he raises show
35 dogs. They have had a kennel license in the past. He asked the Council to rescind
36 the removal of the multiple dog license. There are 3,108 licensed dogs in Whatcom
37 County in 1999. The estimate is that there are probably 20,000 dogs in Whatcom
38 County. If the Council needs an increase in the revenue, they should get the
39 people to license their dogs. Kennels are unfairly targeted.
40
41 Linda Squires, 232 W. Smith Road, stated she got a livestock guardian dog
42 after domestic dogs attacked her stock. She supported the multiple dog licenses.
43 She also raises and trains Labrador Retrievers. If she has to license every animal
44 that comes into her kennel for training for a few weeks, she would have to pay a lot
45 of money in fees.
46
47 Gordon Wilson, 4225 Boblett, stated he supported the increase in the
48 multiple dog - licensing fee rather than an individual dog license fee.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 3
1
2 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
3
4 Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance.
5
6 Dawson stated she didn't remember the original motion to do away with the
7 multiple dog license. She did know that it was done late in the evening when they
8 adopted the budget. There wasn't adequate discussion. She wanted to go back to
9 the original recommendation to increase the multiple dog license fee to $65.
10
11 Hoag stated she recalled how it occurred, and she was opposed to it. She
12 mentioned the concerns that were brought forward just now. It occurred in Finance
13 Committee during the budget process. They were looking at an increase. Someone
14 suggested getting rid of the fee, and the idea took flight. She voted against it then.
15 She was concerned with livestock people because of her concern for agriculture and
16 increasing costs. However, she also didn't see any reason for eliminating multiple
17 dog licenses for kennels. Susan Donato indicated that SSP feels it would be easier
18 to enforce a general multiple dog license. They should reinstate the multiple dog
19 license at $65.
20
21 Brenner stated she voted against the motion originally specifically because of
22 the agricultural dogs. They made a commitment to the right to farm, because they
23 want to keep the farmers operating. She had mixed feelings about the kennels,
24 and whether they should be allowed a multiple dog - licensing fee. Susan Donato's
25 testimony about the difficulty of enforcement influenced her decision. There was a
26 time when her neighbor had ten dogs. The Humane Society had to respond 20
27 times to gather the dogs. She had much property damage that she never
28 recovered. She didn't believe that multiple dogs are less of a problem, but would
29 be too hard to enforce this way.
30
31 Imhof stated he didn't agree with the original proposal to eliminate the
32 multiple dog - licensing fee.
33
34 Crawford moved to rescind his motion to adopt the ordinance.
35
36 Imhof moved to replace the original language in the code, to allow a
37 multiple -dog licensing fee.
38
39 Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated they didn't touch the
40 animal control code when they originally changed the unified fee schedule.
41
42 Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated the Council only needs to
43 amend the Unified Fee Schedule.
44
45 Imhof withdrew his motion.
46
47 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 99 -083, THE WHATCOM
48 COUNTY 2000 UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE (AB2000 -093)
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 4
1
2 Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, Dawson closed the
3 public hearing.
4
5 Crawford moved to amend the Unified Fee Schedule to include a multiple
6 dog - license fee of $65 per year.
7
8 McShane suggested a friendly amendment to amend Exhibit A to strike,
9 " " and the footnote at the end of Exhibit A.
10
11 Crawford accepted the friendly amendment.
12
13 Hoag questioned whether they need to vote down the previous ordinance
14 because it was scheduled on the agenda. Frakes stated it dies for lack of action.
15
16 Motion carried 5 -0 with Imhof out of the room and Nelson absent.
17
18 3. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PARKING RESTRICTIONS AT BIRCH BAY
19 (AB2000 -109)
20
21 (Clerk's Note: The Council took a brief break.)
22
23 Roger DeSpain, Parks and Recreation Department Director, gave a staff
24 report and explained that the parking problem has been getting worse over the last
25 year. The problem has been with loud noises continuing late into the night.
26 They've posted signs that prohibited loud noise from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The
27 Sheriff's Office has tried to cite individuals for being loud. He supported the
28 ordinance to allow the Sheriff to control the noise problem.
29
30 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
31
32 Sharon Roy, 8026 Birch Bay Drive, spoke as a representative of the Mariners
33 Cove residents. The basic issue is that there are 60 condominium homes on a two -
34 block stretch of road. Directly across the street is a 40 -space County -owned
35 parking lot for beach access. When the Sheriff deputies respond to calls, they
36 cannot cite people from being there after 10:00 because there has never been an
37 ordinance to support that. That is what this ordinance will do. She displayed
38 photographs of the area during nights in the summer. Kid's do drugs at the
39 location and are obscene. It is mostly the same people night after night. There are
40 safety issues also because there are fights at the location. Small children and
41 retired people live in the area. They should give the Sheriff's Office the tools to
42 clear people out of there after 10:00 p.m. These individuals don't go to the beach.
43 They only hang out in the parking lot. She is not against having beach access, but
44 is against letting people hang out in the parking lot.
45
46 Kathy Berg, Birch Bay Chamber of Commerce President, spoke in favor of the
47 ordinance.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 5
1 Mark Sowers, 8026 Birch Bay Drive, stated he is the Mariners Cove
2 Homeowners Association President. They have to spend a lot of money installing
3 fences. It used to be an open access to the beach from the condos. Noise and
4 various activities have caused several problems.
5
6 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
7
8 Sowers continued to state that the kids return after the police have asked
9 them to leave. They don't have a police patrol that watches the park. They need
10 something with teeth.
11
12 George Astler, 4815 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated he understood there is
13 a staffing problem with the Sheriff's Office, but they want to curtail this activity
14 when they can. The noise from car stereos is a problem. There is also a problem
15 with speeding. He supported the ordinance.
16
17 Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, spoke in favor of the
18 ordinance.
19
20 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
21
22 Hoag moved approval.
23
24 Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
25
26 4. RESOLUTION TO SELL COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY, REQUEST NO.
27 00 -1 (AB2000 -104A)
28
29 Barbara Cory, County Treasurer, stated she represented the Property
30 Management Committee and gave a staff report. The committee reviewed the two
31 applications. These parcels are tax title parcels. Tax title property is property that
32 has had delinquent taxes on it. The Treasurer's Office attempted to foreclose on
33 the properties. It went through a tax foreclosure sale. No one bid at the tax
34 foreclosure sale. State law requires that the County be the bidder when no bids are
35 submitted. The County would hold the properties in trust for the taxing districts.
36 State law also allows the county legislative authority to dispose of tax foreclosed
37 property by private negotiation, without a call for bids, for not less than the
38 principal amount of the unpaid taxes when no acceptable bids were received at the
39 auction, if the sale is within six months of the date of the auction. The last sale was
40 November 19. The committee recommended the parcels be sold. Both applicants
41 were at the tax foreclosure sale, but they missed their opportunity at the time to
42 submit a bid because they were unfamiliar with the process. They talked to her
43 staff and submitted an application.
44
45 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
46
47 Fred Williams, 6650 North Shore Road, stated he would like to purchase one
48 of the parcels.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 6
1
2 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
3
4 Imhof moved approval with the minimum bid as stated on the enclosure.
5
6 Motion carried 5 -0 with Hoag out of the room.
7
8 5. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SUMAS ENERGY 2 PROPOSED POWER
9 PLANT AND ASSOCIATED POWER TRANSMISSION LINES IN
10 WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2000 -125)
11
12 McShane excused himself from the public hearing because he is on the
13 Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC).
14
15 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
16
17 Wayne Schwandt, Bellingham /Whatcom Economic Development Council
18 Chair, stated they are in favor of this project. Sumas 2 is a project they've been
19 monitoring for a long time. They've provided information to the legislature as it has
20 considered some of the aspects of this project. He recommended the project move
21 forward.
22
23 Fred Sexton, Economic Development Council, stated he was in favor of the
24 project. The company has been in Whatcom County for eight years and has been
25 an excellent corporate citizen. They use the best technology for its operation. It
26 will be an expansion of the company that does co- generation. The economic impact
27 will be very positive. The initial impact will come from the construction of the
28 facility, and then from taxes that are collected and high payrolls of employees.
29 There will be an estimated $30 million in tax revenue coming into the county.
30 Almost $5 million will go to employee payrolls, which will go into the local economy.
31
32 Henry Vossbeck, 1441 Polinder Road, Lynden, stated that one of the
33 proposed routes crosses the Nooksack River on his property. They found out about
34 it when the person trespassed on their property. His farm has some cottonwood
35 trees that are over 100 years old. Where the route is proposed to go, they would
36 have to eliminate a set of cottonwood trees, and he is concerned about the
37 transmission lines. There is not enough information to make a good decision.
38 When this was discussed in January, they proposed to route their transmission lines
39 through Canada. However, their consultants said that wouldn't be feasible because
40 the charges by B.C. Hydro would make it prohibitive. They have several routes
41 proposed through Whatcom County. Some information says they will use existing
42 power poles, while other information discusses new poles. He is unsure about what
43 is going on. A moratorium is needed so that all the issues can be addressed.
44
45 Wendy Vossbeck, 1441 Polinder Road, Lynden, stated that on February 14
46 she found a dead bald eagle along the Polinder Road. It was determined to have
47 died from electrocution. The proposed power lines cause concern because of the
48 eagle habitat. The State Department of Fish and Wildlife representative stated this
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 7
1 area is a habitat area, not just a migration area. The representative is trying to
2 design power lines that are not in migration paths. She supports a moratorium on
3 transmission lines to address these issues.
4
5 Irwin Noteboom, 8000 Thiel Road, stated he is a dairy farmer. He
6 questioned what would happen if there is stray voltage. He wanted the question
7 answered from the company. Until this question is addressed there should be a
8 moratorium on the transmission lines.
9
10 Fred Ondeck, 2096 Halverstick Road, stated they received a map that shows
11 the proposed line going down Halverstick Road. That area is rural territory. If the
12 proposed lines are on poles that are 70 feet high, they will be the tallest structures
13 for miles. These lines could carry up to 115 kilovolts, which is unusually high
14 voltage. If there are heavy winds that knock the poles over, they would come close
15 to the homes in that area. There are already fiber optic lines on both sides of the
16 road. They are being turned into an industrial corridor. The Council should look at
17 where the power lines of this nature should go.
18
19 Doug Smith, 2201 Lummi Shore Road, spoke in favor of the power plant.
20 The economic benefits are obvious. He provides construction and maintenance
21 services to heavy industry. There are ripple effects to the economic benefit. There
22 are benefits for the local material and tool supplier and the truck drivers that bring
23 those things to the site and provide services to the plant during its lifetime. They
24 need balance in the issue. A dogmatic stance against industry won't help any more
25 than an attitude that promotes development at all costs, environment be damned.
26 In the eight years that Sumas Energy has been in operation, they've demonstrated
27 that they are a responsible corporate neighbor. They've successfully operated their
28 plant within the parameters of their environmental impact statement and have had
29 no incidents that have impacted the environment. He also believed the design of
30 the plant incorporates all of the current and reasonable environmental controls.
31 Sumas Energy will continue to be a responsible corporate neighbor and will take the
32 steps necessary to keep that plan in compliance. The County needs to prepare
33 infrastructure to develop the county and bring in more industry. There are many
34 low- impact industries that can be brought to the county, but the county needs the
35 infrastructure and the power to take care of them. The plant will help prepare for
36 that.
37
38 Alan Fiksdal, Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council
39 ( EFSEC) Manager, stated the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) should be
40 issued on March 16, and then there will be a 30 -day comment period. Comments
41 will be due by April 17. There will be a draft EIS hearing on April 4 at the Sumas
42 Legion Hall.
43
44 Hoag stated that date is the same date as a Council meeting.
45 Councilmember McShane is on the EFSEC and would have a conflict. She wanted to
46 be there.
47
48 Brenner stated she also wanted to attend.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 8
1
2 Fiksdal stated it would be difficult to reschedule.
3
4 Brenner stated the County Council should have an opportunity to attend the
5 meetings. Fiksdal stated the end of the comment period is the time to intervene for
6 the adjudicated proceeding, on April 17.
7
8 Linda Davis, 3862 Clearbrook Road, Sumas, asked the Council to take a very
9 serious look at the environmental part of the plant. They need to work in unison
10 and work together. Things have gotten worse and the neighbors have talked
11 amongst themselves, but have not addressed it formally. When they realized they
12 planned an expansion, it was concerning. They did not notify everyone of their
13 plans. Not everyone has gotten the word. At her work location in Sumas, no one
14 was aware of the meeting. The steam and pollutants are rolling over the existing
15 farmers in the Nooksack Valley. There will be an increase of five times in emissions
16 that are going out right now. The plant is in the middle of a flood plain. There are
17 high transmission lines.
18
19 Dean Rogers, 1712 High Noon Road, stated the citizens of Whatcom County
20 put up Initiative 490 in 1990. That initiative said they wanted all high power
21 transmission lines placed in corridors or industrial zones. The initiative passed by
22 66% of the registered voters of the county. Education of the public has been poor
23 by the company. The company has proposed five routes in three locations. Only
24 one of the proposed routes was published in the Bellingham Herald. It is possible
25 that the transmission lines could cross the Nooksack River in two different areas.
26 He questioned the impact on the spawning salmon and the cattle. He urged Council
27 to pass an emergency moratorium.
28
29 Marlene Noteboom, 8000 Thiel Road, Lynden, stated her area is an
30 agricultural and tourist area. Tour buses from Canada go to her area. Bike tours
31 also go to her area. She has to think of her children. She has electromagnetic
32 fields concerns. Stray voltage can be a major problem to the agriculture of the
33 county. Agriculture is important for the dairy farmers and the county, and also for
34 the tourism industry. The state Visitor's Bureau stated her area is the fifth largest
35 tourism in the state. She asked the Council to adopt an emergency moratorium.
36 She submitted 288 signatures on a petition of opposition.
37
38 Dirk Petty, 1376 Van Wyck Road, stated he was involved with the neighbors
39 opposing power encroachment when Puget Power planned transmission lines
40 through the county ten years ago. At that point, he had a limited understanding of
41 how power is generated, transmitted, and used. Since then, he has become better
42 educated. In 1990, Olympia asked him to sit on their board regarding
43 Electromagnetic (EMF) Task Force for the placement of transmission lines all over
44 the state. Experts have advised that careful placement of high voltage
45 transmission lines is needed because of the negative health effects. A Wertheimer -
46 Leeper study showed a correlation to cluster cancer in Denver, Colorado. Ed Leeper
47 devised an instrument to measure electromagnetic fields. It is now called the
48 Leeper meter, and he owns one. Some areas in the county show quite high
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 9
1 readings. He urged the Council to pass a moratorium so they can decide where the
2 lines should go and to get some baseline studies of the levels that occur now.
3
4 William Davis, 3862 Clearbrook Road, spoke in favor of Sumas Energy 2 if
5 the company can meet certain requirements and address the concerns. They
6 should not contribute to acid rain or electricity feedback. To build the plant, 26
7 acres of agricultural land will have to be filled in and raised three to five feet higher.
8 He questioned the amount of water that will be displaced and whether they would
9 make arrangements for flood control. If the company can't answer the concerns,
10 then they should locate the company on North Shore Drive. It would only have to
11 run 13 miles instead of 47 miles and go across residential areas instead of prime
12 agricultural areas.
13
14 Paul Vautaux, 4626 Van Wyck Lane, supported a moratorium. This company
15 has found a way to provide a corridor to the grid for their product. They are not
16 here to supply power to Whatcom County. He appreciated economic development
17 in the county. It is also important to provide the type of development that supports
18 the county. The company is here because they can extract water.
19
20 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
21
22 Vitto continued to state there is no reason to accept development in
23 Whatcom County that doesn't benefit the county. Power lines have a constant
24 humming.
25
26 Adrian Wolf, 1399 Van Wyck Road, stated he was not opposed to
27 development. There are two issues. One is the power plant and one is
28 transmission. He can accept the power plant, but has no idea what the
29 transmission is. Maps he's received say they do not go across his property, but
30 he's talked to neighbors who said there is that possibility. He questioned how the
31 Council could pass this without knowing where it will go.
32
33 Diane Petty, 1376 Van Wyck Road, stated Initiative 490 was regarding
34 development and transmission lines running through Whatcom County. The
35 initiative received more votes than all but one other measure on the ballot. Of the
36 61,572 registered voters, 64 percent voted to keep power lines out of the rural and
37 agricultural parts of the county. She supported a moratorium on the power line
38 project until it is considered safe.
39
40 Ronna Loerch, 116 Aspen Drive, Everson, stated that big is not better. There
41 will be more power plant noise and impacts on Canadian neighbors. They should
42 have something else besides a co -gen plant that fits better within the environment.
43
44 Patricia Woodall, 5572 Everson Goshen Road, stated her home on 20 acres is
45 to be her retirement income. She is trying to rehabilitate Ten Mile Creek. Similar
46 cases regarding transmission lines show that they devalue property because of the
47 perception of potential buyers that the transmission lines are harmful. The truth or
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 10
1 lack of truth that the lines are harmful is immaterial. The fear of the danger affects
2 market value. Her property will be devalued.
3
4 Sherilyn Wells, 1020 Geneva, supported the citizens who expressed concerns
5 about the power lines. There is an incredible amount of ambiguity associated with
6 the project. Every lawsuit could bring up the issue of due process. Case law
7 speaks to constitutional due process rights of fairness, certainty, and predictability.
8 These people need clarity when finding out the real facts of the matter. It does not
9 support their due process rights. The Cancer Journal has an article regarding the
10 increased cancer risks to children of exposure to electromagnetic fields.
11
12 Darrell Ehlers, 2366 Halverstick Road, Lynden stated that good health is
13 better than the taste of money. He was concerned about pollutants the plant will
14 put out. The pollutants will come from the steam, and will drop onto the soils. This
15 same water irrigates his crops. He was concerned by the deception of Sumas
16 Energy representatives. Their surveyors lied about who they were.
17
18 Mark Hubert, 4457 Dewey Road, urged the Council to consider a moratorium.
19
20 Charles Blumenfeld, Seattle, stated he represents Sumas 2. The power line
21 issue is not a simple matter. The project only includes one transmission line that is
22 six miles long. The line would go from the site and into Canada. The reason for
23 the confusion is that several routes have been considered. No power lines are
24 proposed to go through Whatcom County. The reason for the confusion is that
25 EFSEC required Sumas 2 to provide information on potential power lines through
26 the county that a power purchaser might use. Someone else who wants to transmit
27 power would build power lines through Whatcom County in the future. Sumas 2 is
28 not in the transmission business and does not intend to construct or purchase
29 power in Whatcom County, other than the one line to the Clayburn Station.
30 Because there is potential for future action, the EIS that EFSEC must prepare must
31 include potential future actions that could be connected to the project. If someone
32 wants to build transmission lines in the future, they would fall under the conditional
33 use permit process or a major development project permit process. It would be a
34 separate application filed by a separate company to the County Council.
35
36 Crawford questioned whether they are now applying for a permit to build a
37 plant, a transmission to go into Canada, and an existing gas line from Canada.
38 Blumenfeld stated that was correct.
39
40 Crawford questioned whether they would begin building the plant, power line,
41 and gas line once the permit is issued, or if they would work on getting a customer
42 to put power lines in locations the citizens are concerned about. He questioned
43 what happens at the point they get the permit. Blumenfeld stated they would next
44 seek financing, which would be dependent on having a place to sell the power. In
45 the past, power plants have not been built until there is a firm customer to supply
46 the power. Plants around these sites are being built around the country because of
47 deregulation. If the financing institution believed there was a need for power in the
48 area and that the cost of the power being produced by the plant was lower than the
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 11
1 other sources, then they would have confidence that the plant could find customers
2 who are willing to buy on the spot market.
3
4 Brenner stated Blumenfeld testified that the plant is not in the transmission
5 business. She questioned who would operate the electric and gas line. Blumenfeld
6 stated they are building the transmission line to Canada and the gas line from
7 Canada. They would be operating those six -mile long lines.
8
9 Candice Ambrosio, 1712 High Noon Road, stated they need to stay with the
10 existing power line corridors. She questioned whether there is a need. When the
11 co -gen plant in Sumas and the plant at Georgia- Pacific were built, she was told they
12 would provide enough power for one million homes. She believed the need was
13 south of Whatcom County. The plant should not use up Whatcom County natural
14 resources to get money out of it. She was concerned that power lines would turn
15 into a corridor, and the power level would be upgraded to 230 kilovolts. That is a
16 fear the citizens should have.
17
18 Dawson stated the Council has a proposal to impose a moratorium on
19 applications for conditional or land use permits for electrical power transmission
20 lines carrying 150,000 volts.
21
22 Don Nielsen, 6287 Siper Road, stated water is a big issue and a concern. To
23 continually develop that land will affect the aquifer. The people have requested a
24 moratorium. If the Council does not have enough information, they should give it
25 consideration because of the environmental impacts of this plant.
26
27 David Davidson, 917 - 12th Street, Bellingham, stated there wasn't anything
28 on the agenda about an emergency moratorium. Before they consider such a thing,
29 they need to make sure that people such as Puget Power representatives are
30 informed. There are numerous 115,000 volt lines that run right through
31 Bellingham. It is part of the grid.
32
33 Donna Hiller, 5079 Noon Road, stated she was concerned about the effects to
34 property owners if the power corporation is granted eminent domain. She urged
35 the Council to adopt the moratorium.
36
37 Tom Scott, 5641 Everson Goshen Road, stated he was concerned about the
38 accuracy and intentions of the applicants. Sumas will use up the next 25- years'
39 worth of water rights for this one company. He was concerned that the leaders of
40 the City of Sumas are grasping at tax dollars. They need to think about years from
41 now. He urged the Council to support the moratorium.
42
43 John DeVries, 3992 Bowen Road, Sumas, expressed water concerns. He is a
44 dairy farmer with 400 head of Holstein cattle. He was concerned about stray
45 voltage, which is hard to detect but is very significant. He was also concerned
46 about the safety of his children when they play outdoors. The existing steam drops
47 rust - colored particles on his yard.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 12
1 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
2
3 Dawson stated the Council has a policy of requiring 24 hours when bringing
4 something new forward. The legal staff needs time to address the ordinance. She
5 moved to put the proposed moratorium ordinance on the agenda for the next
6 meeting in order to give notice to other power companies.
7
8 Hoag stated they can't do that with an emergency moratorium. That is the
9 point of an emergency moratorium. It is intriguing that the councilmembers
10 complain all the time about getting things at the last minute, and now that is a
11 unique argument to use against the moratorium.
12
13 There are a couple of items regarding the comments made by the company's
14 lawyer. The duplicity of this company and its representatives is appalling. The
15 lawyer said that the application only includes a six -mile line to Canada. That is
16 technically correct. That is all that is in the application. They are telling everyone
17 that is where they are going to go. However, at the scoping meeting she attended,
18 they said they would not send it to Canada because it was cost - prohibitive. It was
19 cost - prohibitive because the wheeling costs were too high. The consultant said that
20 it was not a feasible option. EFSEC was also addressed by the plant because they
21 said they had a potential customer that they were negotiating with. They wanted
22 to sign papers by July. Based on that, they tried to have the process expedited.
23 They wanted to not have the environmental impact statement out at the time they
24 called for interveners. On the internet, it shows they are having negotiations with
25 Puget Power. At a meeting in Sumas, the owner of the company was directly asked
26 whether or not they are having negotiations with Canada. The answer was no.
27 Their consultant said that was never a feasible option. The president of the
28 company said they are not negotiating with Canada. They claim they have a
29 customer they want to sign with, and the internet shows they are negotiating with
30 Puget Power. There are a number of items along this line. She wanted to refute
31 what was said because it does not match the public record.
32
33 In terms of having Puget Power address the emergency moratorium, it would
34 be like asking the fox to guard the hen house.
35
36 Dawson asked legal counsel if the Council could address this as an
37 emergency ordinance.
38
39 Hoag stated they can. Because they are asking for a moratorium so that an
40 application that would be vested is not filed, the Council could not publicly say they
41 are going for a moratorium. She asked what process they would follow to make
42 sure they would follow it legally. She asked legal counsel about what they needed
43 to do. The ordinance that is before the Council is exactly like the cellular phone
44 tower ordinance and the adult entertainment ordinance, which the Council adopted
45 the same night they were brought forward. They are emergency ordinances. If
46 they put them out in front of the public, they will end up with what they are trying
47 to avoid, which is a rush on the land office by applicants trying to get something
48 vested before an emergency ordinance. This is not unusual.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 13
1
2 Dawson questioned the process with the bookstore and the cellular phone
3 tower.
4
5 Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, explained that the only
6 question she got was about how many votes are necessary to pass an emergency
7 ordinance. She had no forewarning of this moratorium. She never got a copy.
8 She had to ask for a copy from one of the councilmembers. On the previous
9 moratoriums that have come up, she's had an opportunity to provide legal review.
10 She is not a member of the public and it would have been kept confidential. She
11 cannot give competent legal advice since she hasn't been given an opportunity to
12 review the ordinance.
13
14 Brenner stated the question is whether they can legally pass a moratorium at
15 this meeting. Frakes stated that to pass an emergency ordinance, two - thirds of the
16 councilmembers must vote for it.
17
18 Dawson suggested they vote on it and, if it was passed, it would be subject
19 to legal review.
20
21 Hoag agreed.
22
23 Frakes stated that if it is passed, it goes into effect immediately.
24
25 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
26
27 Hoag stated that if they found out it wasn't legal, then it wouldn't go into
28 effect. Frakes stated they can't do it that way.
29
30 Hoag stated Michael Knapp brought the last two emergency ordinances to
31 the Council. The Council had no knowledge that legal reviewed them. The
32 wording, other than the "Whereas" statements, is exactly the same as the other
33 two emergency ordinances. The majority of the "Whereas" statements are the
34 same. Frakes stated every circumstance is different. One cannot take a
35 moratorium lightly, from a legal standpoint.
36
37 Imhof stated he received it five minutes ago and wouldn't support it. It was
38 handled sleazily. There is a lot of misinformation in this ordinance. Getting it at
39 the last moment is ludicrous. It needs to be put into committee. No one can step
40 up to the plate and request a conditional use permit, with all the necessary
41 documentation, before the Council has a chance to review it in two weeks.
42
43 Dawson stated Councilmember Hoag reviewed this. She does have support
44 for it. She was concerned about the concerns the legal counsel raised.
45
46 Hoag stated they are asking for a moratorium so they have the opportunity
47 to review the situation. This is not saying they cannot do it. It simply gives the
48 Council the opportunity to call in the experts and go over the details. There was an
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 14
1 initiative passed in 1990 that was meant to prohibit high -power transmission lines
2 going through the county. There was an ordinance that was adopted. However,
3 the language that was put in there can be gotten around on a technicality. One can
4 still put in new high -power transmission lines through new corridors. In discussions
5 regarding this, the company has said they are going to size the poles for 230 kv.
6 That means taller poles at more of an expense. They would not do that unless they
7 plan to run high -power lines through the area. All the moratorium does is put a
8 hold on applications for lines carrying 115,000 volts until the Council has had a
9 chance to study the issue. That is a reasonable thing to do. It is not something
10 that they have to worry about taking lightly. They are just asking for time to study
11 the issue. They are not saying no to anything. They are not putting a new
12 ordinance into effect. All they are doing is acknowledging concerns brought forward
13 by the public, that the concerns are valid, and that the Council wants the chance to
14 look at the concerns before an application becomes vested. That is what emergency
15 ordinances do.
16
17 Brenner stated there is an exception to the policy that prevents them from
18 acting on anything they haven't had for 24 hours. There is an exception to that
19 policy. The exception is for an emergency or something that is time critical. The
20 councilmembers all complain about things that get vested before anyone can do
21 something about them, which results in complaints from the public. This is a minor
22 thing that the Council could do to give people a little bit of assurance that this thing
23 will not be steam - rolled through. She talked to Bruce Thompson about this. He
24 needs to prove that it is safe. She is tired of industry coming into the county
25 saying there will be no smoke, fumes, dust, odors, or impacts to the neighbors and
26 there will be great jobs that will make the community wealthy. This community is
27 not wealthy. Also, Williams is planning a gas line that will go from Sumas to Custer
28 and will trespass on people's property in Custer. When they were asked about what
29 they were doing on people's property, that company said they were laying fiber -
30 optic industrial lines also. She was concerned about the idea that Whatcom County
31 is used as a pass- through corridor for other people's benefit. They have an area for
32 industry. If it can't fit there, then maybe the community doesn't need it that bad.
33 This is a community issue that is not just about the power plant and the electrical
34 wires. It is about the pipelines and all of this. She questioned when the
35 community would reach its threshold. She supported the moratorium.
36
37 Hoag stated one of the comments that was made was that they should
38 encourage economic development and the infrastructure that would be necessary
39 for that, and that this plant would do that. It would do just the opposite. The City
40 of Sumas has allocated the water for this plant alone at 1,053 acre -feet per year,
41 from their water right. That compares with 369 acre -feet per year that is allocated
42 for their entire service area for growth and industry for the next 20 years. They
43 have allocated almost more than three times the water for this one plant than they
44 allocated for industry and growth. There are a lot of industries that could go into
45 Sumas that would benefit Whatcom County, such as a processing plant for organic
46 milk. The location on the railroad lines would be ideal. Such a processing plant
47 would use water. If the power plant goes in, they couldn't have such a processing
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 15
1 plant. Lynden's water is gone. They would be excluding economic development,
2 not encouraging it.
3
4 Dawson stated there are three areas from which water rights come. They
5 are the Nooksack River, Lake Whatcom, and the aquifers. They are studying the
6 Nooksack in terms of over - allocation. They have a choice between giving farmers
7 water or giving it to a company coming into the area. That has her concerned.
8
9 Dawson asked Councilmember McShane to come back into the room.
10
11 Dawson explained that she circulated a letter asking the City of Bellingham to
12 develop a citizens' committee regarding power corridors and duplicate lines. The
13 Public Utility District (PUD) will compete with Puget Sound Energy to duplicate
14 power delivery service, so there is competition. It impacts the county, but the City
15 of Bellingham is going to be the one to address the possibility of the PUD providing
16 power to Bellingham Cold Storage and Georgia- Pacific, which are currently serviced
17 by Puget Sound Energy. She asked for consensus.
18
19 Brenner moved to send the letter. She spoke to the representative from
20 Puget Sound Energy. They are going through the process of de- regulating electrical
21 power. Once they are through that process, there will be the opportunity to lease
22 lines and pay a lease or money to the company that has the line in, such as Puget
23 Sound Energy, so they don't have to build another corridor. She would rather see
24 that than another hazard created for the community.
25
26 Motion carried 5 -0 with McShane absent.
27
28 Hoag stated the policy to not act on anything that is submitted within the last
29 24 hours includes a stipulation that they can receive information if they so wish.
30 Based on the testimony, she believed the Council would support receiving the
31 information. She moved to receive an emergency ordinance imposing a
32 moratorium on applications for conditional and /or land use permits for electrical
33 power transmission lines carrying 115,000 volts.
34
35 Motion carried 5 -0 with McShane abstaining.
36
37 Hoag stated the ordinance says nothing about the proposed plant. It simply
38 gives the Council time to review the issues that have been brought to the Council
39 prior to an application being vested. The moratorium will be for 60 days and will
40 give the Council an opportunity to review the issues. She moved to adopt the
41 emergency ordinance.
42
43 Crawford asked about Section 2 regarding State Environmental Protection Act
44 (SEPA) Exemption. He questioned why a SEPA exemption is part of this ordinance.
45
46 Sam Ryan, Interim Planning and Development Services Director, stated she
47 did not have an answer.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 16
1 Hoag stated that language was copied from the adult businesses moratorium
2 ordinance. It is a SEPA exemption that can be claimed for emergency ordinances.
3 One does not have the ability to go through a SEPA process, which requires public
4 notice that would defeat the purpose of the emergency ordinance.
5
6 Ryan questioned whether they would normally go through the SEPA official
7 who was more familiar with the exemptions.
8
9 Hoag stated the other ordinances were adopted with the SEPA exemption.
10 SEPA review would be conducted when the permanent ordinance is proposed.
11
12 Ryan questioned whether the Council was granting this particular SEPA
13 exemption.
14
15 Imhof stated the County Council has to request an exemption. Ryan stated
16 that is correct.
17
18 Imhof stated the Council has to request an exemption from the SEPA official.
19 This cannot be put on the railroad and shoved down the line. There is a process.
20
21 Hoag stated they are following the same process that was followed with the
22 last two.
23
24 Imhof stated the last two went to the SEPA official. Michael Knapp took them
25 to the SEPA official to get that exemption. The SEPA official had already signed off
26 on the exemption when Knapp brought it to the Council. The SEPA official has not
27 seen this document.
28
29 Hoag stated she was told the SEPA official did not review the other two
30 emergency ordinances until after they were adopted. The dates on the SEPA
31 review are after the emergency ordinances were adopted.
32
33 Ryan stated her question was whether the Council provides the SEPA
34 exemption itself or whether the SEPA official should have done that.
35
36 Crawford questioned whether they would want to do this without the SEPA
37 exemption. He realized there is a process and the ordinance is to get them out of
38 the process. They have not talked to anyone to get out of the process. The Council
39 can't exempt itself from something when they haven't talked to the person who
40 issues the exemptions. At the same time, in the spirit of the emergency ordinance,
41 he wanted to find the right mechanism to do that. He suggested dropping the
42 paragraph if possible.
43
44 Hoag stated they could if they wanted to. Of the two previous ordinances,
45 one did not have that language included. She included it to be safe. The Whatcom
46 County Code section 16.08.080 regarding the use of exemptions says that the
47 governmental department that initiates the proposal can determine whether they
48 are exempt. She didn't care whether it was in or out.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 17
1
2 Dawson suggested modifying it.
3
4 Brenner questioned whether the Council is considered a department. Frakes
5 stated she believed so.
6
7 Hoag questioned whether Frakes' interpretation of that section makes the
8 Council qualified to issue a SEPA exemption. Frakes stated her quick view of the
9 issue is that they would.
10
11 Crawford questioned whether voting for this means that he is in agreement
12 with all the "Whereas" statements. He thought this was supposed to be simple.
13
14 Hoag stated she would be happy to discuss them.
15
16 Crawford stated some of the "Whereas" statements are duplicative. He
17 asked to remove "Whereas" items 3 and 4 because they pertained to power lines
18 that are more than 115,000 volts. He suggested that they start with item 11, then
19 insert items 7, 12, 13, and 14, in that order. The issue is not so much about new
20 lines as it is about increasing the amperage load on existing lines, so they are
21 transitioned from distribution lines to transmission lines.
22
23 Hoag stated they have to put in new lines to do that.
24
25 Crawford stated they are talking about corridors, not necessary lines. They
26 are going to keep it at 115,000 volts.
27
28 Hoag stated they could get 115,000 volts.
29
30 Crawford suggested only keeping those five "Whereas" statements. That
31 way, he is not signing on to some of the other things that don't have a lot to do
32 with this. His suggested changes reflect the spirit of the moratorium by saying that
33 ten years ago they didn't address the fact that 115,000 -volt lines could be used as
34 transmission lines rather than distribution lines, in sense that they could increase
35 the amperage. Ordinance 90 -124, which was adopted ten years ago, simply
36 specifies those transmission lines carrying more than 115,000 volts. Those
37 transmission lines can be turned into high power transmission lines by stepping up
38 the amperage. Councilmember Hoag lobbied him hard about this. In looking at
39 this, he learned there is a concern and it could be easily converted. The Council
40 needs to take another look at the spirit of what they were trying to accomplish. He
41 only supports this for the 60 days. He will need to be persuaded in 60 days to see
42 what would be detrimental about increasing the amperage. The lines are there.
43 The corridors are there. They are talking about raising the lines. He wanted
44 Sumas 2 to tell him why they want to raise lines when there is no increase in the
45 voltage if there is no net effect. He wanted an answer about whether there are
46 effects from increasing the amperage. He was not in support of doing the
47 moratorium longer than 60 days.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 18
1 Crawford moved to change the "Whereas" statements to include only
2 statements numbered 11, 7, 12, 13, and 14, in that order.
3
4 Brenner stated they are only supposed to address the reasons for concern
5 and they are not supposed to talk about what may or may not have occurred in the
6 past. Numbers eight, nine, and ten address concerns. They give more meat to the
7 ordinance, which is something they are supposed to do. She proposed a friendly
8 amendment to include those three "Whereas" statements.
9
10 Crawford accepted the friendly amendment. He wanted to keep it simple. It
11 gets technical when they talk about voltage versus amperage. It is ambiguous.
12
13 Hoag agreed with the amendments. They will delete the "Whereas"
14 statements numbered one through six.
15
16 Motion to amend carried 4 -0 with McShane abstaining.
17
18 McShane stated he would be abstaining from all of this. It is too close to the
19 Sumas 2 issue and he didn't believe he could vote on it.
20
21 Brenner stated this is not about the plant. It is only about the power lines in
22 general.
23
24 Hoag stated it is not in EFSEC's jurisdiction.
25
26 McShane stated he realized that. He believed it was too close. He didn't
27 want to give any indication where he is and he wanted to be open- minded in the
28 future, as a member of the EFSEC Council. He apologized to all involved.
29
30 Hoag stated she understood his concern. On the EFSEC Council it is
31 important to represent the county. It is also important that, as a councilmember,
32 he be able to represent the citizens.
33
34 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side 8.)
35
36 Hoag stated it is a separate issue. It is not a part of the Sumas 2 application.
37 It is not within EFSEC's jurisdiction. This portion of it can be voted on, regardless
38 of the EFSEC power plant application.
39
40 McShane stated Hoag may be right on a technical level. He wanted to
41 represent the county's position on the EFSEC Council the best he can. He was
42 concerned that if he voted on this ordinance, or even if he offered an opinion, that
43 may be jeopardized.
44
45 Hoag stated Councilmember McShane serves on the same Natural Resources
46 Committee with her, so she was not able to talk with him privately because it would
47 have been a quorum of that committee. That committee was looking at this issue.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 19
1 However, she felt that he would support this because he shares the public's
2 concerns.
3
4 Imhof called for the question.
5
6 Hoag asked McShane to reconsider abstaining.
7
8 Motion to adopt failed 4 -1 with Imhof opposed and McShane abstaining.
9
10 Dawson stated the ordinance would come forward at the next meeting.
11
12 McShane stated he would get legal opinion from EFSEC about whether or not
13 he could vote on the ordinance.
14
15 Ryan stated the EIS won't be completed until April 17.
16
17 Hoag stated the draft EIS will be out on March 16.
18
19 (Clerk's Note: The Council took a 5- minute break.)
20
21
22 CONSENT AGENDA
23
24 Imhof reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
25 moved approval of consent agenda items one through five.
26
27 Motion to approve items one through five carried unanimously.
28
29 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
30 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE
31 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
32 BOARD FOR THE LOCAL WORKFORCE INVESTMENT AREA (AB2000-
33 114)
34
35 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #00-
36 15 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, MCASPHALT INDUSTRIES,
37 FOR THE ANNUAL SUPPLY OF ASPHALTIC EMULSIONS, IN THE
38 APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $350,000 (AB2000 -115)
39
40 3. REQUEST BY THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY
41 COMMITTEE (FCZDAC) FOR APPROVAL BY COUNCIL FOR AN
42 ALTERNATE COST SHARE FORMULA FOR THE POINT ROBERTS
43 LIGHTHOUSE PARK RESTORATION PROJECT WITH COST TO THE FCZD
44 $102,065.21 (AB2000 -116)
45
46 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
47 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
48 SERVICES AND THE EVERGREEN AIDS FOUNDATION TO PROVIDE FOR
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 20
1 VOLUNTEER AND CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR CLIENTS
2 INFECTED WITH HIV AND /OR DIAGNOSED WITH AIDS, IN THE
3 CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $21,000 (AB2000 -117)
4
5 5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
6 INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH
7 AND HUMAN SERVICES AND THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
8 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, TO SUPPORT NUTRITION EDUCATION
9 CLASSES AT THE BELLINGHAM FOOD BANK, IN THE AMOUNT OF
10 $15,520 (AB2000 -118)
11
12
13 OTHER ITEMS
14
15 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.88, RENAMING
16 THE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE TO THE FINANCIAL
17 MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP AND CHANGING SCOPE AND
18 RESPONSIBILITIES (AB2000 -110)
19
20 Imhof reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
21 moved approval.
22
23 Motion carried unanimously.
24
25 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 3 (AB2000-
26 111)
27
28 Imhof reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
29 moved approval with the deletion of the $15,000 appropriation for the Economic
30 Development Council. That item was held in committee.
31
32 Motion carried unanimously.
33
34 3. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS RELATIVE TO CANYON CREEK ALLUVIAL
35 FAN AREA, REGARDING A REQUEST FROM THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE
36 DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO ENACT A MORATORIUM ON
37 NEW DEVELOPMENT AND TARGET THE AREA FOR A VOLUNTARY
38 BUYOUT PROGRAM (AB2000 -114)
39
40 Imhof reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
41 stated that this item was held in committee. The Public Works Department will
42 bring forward some recommendations and options as soon as possible.
43
44 4. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED
45 APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILED BY SEBULON
46 WERRE FOR " "HILLSIDE ESTATES" (PUD99 -0003) (AB2000 -089)
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 21
1 Hoag reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated this was
2 held from the previous meeting because the file lacked a water availability letter
3 that was required by the code. It was moved forward from committee without a
4 recommendation. The applicant said the City of Bellingham voted last week to
5 approve water for them, but the County does not technically have a letter of
6 availability. There was consideration of approving it with the condition that the
7 letter would be submitted.
8
9 Crawford moved approval with the conditions stated by the Hearing
10 Examiner, as originally presented to the Council.
11
12 Hoag stated the Planning Department said they had been processing other
13 Planned Unit Developments with the condition that the letter had to eventually be
14 provided. There was a question of whether or not the County was treating this one
15 differently. Staff said they will make sure to get the letter from now on, before it
16 comes to the Council for approval.
17
18 Motion to approve carried 5 -1 with McShane opposed.
19
20 S. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED
21 APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILED BY HILLSIDE
22 ASSOCIATES (DICK SKEERS) FOR "'GOVERNOR ROAD" (PUD 98-
23 0001 /LSS98 -0010) (AB2000 -112)
24
25 Hoag reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated the
26 committee recommended approval. Many citizens came forward and asked that
27 this development be held up until Mr. Skeers fixes the siltation problems with his
28 previous development. Legal counsel advised that the County Council could not do
29 that. They've requested Planning and Development Services Department staff to
30 work towards resolving that problem. They have been working hard on that
31 problem.
32
33 Dawson stated the developer has also been working very hard to solve the
34 problem. This is unusually fine soil. That is what led to that problem.
35
36 Motion carried unanimously.
37
38 6. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1999 OPEN SPACE
39 TIMBER APPLICATIONS (AB2000 -120)
40
41 Hoag reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated the
42 committee recommended approval. The committee unanimously supported five of
43 the six applications. She did not support the Breakey (Unger) application because
44 there is a clear cut in the Lake Whatcom watershed. She wanted a different harvest
45 plan submitted for that. If they evaluated that proposal, it would have less than
46 seven points and would not qualify.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 22
1 Dawson stated it is difficult to grow Douglas Fir on anything less than a five -
2 acre clear cut because Douglas Fir needs light to grow.
3
4 Hoag stated they don't have to plant Douglas Fir. That is their choice.
5
6 Brenner stated she's grown a lot of Douglas Fir on two acres. There is plenty
7 of space to grow some if they want.
8
9 Hoag questioned whether they could take each application separately.
10
11 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated they could direct staff to
12 write two different resolutions.
13
14 Dawson questioned whether there was any support for separating them out.
15
16 McShane stated they should be left together. The application would still
17 score above seven.
18
19 Motion to approve the resolution in its entirety carried 5 -1 with Hoag
20 opposed.
21
22 Brenner requested a committee discussion on ways to be more flexible on
23 evaluating open space. The County would have the ability to say no more often.
24
25 7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A NEW
26 LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE BIRCH BAY SEAFOOD
27 RESTAURANT, 7829 BIRCH BAY DRIVE, BLAINE (AB2000 -122)
28
29 Imhof moved to approve.
30
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32
33 8. REQUEST CONFIRMATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
34 DR. JANICE MARCHBANKS TO HER FIRST FULL TERM ON THE ETHICS
35 COMMISSION, WITH A TERM END DATE OF MARCH 7, 2004 (AB2000-
36 123)
37
38 Brenner moved to approve.
39
40 Motion carried 5 -1 with Imhof opposed.
41
42 9. REQUEST CONFIRMATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
43 THE FOLLOWING CITIZENS AS MEMBERS OF THE AGRICULTURAL
44 ADVISORY COMMITTEE, FOR AN EIGHTEEN MONTH TERM AS SET
45 FORTH IN RESOLUTION #2000 -006: CHARLES H. ANTHOLT, MARTY
46 MABERRY, TERRI J. NOTEBOOM, SHERMAN POLINDER, JOHN
47 STEENSMA, JOHN A. GILLIES, JEFFERY D. BEDLINGTON, DEBORAH L.
48 DEJONG, ROGER L. VAN DYKEN, JEFFERY L. CANAAN, MICHAEL B.
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 23
1 BOXX, RUSSELL SIMONSON, AND THOMAS R. THORNTON (AB2000-
2 124)
3
4 Brenner questioned who represented the agricultural community.
5
6 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated they all do. They are
7 trying to represent the different agricultural crop industries and different types of
8 farming methods.
9
10 Brenner questioned whether anyone was a tree farmer.
11
12 Hoag stated Thornton is a tree - farmer. He has Cloud Mountain Nursery,
13 which raises apple trees. He sells the trees and the apples.
14
15 Brenner moved to approve by acclamation and stated there is a Ferndale tree
16 farmer, Jack Strauss, who should be on the committee.
17
18 Hoag stated one of the applicants is her brother.
19
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21
22 10. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING CONTINUATION OF
23 FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR PUD #1 WATER RIGHTS REVIEW EFFORT
24 (AB2000 -097) (FOLLOW -UP TO 2/22 DISCUSSION)
25
26 Imhof moved to approve continued financial support for Public Utility District
27 (PUD) #1.
28
29 Dawson stated she talked to Water Division Manager Bruce Roll, who
30 addressed her concerns. The PUD is continuing to do the exact same thing the
31 Council approved six months ago. They are making two water rights piles of
32 probable and improbable water rights, just by looking at the land use that is
33 happening. The second stage is where they look at the land. The third stage is to
34 identify the areas on a map. This is very benign. To get someone up and running
35 and to train someone to oversee employees would be cumbersome. It is better to
36 go with it the way it is.
37
38 Brenner stated she didn't support it. Saying it's difficult to get people up and
39 running is a scare tactic. She was concerned about phase two. There were
40 concerns raised. The way this process is going, they will spend a lot of time and
41 money and no one will feel like they have ownership to this. People will feel left
42 out. She brought the PUD issue up, and was told by staff that she was the only one
43 who has concerns about this. That is not true. People in the Planning Unit said
44 they have had concerns from early on, but there was nowhere to get their concerns
45 addressed. There was intimidation that this will cost more and take longer. If, at
46 that meeting, they decided to let PUD finish stage one and go out for a request for
47 proposals (RFP) for stage two, they would have stage two all set up by the time
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 24
1 they are finished with stage one. This is stalling the process even more. Also,
2 those meetings need to be audiotaped.
3
4 Hoag stated she didn't support the PUD doing this work. When she read
5 through the Planning Unit minutes, she found a number of caucuses shared her
6 concerns. She questioned why the County representative abstained from the vote
7 on this.
8
9 Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated the Council sought
10 Planning Unit input and direction on whether it should continue and on the various
11 options. He wasn't directed to vote yea or nay, because he wasn't given direction
12 to support or not support what the Planning Unit came up with. He didn't have the
13 opportunity to gain Council consensus before he walked into the meeting.
14
15 Hoag questioned whether Roll represented to the Planning Unit the concerns
16 the Council expressed regarding the possible conflict of interest with the PUD and
17 the fact they want consideration of a request for qualifications (RFQ) process. Roll
18 stated he did.
19
20 Brenner stated one person testified that the PUD is a public agency, so they
21 are answerable to everyone. However, Tom Anderson, PUD Manager, said that the
22 PUD is only answerable to its customers. She wanted the County Council to have
23 the Planning Unit members talk to them about concerns. Roll stated the format of
24 facilitated summary is the format adopted by the Planning Unit as the way they
25 wanted the meeting to be taken forward. The minutes are a facilitated summary of
26 what transpired.
27 McShane stated he supported the PUD. This is a close call. As a Council,
28 they need to think about phase two and whether they should continue supporting
29 the PUD or if staff should come up with other ideas that would be more strongly
30 supported.
31
32 Brenner stated that there were concerns raised by at least four caucus
33 people on the Planning Unit. The people feel like there is nowhere to take the
34 concerns. She was concerned about the process of using facilitator summaries
35 instead of audiotaping the meetings. People get intimidated and don't want to be
36 the odd person out.
37
38 Motion carried 4 -2 with Hoag and Brenner opposed.
39
40 INTRODUCTION ITEMS
41
42 Hoag moved to add the transmission line application moratorium ordinance.
43
44 Imhof moved to accept Introduction Item, including both options one and
45 two for AB2000 -126.
46
47 Motion carried unanimously.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 25
1 (Clerk's Note: Imhof left the meeting.)
2
3 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTERS 20.83
4 AND 20.38 REGARDING NONCONFORMING LOTS AND LOT
5 CONSOLIDATION (AB2000 -075A) (HEARING TO BE SCHEDULED)
6
7 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 99 -071 REGARDING THE
8 PROVISIONAL SHORT -TERM PLANNING AREA FOR THE DRAYTON
9 HARBOR AREA OF THE BLAINE URBAN GROWTH AREA. (AB2000-
10 126)
11
12 3. ORDINANCE IMPOSING A MORITORIUM ON APPLICATION FOR
13 CONDITIONAL AND /OR LAND USE PERMITS FOR ELECTRICAL POER
14 TRANSMISION LINES CARRYING 115,000 VOLTS (AB2000 -127)
15
16
17 OTHER BUSINESS
18
19 Hoag stated there have been changes to the lot consolidation ordinance.
20 One change did not come up during the committee meeting. Finding 13 should be
21 amended, "...zoning ordinance to Bate reduce situations in which it is applied..."
22 She so moved.
23
24 Brenner stated that small of a change could be done after the public hearing.
25
26 Hoag agreed and withdrew her motion.
27
28 Hoag stated a change made during the committee meeting was to language
29 on packet page 199, ".072(4) That the relief application meets the approval criteria
30 of WCC 20.84.220(3) through 20.84.220(8)." She so moved.
31
32 Dawson stated they would take all committee changes at one time.
33
34 Hoag stated another change made during committee was to language on
35 packet page 199, the following paragraph, "...except that the approval criteria of
36 WCC 20.84.235 20.84.220(1) and 20.84.220(2) shall not apply." She so moved.
37
38 Brenner stated wording in section .072(2) was amended for clarification.
39 Because they are not voting on this tonight, all they have to do is move to
40 introduce it as amended.
41
42 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated she would provide a clean
43 copy to put in the packet that would be exactly as approved during committee.
44
45 Hoag moved to introduce the ordinance amending Whatcom County
46 Code Chapters 20.83 and 20.38 regarding nonconforming lots and lot
47 consolidation (AB2000 -075A) as amended in committee.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 26
1 Dawson stated they would vote on the amendments to the lot consolidation
2 ordinance.
3
4 Motion to amend the lot consolidation ordinance carried 5 -0 with Imhof and
5 Nelson absent.
6
7 Motion to introduce as amended carried 5 -0 with Imhof and Nelson absent.
8
9 Hoag stated they had a problem last year with getting the Comprehensive
10 Plan amendments and zoning text amendments through the Planning and
11 Development Committee. She sat down with staff to determine how to make the
12 process work more efficiently. One of the items that was under consideration by
13 the Planning Commission was to change the process so the Council could get the
14 items as they come from the Planning Commission. This resolution is to direct staff
15 to bring that ordinance to the Council for processing in a more timely manner. It
16 came from committee with a unanimous recommendation for approval. Goodwin
17 stated that it requires a supermajority vote because it is an emergency, even
18 though it is only a resolution.
19
20 Hoag moved to approve a resolution initiating emergency zoning text
21 amendments to the Whatcom County Code Chapter 20.90 regarding the
22 procedure and timeline for amending the Whatcom County zoning code and
23 zoning map (AB2000 -128).
24
25 Motion carried 5 -0 with Imhof and Nelson absent.
26
27 Hoag stated the Planning and Development Committee also discussed a
28 Comprehensive Plan correction. When the Comprehensive Plan corrections came
29 through previously, there was a correction made to page 2 -30 that should have
30 been made to page 8 -30. She moved to make the correction to page 2 -30.
31
32 Dawson questioned whether this was a scrivener's error. Goodwin stated it
33 is chapter eight, page 8 -30. They are changing the reference so staff will correct
34 the number in the right chapter.
35
36 Motion carried 5 -0 with Imhof and Nelson absent.
37
38
39 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
40
41 McShane stated that on Friday there will be a Natural Resources Committee
42 work session at 10:00 a.m. regarding the scope and membership of a surface
43 mining advisory committee. The committee was supposed to be created as a part
44 of the Comprehensive Plan. He asked the councilmembers to attend the meeting if
45 possible. This may be a contentious issue. If the Council moves forward, he would
46 need all councilmembers' input.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, Page 27
1 Hoag suggested that the councilmembers who do not attend listen to the
2 audiotape of the meeting.
3
4 Dawson questioned whether there are already ideas about the committee.
5
6 McShane stated he has some ideas. He wants a broad spectrum of
7 representation, but doesn't want a very large committee. The primary topic he
8 would want the committee to discuss is what the development regulations are for
9 administrative approval of gravel mines within mineral resource overlay areas.
10 There could be some issues there. The committee also might want to take on
11 upcoming issues. There will be a study from the State Department of Natural
12 Resources that may address the gravel resource issues in Whatcom County. It
13 would be good to have a standing committee that looks at the report to determine
14 if it accomplishes the study at a level that the Council needs to make future
15 decisions about future mineral resource overlays.
16
17 (Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side A.)
18
19 Hoag stated they have citizens that have brought forward concerns and
20 requests that the committee should address.
21
22 McShane stated he received in the mail a meeting notice from the
23 Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC). The meeting is on Monday,
24 March 13 regarding the Shoreline Management Program Guidelines. One of the
25 concerns the Council expressed in its letter was a concern about endangered
26 species 4(d) rules matching what the guidelines say. That issue has become a high
27 priority with the State Department of Ecology. They are proposing to have a
28 discussion with local governments about two paths that could be taken regarding
29 the shoreline guidelines. One path would be a voluntary path, but would include
30 avoiding conflict with 4(d) rules. He may attend that meeting, and would like input
31 from the councilmembers.
32
33 Goodwin stated John Thompson, Water Resources Division, and Amy de
34 Vera, Planning Division, may also attend.
35
36 Brenner stated there was a meeting in Custer last night. A letter was sent
37 from Williams Pipeline that included a survey permission slip. The citizens were
38 instructed that, if they didn't return the survey slip, the company would consider
39 the citizen to be consenting to the company. There is a problem with what they are
40 doing. They told three different people that the line was going to go in three
41 different places.
42
43 Dawson stated she talked to Williams. They've always talked about using the
44 same corridor.
45
46 Brenner stated the letter says they may deviate from the existing corridors.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 3/7/2000, 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
Hoag asked that they schedule this for committee. It is something the
Council should review before an application is filed so they know where the Council
and the public stand on the issue.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:56 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, 3/7/2000, Page 29