Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil May 2 20001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Regular County Council May 2, 2000 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene Dawson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Also Present: Dan McShane L. Ward Nelson Connie Hoag Barbara Brenner Sam Crawford Robert Imhof ANNOUNCEMENTS Absent: None Dawson announced there was discussion with Council Clerk Dana Brown -Davis and Deputy Clerk Marina Engels regarding councilmember travel (AB2000 -017) during the Committee of the Whole meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETING: SPECIAL COUNTY COUNCIL FOR APRIL 17, 2000 Imhof moved approval. Motion carried unanimously. Hoag stated she wanted to make corrections to the minutes. She would bring the corrections forward at the next meeting. OPEN SESSION Rick Benner, 4406 Minaker Road, Sumas, spoke on the formation of the Surface Mining Advisory Committee. He read from the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, item five of the resources lands action plan in the mineral resources section. The phrase, "consisting of representatives of diverse interests" doesn't mean that all members consist of the sand and gravel industry, neighbors to pits, attorneys, or another group. It requires a balance so that all sides can be heard on difficult issues of conflict between land uses. It is very easy to address conflict when a committee views issues from one side. Balanced does not necessarily mean equal numbers. A representative from the sand and gravel Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 1 1 industry will have support from the industry's attorney and lobbyist. A 2 representative of the public stands alone. The result is an unbalanced committee 3 with a 3 -to -1 ration, in favor of the industry. He asked the Council to carefully 4 consider the composition of the committee, choose members that understand the 5 difficult and conflicting issues surrounding mineral resource extraction and 6 processing, choose members that are open- minded and willing to try something 7 new, choose members that don't have a specific agenda or is an expert at word - 8 smithing, and choose a committee that is truly balanced. For many people who live 9 adjacent to pits, the quality of the hours they spend at home will depend on the 10 Council's selection. 11 12 Shirley Fuller Nielsen, 6287 Siper Road, Everson, spoke on the Surface 13 Mining Advisory Committee creation and membership. There are eight active 14 surface mines in her neighborhood. Henceforth, she will refuse to apologize to 15 anyone for trying to protect her home, her neighborhood, and her county. The 16 committee is needed and long overdue. It must be impartial and fair to be of any 17 value. The deck cannot be stacked. The citizens on the committee do not have to 18 be experts to be of help to everyone, but citizens must be at the table during all 19 discussions, reviews, presentations, and negotiations regarding surface mining in 20 Whatcom County. They should be advocates of prevention. The public well -being 21 should be of paramount concern. The Council needs to carry out its mandate and 22 serve the people it represents. 23 24 Elerine Shields, 1902 Halverstick Road, Lynden, agreed with the previous two 25 speakers. She is concerned that too much gravel is taken in her neighboring 26 pastureland. The number of citizens on the committee should remain at four 27 citizens. 28 29 Phyllis Kronenberg, 2351 E. Pole Road, Everson, spoke on the formation of 30 the Surface Mining Advisory Committee. From 1991 through 1994, she served as a 31 volunteer on the original Surface Mining Advisory Committee. It created the draft 32 document for the mineral resource section of the Whatcom County Comprehensive 33 Plan. The process for citizen involvement and representation was not adequate or 34 equal. Citizen members were intimidated by an overwhelming surface mining 35 presence on the committee, including a former County councilmember and an 36 appointed attorney for the gravel industry. As a result of this unbalance, the 37 citizens felt defeated and withdrew their presence. The remaining few experienced 38 industry domination and disappointment in the final document. Tonight, they have 39 an opportunity to prevent a repeat performance of that process by adopting the 40 ordinance for a surface mining advisory committee that has adequate 41 representation by adjacent landowners who may be adversely impacted by mining 42 activities. The proposed committee must be fair and reasonable, and not industry - 43 oriented. It needs to be responsive to citizens' concerns. With proper member 44 balance, the necessary and required work will be accomplished. They need to 45 agree on a balanced committee that addresses the quality of life concerns. 46 Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 2 1 Brenner questioned whether Kronenberg was on the first committee. 2 Kronenberg stated she was on three phases of the previous Surface Mining Advisory 3 Committee. 4 5 Brenner questioned how many industry and how many citizen 6 representatives there were. Kronenberg stated Councilmember Brenner would 7 have to ask the Planning Department. There were a number of representatives 8 from the industry and people allied with development and business. 9 10 Hoag stated there were more citizens, in actual numbers. On the makeup of 11 the committee, there were more citizens than mineral resource people. Kronenberg 12 stated there were other people that were supporting the industry. There were 13 people from building, construction, and contracting industry. There were also 14 several people from forestry and technical advisors. 15 16 Brenner questioned how the previous committee was organized. 17 18 Mark Poland, organizer of Bellingham Million Mom March, stated it is a 19 national event that will take place across the country. It will happen in Bellingham 20 on Sunday, Mothers Day, May 14. The purpose is to end violence, specifically gun 21 related. Over 4,000 children, or 12 children a day, die from gun violence. In a 22 1995 study, there were two handgun deaths in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in 23 Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United States. 24 211,000 hand guns and 382,000 long guns were stolen in non - commercial thefts in 25 1994. In a 1994 study of gun owners, slightly more than half of privately owned 26 firearms were stored unlocked. Sixteen percent were stored unlocked and loaded. 27 A perfect example today is that a foster child had access to an unlocked and loaded 28 gun, and shot it this afternoon in Custer, Washington. The purpose of the march is 29 to raise public awareness and to let the national legislators know they are no longer 30 willing to stand by and let this happen any longer. It will take place at Civic Field at 31 12:30. There will be a rally with music by Tim McHugh and Equinox, among others. 32 There will also be public speakers. The march will go from Civic Field to Bloedel- 33 Donovan Park. 34 35 Nannette Nielsen, 1108 Island Drive, Lummi Island, spoke for herself and her 36 neighbors on Lummi Island regarding surface mining. She has been on the board 37 for Scenic Estates and chaired the quarry committee. Her neighbors are concerned 38 about having a voice in the process, and have neither the funds that the industry 39 has, nor a professional spokesperson to be their advocate. Their confidence in the 40 local enforcement has become eroded. They are alarmed that the Surface Mining 41 Advisory Committee will become over - represented by the industry. The Council 42 needs to consider the fear and frustration of the individuals. 43 44 Jim Weedman, 5747 Hannegan Road, Bellingham, Whatcom Builders, stated 45 he went to all the meetings regarding the formation and membership of the Surface 46 Mining Advisory Committee. He is concerned, like the previous speakers, about the 47 make up of the committee. It has shifted from a workable balance to a possibly 48 lopsided committee that cannot come to any conclusion or balance. Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 3 1 2 Bruce Haas, 3501 Alm Road, Everson, spoke on the Surface Mining 3 Committee formation and membership. It is needed. He provided an example of 4 what is going on now. The Hoy gravel pit next to his property is putting in a road 5 that was not approved or permitted. The County stopped the owner three times. It 6 shows that, when the gravel mining people put the regulation in force, there was a 7 lot of talk about best management practices. Best management practices aren't 8 put into place. That is why the Surface Mining Advisory Committee is needed. 9 10 Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, spoke about "ruralurbia." 11 Factors have lead to population growth, resulting in higher service costs for the 12 rural areas. Services in rural areas are subsidized. It stops a free economy from 13 working. If they don't have a free economy, people don't always make the best 14 choices. The costs to serving the rural areas have steadily been going up. They 15 need to take a look at the systems of subsidies that are there to decide if they 16 should be continued or removed. Farmers need to be out there, but there are a lot 17 of people that don't need to be there. It is a lifestyle choice for them. 18 19 Leonard Lindstrom, Bellingham, stated he does not speak the Bible dialect 20 very well. He does not socialize more with the people around him. He talks 21 English. Teachers can talk among themselves without any use of violence or 22 threats. Teachers respect the people they talk with. Preachers don't respect the 23 people and talk down to people, so no one listens to them. Eliminate the violence 24 from this country. 25 26 Nate Kronenberg, 2351 E. Pole Road, Everson, spoke on the formation of the 27 Surface Mining Advisory Committee. Three years ago, the Whatcom County Council 28 adopted the Comprehensive Plan. Chapter eight is the portion of the plan devoted 29 to mineral resource lands and concluded with twelve action plans. These plans 30 addressed future tasks for the County and the course to be directed by the Council. 31 To date, there has been little or no action taken on these directives. Action plan 32 five speaks to the implementation to the regulatory program. More than anything, 33 it addresses the goal to deal with those areas where there is a conflict between land 34 uses. That is what they have to deal with. They have to maintain an advisory 35 committee of representatives of diverse interest. He asked that the Council acts on 36 the plan and vote to adopt a surface mining advisory committee. There has been 37 discussion regarding the composition of the committee, especially the ratio of rural 38 residents living adjacent to surface mines. He counted the rural residences within a 39 half mile radius of a gravel mine near his home at Pole and Mission roads. There 40 are 128 residences. In census terms, that translates to more than 384 people. 41 That is a ration of 384 to one. That statistic clearly states the number of people 42 affected by one surface mining operation, in terms of morning and evening traffic 43 on small county roads, noise, and pollution. He urged the Council to respond to the 44 concerns of rural residents, many of whom are present at this meeting, and adopt a 45 Surface Mining Advisory Committee ordinance that is representative and can 46 properly address the land use concerns. 47 Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 4 1 Torrey Joyce, 1190 Beach Avenue, Lummi Island, stated the quarry has 2 changed her life drastically. She stated she represented the people of Lummi 3 Island. 4 5 Darlyn Delboca, 7208 Lankhaar Road, Lynden, stated she supports Mr. 6 Benner, Mr. Kronenberg, and other citizens who spoke about the impacts of the 7 surface mining industry. The Council needs to fulfill its mandate, which is to form a 8 balanced Surface Mining Advisory Committee. A month ago, she submitted a 9 formal complaint. She followed the procedure for responding to the negative 10 impacts on surface mining. The response that she and others got from Mr. 11 Goldthorp said the County is too busy now and they will respond to her complaint 12 later. She was recently awakened by a non - compliant activity. She questioned 13 how she gets recourse. 14 15 Harry Skinner, 6600 Goodwin Road, Everson, stated the idea of having a 16 regulatory body assembled to put together a regulatory program, by nature, does 17 not allow them to put people on it who have a vested financial interest in the 18 decisions. It is probably not realistic that they won't have a gravel industry 19 representative on the committee. He is not trying to impugn the character and 20 contribution of the gravel people to the community. The logic, and state law, 21 doesn't allow them to do that. It is not fair to ask someone to make decisions that 22 will adversely affect his or her financial future, and put that person in a position to 23 make a decision on it in terms of policy. Not withstanding, they have made great 24 progress. People on the Council have gone through this patiently. He supported 25 the Council's efforts to keep open, fair minded, and informed individuals on the 26 committee that will have a wide -open mandate to deal with conflicts, impacts, 27 public safety, and management of the risks and relationships that the gravel mining 28 and surface mining industry has. 29 30 Jack Smart, 210 Sable Drive, Everson, stated there is a lot of noise, dust, 31 and safety hazards that need to be addressed. The proposal to surface mine 60 32 acres behind his property is controlled by Whatcom County. The state and federal 33 laws are in the application, but none are regulated or controlled by the state or 34 federal people. Whatcom County and people in the industry are supposed to do 35 this. He recently lost his dog, and when looking in gravel pits, he found lots of 36 dead animals, pollutants, and hydraulic fluid. The water table is higher than the 37 Nooksack River. The waterfowl picks up the pollution from the equipment that is 38 there. He questioned where the water goes and who monitors the spills in the pits. 39 40 Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, stated she is speaking 41 on behalf of the Whatcom Sand and Gravel Association. They sent a letter dated 42 May 1 to the County Council. One thing has been constant since she has been 43 working with this industry for the last six years. There has been a continual change 44 of regulation. There have only been nine months in which she hasn't served on a 45 committee of some sort to look at new regulations of some kind. There are 46 regulations. There are regulations with the state Department of Natural Resources 47 that were updated in 1993. The state Department of Ecology (DOE), regulations 48 were updated last year. Whatcom County had the surface mining committee she Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 5 1 worked on. Her perception of that committee was a little different. She felt they 2 had a good working relationship on that committee, which had good dialogue. The 3 committee is to be advisory to the County Council and to Planning and 4 Development Services. In order to be advisory, the committee has to understand 5 the issues and do more than speculate. They need people who can lend their 6 expertise to the issues. What has been overlooked is that this is a product they all 7 need. There are many times that the Council votes to award contracts that involve 8 some mineral resources. It affects everyone who is a taxpaying citizen in this 9 county. It doesn't just affect the people who live nearby or the people who own 10 gravel pits. It affects everyone. They need members who can deal with the issues 11 based on the facts and in a professional manner. They suggested some changes to 12 the committee make up. She asked that the Council form a balanced committee 13 who will provide the Council with the information it needs. The issue of surface 14 mining individuals participating should not even be an issue. Everyone has a 15 vested interest. Even the people who live next door have a financial vested 16 interest. She asked that the committee deal with the facts in addition to fear and 17 frustration. 18 19 Gary Orr, Pacific Concrete, 2301 Huron Street, Bellingham, spoke on the 20 Surface Mining Advisory committee. They need more work on the people that are 21 involved on the committee. During the committee three years ago, there was a 22 lack of technical people. A lot of the problems today stem from technical problems. 23 They need people who can discuss and understand reclamation. They need people 24 who can understand what a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 25 ( NPDES) system is, what the Department of Natural Resources does, and what 26 happens when the DOE comes to check NPDES permits. This is lacking in the 27 committee. They need more technical ability in the committee so it will do a better 28 job for the Council and the citizens. 29 30 Linda Compton- Smith, 2369 E. Pole Road, stated a previous councilmember 31 once said it might not be so bad living next to a gravel pit. She lives next to a 32 gravel pit. There are several around her. When she and her husband bought their 33 five -acre mini farm, it was zoned one unit per five acres (R5). It was a peaceful, 34 quiet neighborhood. The field across from her land is now designated a mineral 35 resource land and was just issued a permit for 50 acres to be turned into a gravel 36 pit. She knows what it is like to be wakened at 6:30 a.m. by gravel trucks driving 37 by her home, be afraid to go for a walk or ride a bike, fear for her children's safety 38 if they go for a walk or ride a bike, have unfit water, hear the blasting of hunting in 39 gravel mining areas that attract waterfowl. She begged for fair representation on 40 the committee. 41 42 Tom Brown, 7024 Mt. Baker Highway, spoke on the mineral resource lands 43 (MRL) planning process of the Comprehensive Plan. It has been stated that the 44 MRL process was without regard to public input, that public input wasn't allowed, 45 and that no thought was put into the process. Some feel that, because of the lack 46 of progress, the Surface Mining Advisory Committee should go back and review the 47 action taken by the previous Council. He discussed what he felt really took place 48 during the comprehensive planning process on MRL's and other issues such as Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 6 1 farming and logging. No one got exactly what he or she wanted. It doesn't mean 2 the process was flawed. The Council and media should remember the pit at the 3 south end of Lake Whatcom. It had been in business for many years. It supplied 4 materials for Sudden Valley and elsewhere. The public testimony on that site alone 5 took many hours and probably days. In the end, it was not granted MRL status. 6 The Council should remember the Lummi Island quarry. The testimony also took a 7 very long time. The quarry was granted MRL status but not as large as originally 8 requested. The MRL site south of Sumas had a gas line within the MRL boundary. 9 After many hours of testimony, the MRL line west of the gas line was denied. The 10 MRL setback was more than triple the advised setback. The testimony about the 11 MRL site west of Sumas, along the border, took days. It wasn't allowed. The MRL 12 site adjacent to the Glen at Maple Falls was reduced substantially after several 13 hours of testimony and discussion. None of the people or media who spoke or 14 wrote on the opposite side of the final decision felt their voices were heard; 15 however, most councilmembers listened, asked questions, and then voted on what 16 they felt was best overall. 17 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 18 Brown continued to state that there was a very comprehensive process 19 involved to reach the plan they arrived at. He hoped the Council would focus the 20 Surface Mining Advisory Committee on the action items within the Plan and not 21 debate the decisions that were reached. 22 23 Fred Gilbert, 7017 Mission Road, stated he owns a foster home. During the 24 past five years, about 40 children have gone to his house. Now, they have three 25 adopted children and a two - year -old baby with asthma. He is worried about not 26 being able to qualify as a state foster home because of the gravel pit being so close 27 to their home. They enjoy having the kids in their house and enjoy helping. The 28 children need to be represented adequately. 29 30 Jim Schuster, 2347 E. Pole Road, stated he lives next to a gravel pit. Gravel 31 pits surround him. When he and his wife built their home twenty years ago, they 32 built it on five acres in the woods. They were adjacent to various farms. They 33 thought that was the life they would live in the country. Now there is a 45 -acre 34 gravel pit next to them. They are faced with the very real possibility that the pit 35 could become the site of an asphalt plant. It puts a lot of fear in their hearts about 36 the quality of their life and the value of their property. He urged the Council to 37 make sure the committee has adequate representation from people who are not 38 going to benefit from selling gravel. 39 40 Alvin Starkenburg, 7416 Hannegan Road, stated he also attended the five 41 committee meetings and observed a lack of understanding about what has gone on 42 in the past. He personally has been involved since 1990. All of that work is not 43 being recognized as efforts made towards making improvements in the industry. 44 There have been changes regarding land use issues. In every category, there will 45 always be those that don't follow the rules and regulations. He sympathized with 46 people who are impacted. He is impacted where he lives on another issue. He is Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 7 1 impacted by agriculture. His eight grandchildren cannot go on their private road 2 because a raspberry cannery is in the back. He doesn't try to shut them down. 3 They try to work things out. He is sympathetic toward that. It is important to go 4 with facts, not feelings. There are many strong feelings. He hoped that the 5 committee would appoint professional people who will deal with the facts. When 6 the agriculture committee was formed, he was surprised to see only agriculturally 7 related people. On this subject, people are saying that no one from the industry 8 should be involved. The Council has to look at what the issues are. He appreciated 9 the work they've been doing. 10 11 Don Nielsen, 6287 Siper Road, Everson, stated that everyone who spoke was 12 truthful. The tough part is to be a neighbor to seven quarries and one hard rock 13 quarry without being concerned about what is going on. It is important to have 14 enough average people, people who live next to the operations, on the committee. 15 There are over 161,000 residents in Whatcom County and approximately 50 pits. 16 When they get to the County part of the population, there are a lot of concerns. 17 18 Dennis Lane, 510 S. State Street, Bellingham, stated he represents Whatcom 19 Community Television and Communications. He invited the Council to a meeting on 20 Saturday, May 6, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. to talk to experts on technology and digital 21 technology that is coming into the community. State and national experts will 22 speak on models and the definition of what is going on with the way technology is 23 changing their definition of public space. 24 25 Dawson stated every part of the county is faced with some sort of a problem, 26 but there is no question that the gravel situation does raise a lot of extra concerns 27 for people. 28 29 30 PUBLIC HEARING 31 32 1. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY COORDINATED 33 WATER SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE (AB2000 -172) 34 35 Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, gave a staff report. In 1990, the County Council 36 passed a resolution committing the County to preparing a coordinated water system 37 plan based upon provisions that were in state law. A water utility coordinating 38 committee was formed and consisted mostly of water purveyors and several County 39 representatives. It developed a water plan in 1993. However, the state 40 Department of Health (DOH) did not approve the plan at that time, primarily 41 because of two issues. One issue was the Lummi Nation water issue and the other 42 issue was the appeal of the County's growth management regulations. While the 43 Lummi Nation issues have not been resolved, there are ongoing federal, state, and 44 Lummi negotiations beginning in 1995 and related to this issue. At the request of 45 the state Department of Health, the committee has incorporated language in the 46 document recognizing the negotiations. The Growth Management Hearings Board's 47 invalidation of the County planning efforts has been overturned in court. They 48 received the decision a couple of weeks ago. There is a valid Comprehensive Plan Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 8 1 and zoning regulations now. Work began anew to update the coordinated water 2 system plan and to get approval from the state Department of Health. A new 3 committee was formed consisting again of water purveyors and several County 4 representatives who have worked on this over the last year and a half. They gave 5 approval on this in February. The coordinated water system plan addresses issues 6 such as mapping water service areas. He submitted a map. It projects future 7 water demand in the county. It provides a procedure for someone who wants to 8 develop his or her property to identify a water purveyor who is willing and able to 9 serve the development. It touches on regional issues such as water conservation 10 and provides minimum design standards for new and expanding water systems 11 such as pressure, pipe size, storage, fire protection, and other items. 12 13 Under the state law, the role of the County Council is to determine whether 14 or not the plan is consistent with the County's land use planning efforts. It is 15 approved then by the state Department of Health. Staff has reviewed it. They 16 think it is consistent with planning, the Comprehensive Plan, and zoning 17 regulations. The city boundaries were quite expansive. They have been brought 18 back so they conform to the urban growth areas. Other water purveyor 19 representatives and Health Department staff are present. The chair of the 20 committee, Mr. Terry Klimpel, wanted to comment. 21 22 Terry Klimpel, 323 Front Street, Lynden, stated he has been involved in this 23 process for almost ten years, initially as an alternate and then recently as the chair. 24 As the chair, and on behalf of the committee, the completion of this document 25 represents a significant effort by the committee. Implementation of the action and 26 recommendations of the coordinated water system plan can only be successfully 27 achieved by joint effort of the purveyors and the County. They look forward to the 28 County's continued increase support in order to provide the highest quality of water 29 and service utilized throughout the county. They, as the committee, recommend 30 the adoption of the coordinated water system plan. 31 32 Dawson stated the plan says it must incorporate any agreements agreed to 33 with the state and federal negotiations. She questioned whether any agreements 34 from the negotiations exist and are being incorporated into this. 35 36 Sue Blake, Water Resources Planner, stated the plan references the 37 negotiation process because there are no written agreements they could tie to it at 38 this point. There are a couple of sections in the plan. In section eight, there is a 39 reference to the on- reservation negotiations and it defers by recognizing that the 40 negotiations are happening and that, if there are agreements in the future that 41 would modify how this plan would be handled on the reservation, then that is the 42 process they defer to. They are not at that point yet. Jeff Monsen is the County 43 representative to the on- reservation negotiations. 44 45 Brenner questioned Aamot about packet page 145, the last sentence of issue 46 one, regarding countywide planning policies. It says it has to do with cities and 47 other municipal corporations and other public and private utilities. She questioned 48 whether a private or public entity that is directed to extend services to someone in Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 9 1 an area to solve water quality problems cannot assess people along the lines who 2 do not use the improvement and don't benefit from it. Aamot stated that is his 3 understanding. 4 5 Brenner referred to the Drayton Harbor issue as an example. She questioned 6 whether something like this would have anything to do with that. Aamot stated he 7 was uncertain. 8 9 Hoag stated she came up with an entirely different interpretation. The 10 language refers to properties contiguous to extension of utilities that can't use the 11 service because of zoning constraints. If one can't develop property, then it says it 12 shouldn't be assessed. She was thinking in terms of tax assessment, not in terms 13 of assessment for the line. 14 15 Brenner stated she believed it meant assessment for improvements, not tax 16 assessment. 17 18 Hoag stated that it is saying contiguous to the line. Even if it is not for tax 19 assessment, it still says that they shouldn't be assessed if they can't benefit. 20 Aamot stated that interpretation makes sense. 21 22 Brenner questioned whether contiguous means that the line goes by one's 23 property. 24 25 Hoag stated the line touches his or her property. 26 27 Brenner stated they would be part of the local improvement district (LID). 28 She questioned whether assessment means that the purveyor can't assess the 29 property owner for the footage across the property or if it means the tax 30 assessment. 31 32 Imhof stated the County negotiated that with Lynden. Usually, one is 33 charged per frontage foot for the line through and LID or other process. The 34 problem was that there might be a development that doesn't need it or use it, so 35 there should be no assessment. The property owner wouldn't be assessed for the 36 capital improvements. 37 38 Brenner questioned Council packet page 148, issue six, regarding city water 39 service being provided consistent with planned density. She questioned whether 40 the properties on the city /county line will pay for the pipes without use. 41 42 Imhof stated this is a different item. This says that the city shall apply 43 service. They cannot go through and put a fire hydrant every 200 feet, as required 44 in the city, because the zoning and density is less. They will bring the level of 45 service up to urban levels as the density requires it. It prevents getting the 46 infrastructure in the ground and encouraging people to rezone. 47 Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 10 1 Brenner questioned Council packet page 148, issue 2, regarding developing 2 the plan in cooperation with others. She questioned the areas in the city that are 3 not using sewer, but are in areas that they could hook up to sewer. She questioned 4 whether this would preclude people from getting a septic permit inside the city. 5 Aamot stated they looked at it from the perspective of the water plan. This is 6 saying that, within urban areas, purveyors are generally supposed to plan and 7 prepare to provide urban levels of water and sewer in those areas. The City of 8 Sumas had an area in the urban growth area that it wasn't planning to serve. 9 10 Brenner stated this applies to all cities. She questioned whether this 11 language would also apply to the City of Bellingham and say they can't put in septic 12 systems if they have access to sewer. Aamot stated these are countywide planning 13 policies developed by the cities and the County. He didn't know the answer to that 14 question. 15 16 Regina Delahunt, Environmental Services Manager, stated she didn't know if 17 she had an answer. It is important to understand that what Councilmember 18 Brenner is asking about is a countywide policy. They are looking at the policy 19 tonight in relation to the Coordinated Water System Plan. It is a good question, but 20 doesn't really relate to the Coordinated Water System Plan. 21 22 Brenner stated the coordinated water system plan is based on this. Delahunt 23 stated the staff report is trying to get the Council to see whether the coordinated 24 water system plan was consistent with the policies. They should look at the 25 countywide policy in relation to onsite sewage and incorporate that into their 26 response, which they are working on. 27 28 Brenner questioned Council packet page 149 at the top of the page, 29 regarding the five -year review of the County's Comprehensive Plan. She 30 questioned whether this area in Sumas can be developed now or if it has to wait 31 until 2002. Aamot stated it is in the urban growth area, but he didn't think it had 32 urban zoning. It would have to be rezoned, then get into the service area for the 33 City of Sumas. 34 35 Brenner questioned whether that could only be done in 2002. Aamot stated 36 the City of Sumas is saying that this one particular area, in their Comprehensive 37 Plan, is not included in their urban growth area. They want to delete it. They are 38 saying that, in 2002, the City of Sumas will come to the County Council with a 39 request. 40 41 Brenner questioned whether that would happen before 2002. Aamot stated 42 he didn't think so. 43 44 Brenner questioned Council packet page 150, policies five and one, regarding 45 adequate evidence that adequate supplies of water are available. She questioned 46 whether this is the thing they talked about when the one applicant didn't have his 47 letter. 48 Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 11 1 Hoag stated it is similar, but it is not the same. The other was very specific 2 and said the letter had to be included in the application. 3 4 Hoag asked about the different cities' plans. She questioned whether the 5 County is approving the cities' plans if it approves the countywide plan. Aamot 6 stated that, whenever a city, water district, or water association develops their 7 individual water system plan, it is submitted to the County Planning Department. 8 The Planning Department reviews it for compliance with the zoning and the 9 Comprehensive Plan. The Council is not giving approval to specific plans that are 10 not before the Council, but staff does review and comment on those to the state. 11 12 Dawson asked Public Works Director Jeff Monsen if there are any agreements 13 in place through negotiations. 14 15 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated there are not any agreements in 16 place through the negotiations. The negotiations themselves are not even active 17 right now. They have not been disbanded. He suggested that he present an 18 update to the County Council about the negotiations sometime in early June. There 19 is a meeting scheduled at the end of May with the state team and representatives 20 of other negotiating parties to find out if they are going to continue in some form. 21 There are no written agreements whatsoever. 22 23 Hoag questioned whether the agreement of this plan commits the Council to 24 approve, without seeing, future agreements. Monsen stated the understanding 25 through the negotiations is that all the parties still have to go through the 26 appropriate approval steps to formalize an agreement once an agreement is 27 negotiated. He cannot specifically commit the County just because he is sitting at 28 the table. The language specifically makes reference to an agreement that has 29 been reached. The negotiating table is intended to prepare the proposed 30 agreement. The proposed agreement is then routed for appropriate ratification by 31 the parties. 32 33 Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, Dawson closed the 34 public hearing. 35 36 Imhof moved approval of the resolution. 37 38 Nelson asked about the service management agencies. It is very confusing. 39 If an individual is applying, who has no access to a utility, then he or she is referred 40 to a service management area that is a satellite management agency. He 41 questioned how many of the satellite management agencies the County has. 42 43 Delahunt stated there is one. 44 45 Nelson questioned whether that is a countywide agency. The agency doesn't 46 have service capabilities countywide. Delahunt stated it does not. 47 Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 12 1 Nelson questioned who would be the next resource as a satellite 2 management area. Delahunt stated that, if the satellite management agency didn't 3 have the resource to manage the system, then the system itself doesn't exist. It 4 could become a public water system and not be operated by a satellite 5 management agency. They would set up another public water system. The idea is 6 to not have a proliferation of small public water systems. 7 8 Nelson asked if DOE is a designee of the satellite management agency. 9 Delahunt stated it is not. 10 11 Nelson questioned whether the County would keep the ability to designate. 12 Delahunt stated that is correct. 13 14 Brenner questioned who is the designated satellite management agency right 15 now. Delahunt stated it is Northwest Water Works. 16 17 Motion to approve carried unanimously. 18 19 2. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A 60 -DAY MORATORIUM ON 20 DEVELOPMENT IN THE CANYON CREEK ALLUVIAL FAN AREA 21 (AB2000 -175) 22 23 Crawford moved to postpone the vote on this item until after the tour on May 24 13. 25 26 Brenner questioned whether there have been applications filed since this 27 moratorium was introduced. 28 29 Sam Ryan, Interim Planning and Development Services Director, stated there 30 have not, but there have been a couple of inquiries. 31 32 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: 33 34 Trisha Cook, 7502 Glacier Springs Drive, stated she is not in the flood zone, 35 but she is in the gray area. As a community, they need to rise up and stand behind 36 what is right. This meeting was supposed to take place in two weeks, not tonight. 37 Tonight is when the issue was to be introduced. She just happened to talk to Paula 38 Cooper, who told her the public hearing was at this meeting. The entire issue is a 39 surprise. Paula Cooper was asked why the community members were not notified 40 when this started. She was told by Cooper that it went from staff desk to desk. 41 She would be one of the first to protect the salmon. If they check with the 42 Department of Fish and Wildlife, it will say that Canyon Creek is not a significant 43 spawning stream. There has been much work in other areas, such as Nugent's 44 Corner, that has gotten in the way of the salmon. In Canyon Creek, moving a few 45 rocks that are not close to the stream is all they are talking about to protect the 46 dike. 47 Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 13 1 Imhof stated the bridge at Nugent's Corner was a state project, not a County 2 project. 3 4 Cook questioned how they can hold a fair hearing when all the facts have not 5 been presented. She suggested they postpone the public hearing until after the 6 May 13 meeting with Inter- Fluve, on whom all this is being based. 7 8 Tom Cosgrove, 9002 Mt. Baker Highway, Glacier, stated the majority of the 9 public thinks the public hearing will be in two weeks. He urged the Council to hold 10 off on making any decisions until after the May 13 meeting. 11 12 Kelsey Bingham, Lot 4, Canyon View Drive, Glacier Springs, stated that the 13 folks down at Planning and Development Services Department do a great job. He 14 urged the Council to let the ball be in their hands. It is a tremendous permit 15 process to begin with. A 60 -day moratorium will not help anyone. He encouraged 16 all to come out on the 13th 17 18 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing. 19 20 Jeff Monsen, Director of Public Works, stated the meeting in two weeks is a 21 field trip for discussion. It is not a public hearing, per se. It is information 22 gathering that is the continuation of their discussion about the alternatives in 23 dealing with the situation. Second, the hearing tonight deals with a short -term 24 moratorium while the Council does its fact - finding. That was a result of the work 25 session discussion in Public Works Committee two weeks ago. That shouldn't be 26 confused with the recommendation from the Flood Advisory Committee that used 27 the term moratorium. They used it in a context in which they believe development 28 shouldn't continue in that area. It was a term that was misused. The moratorium 29 being discussed tonight is very specifically short term. 30 31 Crawford moved to postpone temporarily and continue the hearing for two 32 more weeks, so they can hear from the public after the Council field trip to the area 33 as well as hear from people who were not able to attend this meeting. 34 35 Brenner stated the moratorium idea came from the concerns of staff. Her 36 concern about postponing this is that people will submit applications, and then the 37 County finds out it will not get state and federal cooperation for doing the things 38 that some would rather do. There will be more developed property that will cost 39 more money to buy out in the future. After the last meeting, she personally called 40 The Logs Resort. She didn't know whom else to call except the people who had 41 been at the committee meeting. She asked them to let anyone know who might be 42 interested. She did make an attempt to notify people. She didn't know how else to 43 notify people. Her biggest concern is finding out whether the County can do some 44 of the things that the area residents want the County to do. She was concerned 45 the County would not be able to stop someone from building if they submit an 46 application. When the Council does other things such as make notations on the 47 land titles, the buyers are advised about certain things. She questioned whether 48 the County can put something on the title of the property if someone comes in for Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 14 1 an application, so if someone else buys the property, the seller knows about the 2 area. She was concerned that people will become vested. If the County can do the 3 repairs, it will be stuck paying more County money for buyouts. 4 5 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated it is a legitimate concern, 6 but that doesn't seem to be the way to address it. 7 8 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) 9 10 Nelson questioned whether the concern for the moratorium is to prevent 11 applications from being submitted as the County goes through the process of 12 consideration. 13 14 Grant stated that is the concern. 15 16 Nelson questioned how many applications could occur. They are creating an 17 increased valuation potential because there is an assured buyout that is possible in 18 the future. 19 20 Grant stated a lot that is not built upon is going to be less expensive for the 21 County to purchase than a lot that has been built on. 22 23 Nelson questioned the reasoning for the moratorium. 24 25 Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, stated his original concern that there 26 would be a run on building permits has not come to fruition. The word is out. They 27 have had some inquiries, but no building permit applications have come in. He 28 expected four to six in the last two weeks. They have had four or five in the area. 29 He understood that the County would rather buy vacant land instead of structures. 30 31 McShane explained that the purpose of the moratorium would be to buy time 32 for the Council to decide what it is going to do on the alluvial fan. It may only 33 affect one or two applicants. It is hard to predict. It is going to be a short -term 34 moratorium. If someone comes forward with an application to build a home in that 35 area, that person needs to be aware of what the Council is going to do and what 36 the policy will be regarding erosion control. They've talked about a wide variety of 37 approaches. Right now, if someone is putting in a building permit application, he or 38 she is going to see the levy and think they are safe. The Council may decide it 39 won't do anything to work on the levy. The County would mislead the applicant. 40 The County has a responsibility to let an applicant know there is a problem. 41 42 Dawson stated the staff informs the applicant that there is a potential for 43 problems. 44 45 Imhof stated they have two different issues. One issue is what the Council is 46 going to do in the area. They will know a lot more about that when they take their 47 trip to the location. 48 Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 15 1 Another issue is the moratorium. There is concern. It is the Council's duty 2 to let the public know there are potential problems there and that the Council is 3 looking at its options. It is only for 60 days. By the time the Council gets to the 4 location and has its next meeting, there will be 46 days left in the moratorium. The 5 Council could rescind the ordinance later if necessary. They need to act on the 6 moratorium now, get the best information possible, look at the options, and go 7 from there. The Council is protecting its constituents. Some people may think it is 8 a bit overboard. A newcomer to that area would think he or she is safe, until a wall 9 of water comes down the river and across the road. 10 11 Hoag agreed with the concerns, but has a problem with what they did to the 12 public. In trying to get this through quickly, it was introduced at the previous 13 meeting, after they'd already gone home and been told the public hearing would be 14 held at the next meeting. She has a problem with the process. She agreed with 15 Councilmembers Imhof, Brenner, and McShane, but they are unintentionally not 16 having due public process. She supported Crawford's motion to hold the hearing 17 for two weeks. 18 19 Imhof stated it would be more expeditious to act now instead of wait for two 20 weeks and put people in harm's way. It is the Council's duty to impose the 21 moratorium. 22 23 Brenner stated they have been talking about a moratorium since January. At 24 the last meeting, the issue was brought up late in the evening. She didn't 25 remember that there were many people attending. 26 27 Hoag stated many people spoke at open session because the moratorium 28 was suggested during the committee meeting. The comment was made then to the 29 public that the item would come up for action in one month. 30 31 Nelson questioned whether the staff would not inform an individual of the 32 process and the possible concerns if the motion to continue the public comment 33 period is approved. 34 35 Middleton stated they do not enter into special relationships with applicants. 36 If they are to issue a warning about something that is potential, it would be a 37 special relationship between the County and an applicant. What they do is regulate 38 them through the Critical Areas Ordinance. For a good portion of the language on 39 page 158 of the Council packet, full mitigation of the alluvial fan impact is required. 40 41 Nelson questioned whether the Council can direct staff to address the issues 42 that are being looked at. Middleton stated staff can hand out to every applicant the 43 information that the Public Works Department has put together and is before the 44 County Council. 45 46 Nelson questioned whether it is possible that information can be 47 disseminated if the Council so requested. 48 Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 16 1 Grant stated that, if the Council wants to go to the point of warning people 2 and taking proactive measures, the County will be subjected to a potential liability it 3 wouldn't otherwise have. That is why he suggested that the most logical response 4 is with what they are seeking in the moratorium. It serves the purpose and broadly 5 disseminates the information. If there is a pending application, it is vested. 6 7 McShane stated most people think that, logically, warning them is the most 8 logical thing to do. However, he wasn't sure the law always works that way. They 9 are stuck with the legal logic. Warning the applicants, and then permitting the 10 application, might be a very inappropriate thing to do. 11 12 Dawson questioned whether a moratorium is a form of warning. 13 14 Brenner stated a moratorium is not a warning, it is a breathing space. She 15 was concerned if the people have the impression that the hearing is in two weeks. 16 She questioned whether Middleton has a concern if the Council waits for two weeks. 17 Middleton stated he is surprised there hasn't been a rush of applications. For every 18 other moratorium the County has discussed, they've been inundated the following 19 week with permit applications. 20 21 Brenner stated they've been discussing the moratorium since January and 22 they haven't received many. Middleton stated they have not. 23 24 Brenner questioned Middleton about whether he was concerned if they wait 25 two weeks. Middleton stated they have not had a run on applications. As far as 26 the effectiveness of the moratorium, it would not have made a difference if it was 27 enacted today or last January. 28 29 Motion to continue the hearing and postpone the vote for two weeks carried 30 5 -2 with Imhof and McShane opposed. 31 32 33 CONSENT AGENDA 34 35 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 36 moved approval of items one through three. 37 38 Motion carried unanimously. 39 40 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BIDS 41 #00 -34, 35 AND 36 TO WILDER CONSTRUCTION, THE APPROPRIATE 42 LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, TO FURNISH, LAY AND COMPACT 43 ASPHALT ON ROADWAY SECTIONS FOR THE NORTH EAST, THE SOUTH 44 WEST AND THE SOUTH EAST AREA PRELEVEL PROJECTS IN THE TOTAL 45 AMOUNT OF $546,521 (AB2000 -179) 46 47 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO PURCHASE 48 WHATCOM COUNTY'S ANNUAL SUPPLY OF LIGNOSITE FROM SOLE Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 17 1 SOURCE SUPPLIER GEORGIA PACIFIC, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO 2 EXCEED $55,000 (AB2000 -180) 3 4 3. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 999013 5 AND THE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE HANNEGAN CORRIDOR 6 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $497,967.25 7 (AB2000 -181) 8 9 10 OTHER ITEMS 11 12 1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.120, 13 CREATING THE WHATCOM COUNTY SURFACE MINING ADVISORY 14 COMMITTEE (AB2000 -0698) 15 16 McShane reported for Natural Resources Committee and thanked the 17 councilmembers who spent a lot of time listening to this, all the citizens, the 18 members of the gravel mining industry, and the County staff. 19 20 McShane moved to adopt as written. 21 22 Imhof questioned whether this committee would implement a surface mining 23 regulatory program. They make recommendations to do that. They are not going 24 to develop a coordinated and consistent approach for the regulation and 25 enforcement of mineral extraction and accessory uses. 26 27 Hoag stated the purpose statement makes it clear that the committee is 28 created to advise on implementation. 29 30 Imhof stated the next section doesn't say that. He wanted to ensure that 31 was taken into consideration before this was written, and with those action items 32 listed. 33 34 McShane stated that was considered. The action items are taken straight out 35 of the Comprehensive Plan, which is what the committee is supposed to address. 36 37 Imhof stated it is what they are supposed to address, but is what they will 38 recommend to the full County Council for action. 39 40 McShane agreed. 41 42 Dawson stated the committee cannot adopt policy. They can make 43 recommendations. 44 45 Nelson stated that this has been a tough issue. He knows how hard it is for 46 people living next to mineral resource lands (MRL's). He used to live in a rural 47 community with all its accompanying activities. Rural living has its hazards. 48 Sometimes there is the perception that it is an idyllic environment. Unfortunately, Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 18 1 there are impacts to rural living. Recognizing the Growth Management Act (GMA) 2 requirements to preserve the mineral resource lands and that MRL need to be 3 preserved in a rural environment, these are areas they spent a lot of time 4 discussing during the Comprehensive Plan process. He was reluctant to open this 5 up again. He had a discussion with Mr. Skinner and Mr. Kronenberg. They 6 understood his concerns that the committee be one that will make good decisions. 7 Councilmember Brenner was included in that meeting. He recommended a 8 compromise as a motion to address the needs for environmental protection and for 9 the issues of reclamation. He made this decision while including those who have 10 been involved in this for a long period of time, and tried to come to a consensus. It 11 is important to recognize the importance of citizens. They are all citizens living in 12 the community. They are all impacted in some way by a rural activity. Some 13 people certainly have bigger impacts than other people. The citizen positions are 14 very broad in scope, and he wanted to make them more specific. Ecologists would 15 be able to address some of the environmental concerns. He suggested eliminating 16 item number nine and reduce item number five to one citizen who lives in close 17 proximity to address active mining and the concerns. They will still address the 18 concerns of the citizens who neighbor the mining activities. The environmentalist 19 can develop environmental answers for air quality, water quality, groundwater, and 20 fish and wildlife habitat concerns. Lastly, he recommended adding one member as 21 an environmental consultant with reclamation expertise. That would total 11 22 members. He so moved. 23 24 Brenner stated she liked the idea of including an ecologist and an 25 environmental consultant. An environmental consultant is an environmentalist with 26 credentials. She appreciated what Councilmember Nelson is trying to do. They can 27 have concerns, but if they are not answered by those with expertise, they are not 28 going to get anywhere. She proposed a friendly amendment to retain two citizen 29 representatives. 30 31 Nelson did not accept the friendly amendment. 32 33 Dawson stated the public would attend the committee meetings to bring 34 problems forward to the committee. The citizen is providing input by bringing 35 problems to the committee. 36 37 Hoag spoke in favor of the ordinance as written. She separated the list by 38 material users and those people concerned about impact. People may be 39 concerned with the material and not be focused on the impacts. Other people may 40 be concerned about the impacts. The current list has six people that are concerned 41 about the impacts, and six or seven people that are concerned about the material. 42 There is already a committee that could be more material- oriented to start with. 43 She suggested they substitute two of the citizens for the environmental consultant 44 and the ecologist. They should retain item number nine. She looked at other 45 boards and commissions. One of those is the Medical Waste Task Force. It had 11 46 members. One member represented the industry, two members were citizens, and 47 the rest were experts in the field. The recently formed agriculture committee was 48 formed around the specific issue to preserve agriculture. They need to look at what Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 19 1 the issue is to determine the committee membership. Those same farmers are 2 outnumbered when on a committee regarding shellfish. Regarding shellfish, the 3 issue is water quality, not farmland preservation. On one of the shellfish protection 4 district advisory committees, there is one commercial shell fisher, one fisherman, 5 five residents, the Port of Bellingham, and councilmembers. 6 7 Brenner stated the Medical Waste Task Force had three industry 8 representatives, not one. It had representatives for the facility, the hauler, and a 9 consultant from the facility. 10 11 Hoag stated the Solid Waste Advisory Committee includes the industry, the 12 disposal facility, two citizens, two public interest groups, the City of Bellingham, the 13 Whatcom County Council, and the small cities. They try to balance the committees 14 they put together. Action item number five, which requires putting the committee 15 together, says they have to address the areas where there is a conflict between 16 land uses. A lot of the testimony they've heard is about conflicts. Some of the 17 testimony has been to put experts on the committee to address the conflicts. 18 However, those people with the expertise are operating now but are not addressing 19 the impacts. She questioned what makes the Council think that by putting the 20 experts on a committee to recommend regulation to address impacts, they will 21 address the impacts. 22 23 According to Councilmember Nelson, one citizen representative will represent 24 the concerns of the citizens. However, that one citizen can be flat -out ignored. 25 There is nothing there that guarantees that solutions will be found any more than 26 they are right now. If they separate the material and impacts, and put together 27 something that is balanced, then committee would put forward balanced 28 recommendations to the Council. She recommended that the ecologist and 29 environmental consultant should replace two of the citizens from the original 30 ordinance. 31 32 Nelson stated he understood the concern from the public. He has a mandate 33 that the state requires. It says, "The Growth Management Act directs counties to 34 adopt development regulations to assure the conservation of designated mineral 35 resource lands." It doesn't say they have to assure the conservation of property 36 owners next to mineral resource lands, even though it is an important issue. They 37 have to recognize the purpose of this advisory committee's function. It is to 38 recognize there is a diverse community with impacts from mineral resources, but 39 they have to make it work together. Everyone he has heard testimony from those 40 who live next to the mineral resources, who don't want them and don't like them. 41 He understands that, but it doesn't solve the problems. He wasn't sure about what 42 those people can bring to the table other than that they don't like the mineral 43 resources. The committee is going to hear that anyway. It is better to try to solve 44 the problems and resolve the issues. 45 46 McShane asked Councilmember Nelson if he would accept Hoag's friendly 47 amendment. 48 Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 20 1 Nelson stated he is not convinced about what that accomplishes. 2 3 Hoag stated the testimony she heard, and the letters she received, have not 4 said that they don't want gravel mining. They've said they want the impacts 5 addressed. The same Growth Management Plan and Comprehensive Plan promise 6 residents that the impacts will be addressed. One suggestion was that proper 7 berms be set up to deter the noise pollution. That is a reasonable request. It does 8 not ask for the operation to be shut down. A person's single, largest investment is 9 his or her home. If someone comes in with a new use next to that home, they 10 shouldn't be able to turn that home into something that is difficult for the person to 11 live in. This is only about addressing the impact so there can be gravel mining and 12 neighbors that don't have a lot of impact. The County has set aside the mineral 13 resource lands and provided permits to mine. The County has not done the other 14 things the Comprehensive Plan calls for to address the impacts. 15 16 Dawson stated the committee meetings would have an open session where 17 people can speak. 18 19 Brenner stated it is for the industry's benefit to ensure that the enforcement 20 is better. They all could do better in that regard. Everything she has heard deals 21 with enforcement, not with revisiting the issue. Councilmember McShane's motion 22 is a good, common ground. She wanted the two citizen replacements by the 23 ecologist and environmental consultant, and the elimination of item number nine. 24 That would balance the committee. 25 26 Dawson stated she wouldn't be uncomfortable with having twelve members. 27 28 Nelson requested a straw vote on the friendly amendment. 29 30 Hoag stated there seems to be an implication that the industry is not aware 31 of the impacts that people are bringing to the Council. If there was an open session 32 where these would be dealt with, the committee has to be balanced in terms of 33 what they are looking at regarding impacts and materials. If they make it lopsided 34 toward materials, nothing in the regulations will address impacts. Right now, those 35 same people are complaining and are not being responded to. 36 37 Crawford questioned with whom Councilmembers Nelson and Brenner had 38 this discussion earlier in the day. 39 40 Nelson stated he had this discussion with Mr. Kronenberg and Mr. Skinner. 41 He didn't agree with the proposed ordinance, and he tried to ensure he understood 42 the concerns and how they need to be addressed to be functional. This is one of 43 the ways they can do that. He wanted to address the concerns of Mr. Kronenberg 44 and Mr. Skinner. 45 46 Crawford questioned whether Councilmember Nelson specifically had a 47 conversation about eliminating number nine and changing item number five to 48 three people, including one environmental consultant and one ecologist. Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 21 1 2 Nelson stated that is correct. 3 4 Crawford stated that, if that was an agreeable discussion, he would go with 5 that. 6 7 Hoag asked Mr. Kronenberg whether he would agree with the proposed 8 changes. 9 10 Nate Kronenberg, 2351 E. Pole Road, Everson, stated it wasn't an issue of 11 agreement. It was an issue of exploring whether other people being on the 12 committee would add to the effectiveness of the committee. They didn't take a 13 vote saying they are for it or against it. 14 15 Hoag questioned whether they discussed removing any citizen 16 representatives or industry representatives. Kronenberg stated they did. It 17 appears that would require reducing the number of citizens involved. He didn't get 18 any sense about how the gravel industry would be dealt with, in terms of those 19 people on the committee. Rather, they would consider reducing it. It made sense 20 to reduce some of the citizens on the committee to make room for the so- called 21 experts. 22 23 Hoag stated reducing the citizen positions sounds like they are talking about 24 the friendly amendment to replace two citizens with the ecologist and 25 environmental consultant. She questioned whether that was his understanding. 26 Kronenberg stated it was his understanding. 27 28 Hoag questioned whether the discussion was to reduce the citizen 29 representatives to one person. He stated it was not his understanding. 30 31 Imhof stated he didn't like a committee with an even number of members. 32 As one looks at the group, they also have a civil and geo- technical engineer with no 33 direct financial ties to industry. They have a person who represents groundwater in 34 the area, specifically a public water supply. There is a representative of the 35 Conservation District who has concerns with gravel mining and agriculture. The 36 Council has a committee that is very balanced and has the professionals that are 37 needed to come up with recommendations to the Council, which will do the job it 38 set out to do. The 11- member committee proposed by Councilmember Nelson is 39 the one that will do the best job in the long run for the County Council and the 40 citizens of the County. 41 42 Dawson stated she was uncomfortable with either one. They will make 43 recommendations that will come before the County Council. If the public is not 44 comfortable with those, the public always has the Council's ear before it does 45 anything. They need to get on with this. She will support the original motion. 46 47 Brenner stated she also attended the meeting. it was her understanding that 48 they were going to substitute the ecologist and the environmental consultant for Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 22 1 citizens. It was Mr. Nelson's idea, which was a good idea because if they only have 2 people with concerns and complaints, and no one to provide answers, then they are 3 not going to get anywhere. They talked about dropping item number nine also. 4 5 Hoag stated that Councilmember Brenner's understanding from this 6 morning's meeting was that they would substitute the two citizens for the ecologist 7 and the environmental consultant. That leaves two citizen representatives. 8 9 Brenner stated that is how she wanted to see it. However, Councilmember 10 Nelson said he wanted to see one citizen. 11 12 Hoag stated the citizens that were a part of that meeting said they came 13 away with the understanding it was a substitution for the two. 14 15 Brenner stated one of those citizens made that comment. She didn't know 16 about the other. 17 18 Hoag stated this is such an important issue. Many people have come to the 19 meeting to talk about their concerns because they live, every day, with the 20 impacts. If they keep two citizens, it is the minimum they can do. 21 22 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) 23 24 Hoag continued to state they are going to end up with more material users 25 this way. 26 27 Motion to delete item number nine and replace three citizens with one 28 ecologist and one environmental consultant carried 4 -3 with Hoag, Brenner, and 29 McShane opposed. 30 31 Hoag stated she believed that Councilmember Crawford stated he would 32 consider abstaining from any gravel issues because of all the gravel donations he 33 got. 34 35 Motion to approve as amended carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed. 36 37 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 5 (AB2000- 38 173) 39 40 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 41 stated the committee recommended approval unanimously. 42 43 Motion to adopt carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed. 44 45 3. REPORT ON FINANCE COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF LAND 46 ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT 47 APPLICATION (HMGP) (AB2000 -178) 48 Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 23 1 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 2 stated the committee recommended that the department continue with the 3 mitigation grant applications for land purchases in flood areas. This is Federal 4 Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) money that is left over. These are 5 areas that have had previous damage and claims. To avoid future claims, they are 6 going to try to purchase the land outright. There are two owners in the Ferndale 7 area that have agreed to that. The staff is directed to continue looking at areas in 8 the Emerson Road area. 9 10 Dawson questioned whether there was any objection from the 11 councilmembers. 12 13 There was a consensus to go forward. 14 15 4. ORDINANCE ADOPTING NEW WHATCOM COUNTY LAND DIVISION 16 REGULATIONS (TITLE 21), REPEALING THE EXISTING WHATCOM 17 COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (TITLE 21), AND MAKING 18 MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO TITLE 2 AND TITLE 20 (AB2000 -160) 19 20 Hoag reported for Planning Committee and stated this item was held in 21 committee. 22 23 S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO SIGN A NEW 24 APPLICATION FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE FOR JALAPENOS MEXICAN 25 RESTAURANT, 3400 BIRCH BAY /LYNDEN ROAD, SUITE B9, CUSTER 26 (AB2000 -182) 27 28 Imhof moved approval. 29 30 Motion carried unanimously. 31 32 33 INTRODUCTION 34 35 Nelson moved to accept the Introduction Items. 36 37 Motion carried unanimously. 38 39 1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.125, 40 FORMING THE WHATCOM COUNTY UTILITIES PLANNING AND 41 ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2000 -177) 42 43 2. ORDINANCE TO REPEAL WCC2.22A- DEPARTMENT OF NOR -BELL CARE 44 CENTER (AB2000 -183) 45 46 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WCC 3.08.100, SETTING REQUIREMENTS 47 FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CONTRACTS (AB2000 -184) 48 Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 24 1 4. RESOLUTION ADOPTING LAND AND EASEMENT ACQUISITION AND 2 FLOOD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (AB2000 -185) 3 (HEARING TO BE SCHEDULED) 4 5 5. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET, REQUEST #6 (AB2000- 6 186) 7 8 9 OTHER BUSINESS 10 11 Brenner stated she would like direction from councilmembers about how to 12 proceed with the Public Education and Governmental (PEG) access. She preferred 13 to work with City Councilmember Bob Ryan to figure out a request for proposals 14 that would work toward finding a third party operator to provide, at least, the 15 government and education access, while they work out the public access side. She 16 didn't want to spin her wheels if no one is interested in doing it. They would come 17 up with an RFP that would include what the County wants to see in it. She was not 18 comfortable with having government doing it. 19 20 Nelsons stated he is for it if it makes it better. 21 22 Hoag asked for it to go into committee. 23 24 Brenner stated she didn't want it to go to committee until there is something 25 to bring forward. She didn't want to spin her wheels on an RFP that the Council is 26 not interested in going with. 27 28 No one expressed an objection to Councilmember Brenner working with City 29 Councilmember Bob Ryan. 30 31 Hoag stated it is a good idea to explore it, but she would not commit any 32 funds at this point. 33 34 Brenner stated she wasn't asking her to. 35 36 Crawford asked about how to address a traffic concern. 37 38 Dawson stated he could talk to the chair of the Public Works Committee. 39 40 Imhof suggested he contact Bruce Mills. 41 42 Brenner proposed a resolution setting Council policy regarding 43 requests for information from Council staff (AB2000 -164). 44 45 Dawson stated she was under the impression this would be addressed in 46 ways that have been used in the past. They once had a situation dealing with 47 having staff spending time writing letters that were not appropriate. They didn't 48 deal with the problem by writing a resolution. She agreed with comments in the Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 25 1 resolution, but it should have been addressed differently. She wouldn't support it 2 in its resolution form. 3 4 Brenner stated she hoped to go through it quickly and not bring up other 5 issues. Regarding the issue of the letters, staff brought it up to the Council. There 6 were no uncomfortable feelings by staff to bring it up to the Council. This was an 7 issue that was of a different flavor and is a policy decision. The Council should 8 address it as a policy decision. She moved approval of the resolution as written. 9 10 Imhof said it is disgusting that this has to come as a resolution. It is 11 amazing the circumstances and childishness that brings it forth. He would support 12 it because they will need it to take care of the problem, if it is going to continue to 13 happen. 14 15 Hoag read the resolution into the record. She said that this came about 16 because there were two negative letters to the editor that questioned her integrity 17 by saying the Council tapes proved what occurred. What actually happened prior to 18 and after that meeting was not recorded on tape. She had no way to get in 19 communication with those people. She checked with staff, who has a receipt book 20 that lists who ordered copies of the tapes. One of the receipts had a name and the 21 other receipt did not. There had been information prepared for that person to pick 22 up, apparently by a councilmember. In response to her asking the question of staff 23 about who picked up the information, the Council is getting this resolution. They 24 hold very public offices. Everything they do is in public. The letters they write are 25 public. The tapes of their meetings are public. If a member of the public wants to 26 throw stones at the councilmembers, they shouldn't hide behind a tree or staff. 27 Neither should other councilmembers. She questioned whether staff has found her 28 missing correspondence file. Her 1999 correspondence file is missing. The 29 councilmembers should have a right to know who is taking out information and who 30 is requesting information. They currently have a system. There are names on 31 almost every receipt in the book, except that one. Apparently, someone felt 32 incriminated and didn't want her to ask that any more. This is ridiculous and is not 33 about due public process. 34 35 Brenner stated it was not about that one incident. It was also about another 36 incident where one councilmember was screeching at another councilmember 37 because staff told the first councilmember that the other councilmember did not 38 look at certain files. 39 40 Hoag questioned whether Councilmember Brenner was speaking out of 41 executive session. 42 43 (Clerk's Note: Imhof left the meeting.) 44 45 Brenner stated everyone heard it out the door. There were several incidents 46 of councilmembers being told that staff people said no one accessed the tapes. 47 Obviously, the two councilmembers were being accused of accessing the tapes 48 themselves. Two staff people's names were brought up as having done it. It is Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 26 1 very important that members of the public are allowed to have the privacy to come 2 in and access anything they want. If they want to correspond with 3 councilmembers, that is one thing. They have the right to their opinions. 4 Regarding that particular incident, she will agree to disagree on what 5 Councilmember Hoag did or didn't do. This is an important issue to protect staff 6 from being put in the middle of interpersonal arguments between councilmembers. 7 8 Hoag stated Councilmember Brenner is saying the members of the public 9 should be able to withhold his or her name if they feel they would like, then the 10 resolution should say that. If a member of the public does not wish to give his or 11 her name, then they may withhold it. That is not what they are doing here. They 12 are saying that anything that happens is private. She moved to amend the 13 language, "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Whatcom County Council 14 that , 15 eF phene nungbeFS ef individuals whe request Geuneil , 16 files, eF Fequestce p i es of re eeFds eFtapes unless 42.17. if a 17 member of the public wishes to withhold his or her name, it will not be put on the 18 receipt." 19 20 Dawson stated that, as it is now, do put the names on it. 21 22 Hoag stated that in terms of putting staff in the middle of an argument, all 23 she asked was who had the receipt. 24 25 Dawson stated it was not more work to ask a person to look at the receipt 26 book than to ask them to type a letter to the editor. 27 28 Hoag stated she supported Councilmember Brenner on the issue regarding 29 the letter to the editor. 30 31 Brenner stated that still puts staff in the middle of comments from 32 councilmembers as to what staff did and didn't do. It isn't fair to the staff. If 33 people want their names given to councilmembers, let them do it. Most people 34 come in expecting some semblance of privacy. The councilmembers ran for office 35 and are held to a different standard and are expected to take their licks. If people 36 want to talk to the councilmembers in person, they can. It isn't up to staff to do 37 this. 38 39 Hoag stated they talked of installing a video camera in the room where 40 people go through the documents because there were concerns about missing 41 documents. If anything, they should have people check out public files because 42 they don't have duplicates. This is just a retaliation thing. 43 44 Motion to amend failed 2 -4 with Dawson and Hoag in favor and Imhof 45 absent. 46 47 Motion to approve carried 4 -2 with Dawson and Hoag opposed and Imhof 48 absent. Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS Hoag reported on the intervener status regarding the Sumas Energy 2 power plant. The applicant is trying to throw out her, Councilmember Brenner, the Washington Environmental Council, the Northwest Energy Coalition, and the other two intervener citizens. She lives four miles from the current plant. They are trying to say that she wouldn't be directly impacted, she doesn't have standing, and any impacts to her would be covered under the Council for the Environment. That is not the way the law reads. Nelson stated the Board of Health leadership workshop is Thursday and Friday, May 4 and 5, at Sea -Tac. Nelson also stated that there will be a workshop at the Sudden Valley Community Center on May 3 at 7 p.m. regarding Park Road to address environmental issues. Brenner reported on intervener status for the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) proposal. There were few requests for intervener status. It is unfortunate that the applicant is trying to dismiss those interveners. It doesn't help their argument that they want the broadest representation and inclusion. Pete Kremen, County Executive, notified the councilmembers of a town hall meeting on May 10 in the Council Chambers regarding Sumas Energy 2 and to provide an opportunity for concerned citizens to provide input and receive information. He also invited representatives from the Bonneville Power Administration, Puget Sound Energy, Whatcom County Public Utility District, and Sumas Energy 2. He has indication that all entities will provide representatives. He is also planning to invite a representative from the Northwest Power Planning Council. Hoag suggested Executive Kremen also invite the Northwest Energy Coalition. They deal with a lot of the same issues. They are a conglomerate of different industry people who look at alternative sources of energy and clean energy. Kremen stated he would extend the invitation. Brenner suggested they invite the City of Abbottsford. Kremen stated the City of Abbottsford probably are already planning to attend, but he would extend a formal invitation. Kremen also announced that his assistant, Francine Kincaid, was voted by her peers in the International Association of Administrative Professionals (IAAP) Professional of the Year. Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, 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 Dawson announced that she and Councilmember Crawford invited Don Dobbs, Pacific Research Institute, to speak on May 11 about saving salmon. Crawford stated the community's concern is that they have more than one speaker. The state Department of Ecology has been unable to find someone to present other perspectives on that issue during that night. There has been some positive response for another time. They can continue the dialogue, if people want to, and have future meetings. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription These minutes were approved by Council on June 13 , 2000. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Marlene Dawson, Council Chair Regular County Council Meeting, 5/2/2000, Page 29