HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil November 28 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
November 28, 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 that there was discussion with Water Resources
Manager Bruce Roll regarding the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project
(AB2000 -132) in Committee of the Whole regarding the second stage of the
Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) Water Quality Technical Team Proposal
for Stage 2 Water Rights Review, what would be involved, how it would be
implemented, and who would be responsible for carrying out the work. The
Committee approved the version of this document dated November 28, 2000.
Hoag moved to reconsider the WRIA 1 Water Quantity Technical Team
Proposal for the Stage 2 Water Rights Review Conceptual Method, Roles, and
Policies, the version dated 11/28/2000, that was approved in Committee of the
Whole.
Motion carried 5 -2 with Imhof and McShane opposed.
Hoag moved to amend item four of the proposal, "...At the beginning of the
visit, these owners will be given a copy of the information that was sent to them
regarding water rights and typical problems with water rights, it would be verified
that the owner received the information. They will be asked if they have any
questions. The owner will be informed in writing that all information recorded on
the field form during the visit will be public information..."
Imhof questioned what would happen if the owner doesn't verify that he or
she received it.
Hoag stated that the contractors would make sure that the owner would have
the information.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 1
1 McShane questioned whether Councilmember Hoag wanted the person
2 receiving the information to verify that he or she received the information, and
3 whether that verification would be verbal or written.
4
5 Nelson stated it is just a check.
6
7 McShane questioned who would do the check.
8
9 Nelson stated the contractors doing the auditing.
10
11 Hoag stated she preferred that the owner sign to verify he or she received it,
12 but she didn't have full Council support for that.
13
14 Motion to amend carried 5 -2 with Imhof and McShane opposed.
15
16 Dawson stated that they don't need to vote again to approve it, since they
17 already did in Committee of the Whole.
18
19
20 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
21
22 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS:
23 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR OCTOBER 24 AND NOVEMBER 14,
24 2000; REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR SEPTEMBER 26 AND OCTOBER
25 10 AND 24, 2000; BOARD OF HEALTH FOR SEPTEMBER 19, 2000;
26 WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION FOR SEPTEMBER 19 AND
27 OCTOBER 17, 2000
28
29 Nelson moved to approve.
30
31 Brenner stated she submitted scrivener's errors. On one page there was
32 recorded a vote count of 3 -2 and language that the motion passed, but it can't pass
33 with three votes. That was her only question. The Clerk would check and verify
34 the language. She offered that as a friendly amendment.
35
36 Nelson accepted the friendly amendment.
37
38 Motion to approve with corrected scrivener's errors carried unanimously.
39
40
41 OPEN SESSION
42
43 The following people spoke:
44
45 Leonard Lindstrom, 2858 West Maplewood, Bellingham, stated that God
46 brought him out of the wilderness in 1955 for special schooling. He'd observed
47 many people in the wilderness having a hard time. Christians don't have a private
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 2
1 right on love and respect. Start showing love and respect, and get in the mood for
2 the holidays.
3
4
5 PUBLIC HEARING
6
7 1. ORDINANCE IN THE MATTER OF ACCEPTING A PORTION OF JUDY
8 WAY AS A PUBLIC ROAD (AB2000 -355A)
9
10 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, gave a staff report and
11 explained the request. On October 10, 2000, the County Council declared by
12 resolution the intent to accept Judy Way as a County road. There was a need to
13 post the road to provide a report on accepting Judy Way, and then hold this public
14 hearing. The report is on packet page 289, which says that Judy Way is a short
15 portion of a private road, bordered on each end by public roads, West Axton Road
16 and Deer Creek. Due to the hardship of the residents along Judy Way to have to
17 maintain a road that the public is using almost exclusively, he brought the proposal
18 forward.
19
20 Brenner stated this was already discussed in the Public Works Committee.
21
22 Dawson stated it was also already discussed during a Regular County Council
23 meeting.
24
25 Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
26 hearing.
27
28 Imhof moved to approve the ordinance.
29
30 Motion to adopt carried 6 -0 with Crawford out of the room.
31
32 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE OF BOARD OF COUNTY
33 COMMISSIONERS ADOPTED APRIL 14, 1969, GRANTING A 50 -YEAR
34 NON - EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CITY OF BLAINE TO INSTALL,
35 OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ELECTRIC UTILITY DISTRIBUTION LINES
36 ALONG CERTAIN ROADS IN WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
37 (AB2000 -372)
38
39 Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
40 hearing.
41
42 Brenner stated there was a dispute between the Birch Bay Water Association
43 and the City of Blaine about who would give water to whom. She questioned
44 whether this could be a negotiating chip with the City of Blaine to work out that
45 water dispute.
46
47 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the sewer plant is a better
48 negotiating tool, and it is already under way. The city and the district are working
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 3
1 closely on a joint solution for regional sewer, which is tied into the joint regional
2 water solution. With a change of players up there, everyone seems to be
3 negotiating pretty well. The County doesn't need to get involved. She didn't know
4 that the County could use electricity that is between Puget Sound Energy and the
5 City.
6
7 Brenner stated this is about using the easements. Goodwin stated it is to the
8 benefit of everyone to have the alternate loop for electricity through that area. It is
9 an issue of whether it makes sense. It is the City of Blaine's urban growth area.
10 They should be allowed to provide electricity out there.
11
12 Brenner stated that to her it is a negotiating chip. Goodwin stated they are
13 working things out on the water and sewer issue. The County will see a proposal
14 for a joint sewer regional plant coming soon.
15
16 Hoag asked for clarification on the location. Goodwin stated she wasn't real
17 familiar with it, but believed that the line was going down Lincoln Road and out to
18 Blaine Road.
19
20 McShane stated they had an agreement on the township, which basically
21 covered the north half of the peninsula between Drayton Harbor and Birch Bay.
22 This would add all the sections that would include the south half of the peninsula.
23 The entire peninsula would be under this agreement.
24
25 Nelson moved to adopt.
26
27 Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
28
29 3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING NEW WHATCOM COUNTY LAND DIVISION
30 REGULATIONS (TITLE 21), REPEALING THE EXISTING WHATCOM
31 COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (TITLE 21), AND MAKING
32 MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO TITLE 2 AND TITLE 20 (AB2000 -160)
33
34 Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, gave a staff report and commented on Whatcom
35 County Code (WCC) 21.05.080 regarding the water supply in the long -plat section
36 and WCC 21.07.080 regarding the water supply in the binding site plan section. He
37 handed out exhibits during the afternoon committee meeting. The intent of the
38 provision is not to prohibit all multiple wells in subdivisions. The intent is to ensure
39 that the County's policies in the Comprehensive Plan that talk about protection of
40 fish and other water users are implemented when the Council adopts the land
41 division regulations. Staff tried to craft the division so that an adverse impact on
42 an aquifer or stream flow would limit the ability to create a subdivision, but would
43 not limit the ability to create a subdivision if the water withdrawal has no adverse
44 impact on streams or aquifers.
45
46 He suggested an amendment to Finding 2 on packet page 305,
47 "...on March 17, 2000, ef�d August 17, 2000, and November 21, 2000." To reflect
48 the latest review by the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) official. There
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 4
1 was some discussion during committee about water service boundaries in the
2 County. There is a map from the Coordinated Water System Plan, which could go
3 into the record. The map shows 38 percent of group A water systems in the
4 County, which are 15 services or more.
5
6 Crawford questioned whether Mr. Aamot had any idea of whether water
7 shares are available in all of those associations and what the availability is. Aamot
8 stated they could not find any comprehensive list of all water associations. He
9 found information on some of them. It is getting to the point where the
10 associations have fewer and fewer shares available.
11
12 Dawson stated the water associations have to use the water shares within
13 five years or lose them. Only a municipal supplier has a secure water right.
14
15 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
16
17 Sherilyn Wells, 1020 Geneva, Bellingham, stated she supported the language
18 regarding protection of instream flows. She encouraged the Council to also look at
19 the Critical Areas Ordinance, which has language that refers to the fact that, even
20 though someone may not be required to get a Critical Areas permit, he or she is
21 still expected to comply with the goals, policies, and regulations of the law as they
22 undertake their un- permitted activity. The County has already set up a basis in
23 local regulation for this expectation.
24
25 The Council should re -think the sewer provision. It ignores the specific
26 statutory language in the Growth Management Act (GMA), section 36.70A.110(4).
27 That section specifically deals with the provision of sewer outside of urban growth
28 areas, i.e. rural zones. The language and criteria for extension of sewers are very
29 specific. The statute written in this document refers to another part of the GMA
30 that is much more generic in nature. It is an established standard of statutory
31 construction that, when faced with both a general clause and a specific clause, the
32 specific clause governs. She encouraged the Council to re -think the provision of
33 sewer in small towns according to the portion of the GMA that they have cited. She
34 didn't think it gives the County the authority to do what it is trying to do.
35
36 There are SEPA compliance issues. Once again, they have no comprehensive
37 environmental assessment for the Lake Whatcom watershed. There are also
38 303(d) listings going on for cutthroat, bull trout, and proposed listings coming down
39 the pipe.
40
41 Dawson suggested that Ms. Wells send her material to the Council Office
42 before a Council meeting day. Wells suggested a one - meeting lag time between
43 the public hearing and a decision. A public hearing becomes the opportunity for
44 meaningful submission and not just a pro forma compliance with procedure.
45
46 Brenner questioned Ms. Wells' comments on sewage disposal. The
47 regulations require that subdivisions not be approved outside of urban growth areas
48 and small towns if they require extension or expansion of public sewer except under
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 5
1 two conditions, (a) when it is necessary to protect the public health, safety, or
2 environment and also condition (b). Wells stated that is correct. That is for all
3 areas outside UGA's and small towns. The problem is exempting small towns in the
4 same category as the UGA's because there is no authority in the GMA for making
5 those two equivalent. Lawyers have agreed with her analysis because the specific
6 statute governs. A small town is not a UGA in the Comprehensive Plan. It is a
7 rural zone. Therefore, it falls outside the UGA.
8
9 Brenner stated a small town isn't a rural zoning. It is unique. It is not rural.
10
11 Hoag stated she didn't understand what is wrong the small town language
12 and the difference between the specific statute and the general statute.
13
14 Brenner stated they are working from packet page 340, section
15 21.05.090(2). Wells stated small towns were differentiated from the small cities.
16 They are clusters that are not formally incorporated. In that case, they fall within
17 the rural designation under the Growth Management Act. Under the Growth
18 Management Act, rural zones may not have sewers except according to the criteria.
19 That criteria applied to everything except small towns, if they read the way the
20 ordinance is written.
21
22 Hoag questioned whether there could be public sewer within small towns.
23
24 Nelson stated they are looking at one later in this meeting.
25
26 Aamot stated that is what they are saying. The Comprehensive Plan has
27 three policies that say it is okay to have sewer in a small town. In the GMA, it talks
28 about limited areas of more intensive rural development that can have public
29 services, which includes sewer.
30
31 Hoag questioned what specific citation they are ignoring that contradicts that
32 point. Wells stated the statute is RCW 36.70A.110(4). The definitions in the
33 Growth Management Act, it differentiates between rural facilities and urban
34 facilities. Sewer is specifically singled out as an urban facility, not a rural facility.
35 Public facilities for small towns may include a wide variety of things, but not sewer,
36 according to the specific language in the GMA.
37
38 Dawson stated it could be interpreted to protect the environment. Wells
39 stated it could in terms of protecting against septic system. However, it increases
40 density and stormwater runoff in an area and has the opposite effect.
41
42 Brenner read the statute, which said that urban services could be expanded
43 to rural areas to protect health and safety and if they also do not permit urban
44 development.
45
46 Hoag stated the language read by Councilmember Brenner specifically
47 applies to small towns.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 6
1 Wells stated the language in the ordinance as it is written puts small towns
2 outside of those requirements.
3
4 Crawford questioned whether the remedy would be to exclude the words
5 "and small town comprehensive plan designations" from section 21.05.090(2).
6 Wells stated that was correct.
7
8 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated that Councilmember Crawford asked
9 about the number of water associations that could add members or shares in lieu of
10 having to drill a well. About 90% of the water associations could not add on to
11 expand their water rights, for a number of reasons. One reason is that they
12 haven't performed in doing their paperwork. That is pretty common. The biggest
13 thing is the water right. They cannot expand their water rights under the
14 conditions that exist today. Under rare conditions, the DOE might allow the water
15 association to serve an emergency situation. If the Council approved the ordinance
16 as proposed, they are making many unbuildable properties throughout the county.
17 That is a property right. An owner wouldn't be able to drill an individual well on a
18 property that is under five acres.
19
20 Brenner stated this is for subdivisions, not individual residential lots.
21
22 Wiesen stated that if they eliminate six - packs, there would be more
23 individual wells. There are two things wrong with that. One thing is that they have
24 more holes in the ground, which creates greater risk to the water aquifer. The
25 other thing is that there is no health and safety oversight to those individual wells.
26 The six -packs have to be supervised and tested.
27
28 Brenner questioned why there would be more individual wells if six -packs
29 were not allowed. Wiesen stated that a 20 -acre piece of property, for example,
30 could be sold in five -acre tracts. That would create four properties. The fellow who
31 owned the 20 acres could put in a six -pack well to serve the four properties. If he
32 can't do that, those properties may sell, but the individual owners would have to
33 drill wells on each one of those parcels.
34
35 Dawson questioned whether many of the water associations, while they
36 cannot expand their water right, are vulnerable to losing the right if the right is not
37 used within five years. Wiesen stated that is what they keep hearing. The law is
38 "use it or lose it." They haven't enforced that against large municipalities, but it
39 looks like that is the potential. If health and safety were the primary issue, which it
40 should be, then they should make allowances for these systems to add on. The
41 water is going to get used. However, that is a state issue that the County has no
42 influence over.
43
44 McShane addressed Mr. Wiesen's example. If the person who subdivided the
45 parcel wanted to put in a single well to serve the four lots, he or she could under
46 this ordinance. The hydraulic continuity issue would only apply in situations where
47 one is subdividing to six parcels, at a minimum. One could put a six -pack in, but
48 multiple six -packs would have to be looked at.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 7
1
2 Wiesen stated this is a state issue that has been tested in court. He
3 questioned why the County would get involved in a state issue.
4
5 Brenner stated there are water associations that do have shares and are
6 refusing to serve certain properties within their service area. There is a debate
7 about whether or not they are required to serve. A public water system shouldn't
8 be able to discriminate. Wiesen stated that the Coordinated Water System Plan
9 tried to address that issue. He questioned why the County should be involved in a
10 state issue. The exempt well situation is a state issue and should be clarified and
11 cleaned up as a state issue, not a County issue.
12
13 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
14
15 Hoag moved to adopt the ordinance.
16
17 Crawford stated he had three amendments to bring up for consideration.
18
19 Brenner stated she could not vote to approve or not approve until they get a
20 clarification on a legal matter. She spoke with Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor Dave
21 Grant, who told her they must discuss it in executive session. She moved to go
22 into executive session.
23
24 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated he requested an
25 executive session to discuss an idea that occurred to him this afternoon, and that
26 he had not been able to propose to the entire Council, regarding Title 21 and
27 lessening the County's chances of litigating the situation. The executive session
28 would take five to ten minutes.
29
30 Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
31
32 (Clerk's Note: The Council went into executive session.)
33
34 Crawford stated he would propose three amendments. Two of them he put
35 forward in the committee meeting, but they did not pass. The hour was late at the
36 last meeting.
37
38 Hoag stated the Title 21 in committee also included amendments that the
39 committee voted on. She would also make an amendment to reflect the concern
40 expressed by Sherilyn Wells.
41
42 Crawford stated his first amendment was on packet page 313, page three of
43 the draft Title 21, in section 21.01.040(1), to strike the underlined language,
44 "...within a recorded long or short plat that was filed with the County Auditer at,
45 least five years pFier te the new land divi shall not be required..."
46
47 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 8
1 Crawford continued to state "...the new land division shall not be required to
2 be included if the lot or lots are in conformance with the applicable zoning
3 standard." He moved to remove the underlined portion in section 21.01.040(1) on
4 packet page 313, page three of the draft Title 21. Staff explained that this
5 language change is necessary to prevent people from completing back -to -back
6 short - plats. Those are short -plats that are adjacent to each other. If they were
7 one project, they would require a long -plat. Throughout the code, they should look
8 at the impact to the land, and to the parcel in question, as well as the impact to the
9 surrounding property. This language places the focus on the landowner rather than
10 the land. If someone else owns the plat next door, then the division is allowed. If
11 the plat is placed in a separate name, then it is allowed.
12
13 Dawson restated the motion to delete the underlined portion of that
14 paragraph in section 21.01.040(1) on packet page 313, page three of the draft Title
15 21.
16
17 Hoag stated the language was offered by staff to prevent back -to -back short -
18 plats. The problem with back -to -back short -plats is that they end up dividing what
19 would be a long -plat, but they don't address any of the impacts of a long -plat. It is
20 a way of getting around the law.
21
22 Brenner stated that is not really accurate. It does allow people who've
23 figured out the loophole to put the lots in someone else's name. In this case, it is
24 important for the County Council to limit the back -to -back short -plats as much as
25 possible because they overburden the public with infrastructure that the developer
26 would have had to take care of if he or she had done it as a long -plat. Anything the
27 Council can do to limit that and require a developer to go through the long -plat
28 process like other people are supposed to do is important. If there was a way to
29 require it among people who aren't of the same name, she would support it, but
30 they can't do that legally.
31
32 Hoag stated she understood the principle, and could achieve the same thing
33 by striking the language regarding the same ownership. However, requiring
34 someone who has a contiguous parcel to be involved seems odd. She questioned
35 how that would work out. If they are going to do anything about back -to -back
36 short - plats, the only thing they can do is take care of the ones in the same
37 ownership. If someone comes forward to do something like that, the County should
38 do what it can to prevent it. For the other things, they can't do anything to prevent
39 them. The Council can do something about this, so it should do something about it.
40
41 Crawford stated he didn't disagree with Councilmember Brenner, but he
42 didn't see what it accomplishes. There is an implied message to play the game,
43 play it well, and one could get by with what he or she wants to do. They are
44 creating a loophole, rather than closing a loophole. That was his reason.
45
46 Brenner questioned whether there is someway to close that loophole if
47 parcels are owned by family members.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 9
1 Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, stated this issue has been going on
2 since Title 21 was originally adopted. They have run into an issue of back -to -back
3 short -plats that actually create dozens of lots without going through the long -plat
4 procedure. They looked at ways of eliminating that. They looked at some case law
5 and the current code. They no longer allowed what was considered to be back -to-
6 back short - plats. If a development looks like a long -plat, the developer needs to
7 develop it as a long -plat. There would always be people who could set it up in such
8 a way that it appears to be a phased development. The staff proposed language to
9 the Planning Commission that was very similar to what the Superior Court, Court of
10 Appeals, and State Supreme Court put forward on a case in Island County, but it is
11 very cumbersome so it was pulled. Staff proposed one amendment. A developer
12 may still end up doing back -to -back short - plats, but there would be five years
13 between developments.
14
15 Brenner questioned whether the County has any legal protection against a
16 short -plat in a developer's name and an adjacent short -plat in the developer's
17 spouse's name, for example. Middleton stated it depends on the pattern of
18 development. If the pattern of development is a long -plat, then it may have to be
19 processed as a long -plat.
20
21 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that Mr. Middleton's
22 comments are basically correct, but they didn't pull the language. Staff pitched the
23 language to the Planning Commission, but it didn't make it any further than that.
24 The Council's Planning and Development Committee discussed it at length. The
25 wording that exists today and the proposed wording do not offer a lot of assurance
26 that the County could prevent the sort of abuses that Mr. Middleton spoke of.
27 There are other counties that have different language, which puts them in a better
28 position to prevent the abuse of the long- division process through serial short - plats.
29 The language on the table at this meeting does not quite take Whatcom County all
30 the way there.
31
32 Crawford stated this language was proposed to the Planning Commission.
33 The Planning Commission pulled it out. Middleton stated the Planning Commission
34 did not pull out this particular language. There was a completely different re -write
35 based on trying to address this issue. It was very difficult to understand, and the
36 Planning Commission said that it wouldn't work for them. The staff stopped
37 pushing that language, went back to the old language, which is what is proposed,
38 and added the five -year period.
39
40 Crawford stated that was done at the Planning and Development Committee,
41 not the Planning Commission. He agreed that this came to the Committee without
42 that language. Middleton stated that they may come back for another amendment
43 as case law comes up and if the courts give them better language. Right now, this
44 is the best they could come up with.
45
46 Crawford stated he understood the concerns of the staff, but would stay with
47 his original motion.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 10
1 Dawson restated the motion to delete the underlined words in section
2 21.01.040(1) on packet page 313, page three of the draft Title 21.
3
4 Motion failed 3 -4 with Crawford, Nelson, and Imhof in favor.
5
6 Crawford moved to amend page 319, page nine of the draft Title 21, section
7 21.03.020(3) by deleting the second sentence in that subsection, "...and not
8 containing a dedication.
9 land shall go through the appFepriate long subdivision, short subdivision, er binding
10 ." Staff indicated that
11 this language is necessary to prevent multiple exempt land divisions. However, the
12 second sentence encourages people to split their land immediately under section
13 21.03.020(4). If a landowner doesn't do it in one step, he or she would be forced
14 to complete a short- or long -plat. In addition, the introduction of this sentence
15 could end up requiring a short- or long -plat for a lot line adjustment that made one
16 of the parcels just smaller than twenty acres. The reality is that much of the land
17 that could be divided multiple times by exemption is already in the agricultural
18 protection overlay, where a plat is already required. Therefore, the County is
19 binding people's hands and requiring additional time and money on the part of the
20 County and landowner for divisions that would most likely be lot line adjustments or
21 other divisions of minimal concern to the County.
22
23 Nelson stated all of the issues Mr. Crawford referred to are addressed in
24 section 21.03.020(4). If the developer has done exemptions and is at the 20 -acre
25 parcel, then he or she falls under section 21.03.020(4). He questioned whether Mr.
26 Crawford did not want that to occur.
27
28 Crawford stated that was correct.
29
30 Nelson questioned why.
31
32 Hoag stated the Council started on Title 21 six months ago. She recalled
33 that this was something that Pat Jones spoke to and recommended this language
34 because they didn't want an exemption on top of an exemption, which causes
35 problems. That was why any further subdivision below this had to go through a
36 long -plat process. She asked for explanation from staff.
37
38 Middleton stated they've actually been working on Title 21 for four and a half
39 years. This version has been discussed since March. The language they are
40 looking at now is the language in the Title today. If a person has 100 acres, he or
41 she can create five 20 -acre parcels. If the person wants to subdivide one of those
42 20 -acre parcels, he or she would do it by a short -plat or a long -plat. If a person is
43 going to do five acres, then there needs to be road access. That is the essence of
44 the difference. The smaller pieces do not have a proposed dedication to a road.
45
46 Nelson stated they ended up with a series of small exemptions years ago in
47 the Monroe area. There was no zoning. People would subdivide their parcels, and
48 put in a common road. Now, there are hundreds of miles of roads that are gravel,
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 11
1 and people want pavement. It was nothing the County had control over. This
2 language is trying to protect against the small, inadequately serviced areas being
3 put in. Middleton stated that is one of the main issues.
4
5 Crawford stated the problem is in the language "any further division." It tells
6 the developer to go ahead and divide more than he or she may choose to divide
7 because he or she may lose the ability to divide later.
8
9 Hoag stated a person could still divide later. The developer just has to go
10 through the appropriate long- or short - subdivision, and would not get any more
11 exemptions.
12
13 Crawford withdrew his motion.
14
15 Crawford moved to amend pages 339 and 352 by removing all the language
16 in sections 21.05.080(1)(a) and (b) and 21.07.080(1)(a) and (b). After the word
17 "department" in sections 21.05.080(1) and 21.07.080(1), insert a period.
18
19 Brenner stated that if the Council doesn't get the protections for the County
20 the other way, she would support this motion then. She would not support the
21 motion at this point. She suggested tabling the motion until later in the discussion.
22
23 McShane stated that ultimately, this is to protect the rights of the citizens in
24 the County and their right to water. Staff worked hard to come up with reasonable
25 language. The Council is not stopping subdivisions at all. Many different options
26 could be pursued for someone to subdivide his or her land and have adequate
27 water without harming the existing rights that they already have in this county. He
28 asked the councilmembers to look at Finding 15 on packet page 307. He suggested
29 "the subject regulations ensure that groundwater withdrawals for certain types of
30 land divisions will promote the County's interest in implementing the Whatcom
31 County Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Water Resource Plan." It's all
32 about local control. He hoped the councilmembers consider controlling and
33 protecting the rights of property owners and water users in the county. By not
34 doing this, they are giving up any effort to protect the water users, and they would
35 rely on the state. It has been very clear from both sides that the state is not doing
36 its job. This is the County's opportunity to step in and do the job by controlling
37 how subdivisions are done in Whatcom County to protect the county's citizens.
38
39 Dawson stated they couldn't assume a right that has been given to the state.
40
41 Hoag stated Councilmember McShane's comments were very eloquent. Her
42 concern was twofold. She spoke against the motion to remove the language. This
43 language is the bare minimum of what should be required. This deals only with
44 long subdivisions and is only saying that the County will not approve a subdivision
45 that cannot supply water without having a water right in an area where an aquifer
46 in hydraulic continuity with a river or stream that is subject to closure. If a stream
47 is subject to closure, it is because there is a time period that low water levels cause
48 a problem for the fish in the stream or river. The County is obligated to protect
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 12
1 those fish, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). On one hand, the County
2 needs to protect the fish and other things it is obligated to protect under law and
3 the mandates of the Comprehensive Plan. She referred to packet page 307,
4 Finding 15, which talks about maintaining a high priority for protection of water
5 quality and quantity, identifying and protecting endangered fish, and protecting and
6 enhancing Whatcom County's surface water and groundwater.
7
8 On the other hand, she had concerns about farmers who have been waiting a
9 long time to get water rights. If someone is allowed to do a public long- subdivision
10 that uses a large amount of water, it may have an impact on that person's ability to
11 eventually get their water right. It is not appropriate to go around the loophole. In
12 that instance, this language does not go far enough because it only addresses the
13 situation if the stream or aquifer is closed. They are going to impact senior water
14 rights with six -packs in areas where there are not closed streams and rivers, but
15 this is the bare minimum the Council can do to protect the streams and also senior
16 water rights. She urged the councilmembers to vote no on the amendment.
17
18 Nelson stated no one would disagree with that intent. If they are going to
19 look at groundwater profiles and hydraulic continuity, and hold out the right to
20 develop only by making a landowner pay additional costs to prove that he or she
21 can draw water, it is not fair. If the County is sincere about doing that, then they
22 need to look at studies, find out where these continuities are, and rezone. If they
23 can't have the development there, they should rezone. A court would look at this
24 and say that the County said a person could develop, but then took it away from
25 the person by making him or her go through the additional expense. The Council
26 needs to look at the zoning and make the decision based upon good science, and
27 tell people what they can expect. Don't make people go through some extra steps
28 to provide extra protection of instream flows to other people. They need to take a
29 better look at how to do this. Don't punish some people to protect instream flows
30 where they are not sure the continuity is, and make other landowners pay for it. If
31 the County needs to do that, it needs to designate the areas through the zoning
32 process so everyone is treated fairly.
33
34 Imhof stated that a person goes into it with his or her eyes open, asks
35 questions of people in the know, and makes decisions on the answers he or she
36 receives. He's talked to many people, including people in Thurston County, who
37 have been waging this fight a lot longer than Whatcom County. Thurston County
38 hasn't gotten any further than Whatcom County right now. It is a state job to fix
39 the problem that is perceived or real here. The County should not jeopardize its
40 staff time to fight a battle. The County needs to be realistic about the expectations
41 people have of their land. He would support the amendment.
42
43 Dawson stated she agreed that the fish needed protection. The County has
44 land use regulations that could be employed to protect the fish, and the state is
45 very capable of protecting the fish through its rights to regulate water rights. She
46 would support the motion, as well.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 13
1 Brenner stated her neighbor had six or eight wells punched in a subdivision,
2 and immediately lost water. She agreed with Councilmember Nelson, except that
3 by doing this, it makes it unfair to existing water users. If they are not going to do
4 this, then the County should have a moratorium or something to protect existing
5 water users who have exempt wells.
6
7 McShane stated an individual called him three years ago and told him that
8 his well went dry. The property near the individual, up gradient, had put in three
9 multiple wells to serve 15 homes. Immediately after the subdivision went in and
10 the houses were built, the individual's well went dry. The individual approached
11 him to help go to court and take on this developer, and have the developer fix the
12 well problem. The well had been there for 45 years before it went dry. He talked
13 the individual out of going into court because it would have cost an incredible
14 amount of money. That is what the Council should try to prevent. The Council is
15 addressing the existing water users and people who have expectations that their
16 well water would continue for as long as no geologic calamity wipes them out. That
17 is not going to happen. The County is putting them at risk.
18
19 Councilmember Dawson made the comment that the state can take care of
20 fish. However, the state hasn't done a good job of taking care of the Chinook
21 salmon.
22
23 Brenner stated her neighbor ended up spending $40,000 to dig a new well
24 because it would have cost more money to go to court. It is very difficult for an
25 aggrieved property owner who has lost his or her water to prove which of the
26 multiple wells caused the problem.
27
28 Hoag stated she went to a Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC)
29 legislative meeting. There was discussion about Senate Bill 5289 that was
30 proposed at that time. The state Department of Ecology (DOE) was looking at
31 revising what they were doing in terms of exempt wells to try to prevent the kinds
32 of abuses that they were seeing. The revisions they proposed were horrific. The
33 issue of six -packs was brought up. A commissioner from another county said that
34 Whatcom County did not allow six - packs. She found out it wasn't covered in the
35 subdivision rules, and Whatcom County does allow six - packs. As long as the
36 County allows things like that, it is asking the state to come in, take away its
37 exempt wells, and regulate exempt wells. Right now, the DOE is not touching
38 them. The County needs to be responsible in what it does.
39
40 Her second point to make was about a matter of balance. On one hand,
41 there are people who want to develop their land and subdivide. On the other hand,
42 they are looking at protecting the water resource, other water rights users, and
43 fisheries. The people who want to develop their land have lots of options. They
44 can put in public water supplies, apply for a water right, and do all sorts of things.
45 The only thing the Council is saying they cannot do is put in a six -pack of exempt
46 wells in an area where the streams have been closed because there is not enough
47 water for the fish during certain times of the year. In terms of balance, that is a
48 balanced proposal. They are not closing the door on subdividing. The developer
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 14
1 has many other options available. The Council is saying that the County would take
2 this under consideration. It is an important consideration. It should be protected.
3 The Council should support the language.
4
5 Dawson stated there have been concerns about DOE and the policies that
6 they would create for exempt wells. It is the state that creates the policies, and
7 would not come through the DOE.
8
9 Crawford stated he didn't want to give anyone the impression that he was
10 not sympathetic. He's learned a lot from Councilmember McShane. Although this
11 proposal has created a lot of anxiety in the community, there is also a benefit of
12 getting a great education on how water rights work and how some of the geology
13 that affects this works. He would not question Councilmember McShane's intent,
14 and admires it. When Councilmember McShane first brought this up in committee,
15 he voted for it.
16
17 There are other ways to resolve these issues. It has to do with the message
18 that Whatcom County sends to the state and the interaction with the state
19 legislators. The state plays a major role in working on this particular issue. The
20 County is the leader in the State of Washington in moving forward with a review of
21 water rights allocation and getting closer to a point of issuing water rights with
22 DOE. The County's water rights person, Bruce Roll, goes to state meetings and
23 continues to report that no county has gone as far as Whatcom County. Whatcom
24 County just budgeted millions of dollars to continue moving that process forward.
25 That process was authored by a local legislator, Kelli Linville. Whatcom County is
26 doing a lot and is sending very strong signals to the state. He was less concerned
27 about Councilmember's Hoag concern that the state would step in if Whatcom
28 County doesn't do enough. It is very obvious that Whatcom County is doing
29 everything it can.
30
31 He was sympathetic to Councilmember McShane's issues and wanted to see
32 some resolution of that, but this is not the means to do it. He was very concerned
33 about the County's liability on other issues if it implements this.
34
35 Motion to amend carried 4 -3 with Brenner, Hoag, and McShane opposed.
36
37 McShane stated that Finding 15 should be left in. It has to do with the
38 portion they just removed.
39
40 Hoag stated they should strike it.
41
42 Nelson moved to strike Finding 15 on packet page 307.
43
44 Crawford questioned whether this finding was inserted only after
45 Councilmember McShane originally suggested the language restricting exempt
46 wells.
47
48 McShane stated it was. It is the finding for that language.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 15
1
2 Hoag stated she supported striking the language. They shouldn't say they
3 are protecting water, fish, and water rights, because they are not.
4
5 Brenner stated she would support striking the language. There are still
6 protections in the ordinance. The finding talks about limiting groundwater
7 withdrawals for certain types of land divisions. That is not what they are doing.
8
9 Motion carried unanimously.
10
11 McShane read the amendment recommended by the Planning and
12 Development Committee. He moved to amend language on packet page 320 to
13 reflect staff's recommendation for section (6)(d), "Furthermore, the covenant shall
14 state that no short plat may be created from any of the lots within five years. After
15 this five year period, any further division..."
16
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19 McShane moved to amend packet page 329, section 21.04.080(3) regarding
20 easements, "The owner s- as may specify the burdening...." It puts a burden on the
21 County to review whether the owner has burdened the easement in that manner.
22 This language also shows up on packet page 338 in section 21.05.070(3).
23
24 Nelson questioned whether that puts the County in the position of being in
25 error.
26
27 McShane stated that the reason the underlined language in the second
28 portion was added was to protect the County. It has to be reviewed by staff, and
29 there was a concern that staff may miss an issue. He didn't think that was a
30 problem. He also didn't think the County should require the property owner to do
31 that.
32
33 Hoag stated that change was brought forward to the Council by Pat Jones as
34 a recommendation from either him or the Technical Advisory Committee. When it
35 was discussed, there was much support from others who testified and sent letters.
36 The issue was that, if someone does not specify the burdening of an easement,
37 then he or she has no idea what the final use would be. According to Mr. Jones,
38 much of this ends up in court, but it doesn't have to. It could be prevented at the
39 beginning by requiring that the burdening be specified.
40
41 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
42
43 Hoag continued to state that they were counseled that it didn't put the
44 County at risk because the burden wasn't on the County. It was on the owner.
45 They could avoid hassles down the road by requiring burdening up front. If the
46 owners want to change the burdening because of changed conditions, they could
47 renegotiate the easement.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 16
1 Brenner asked for a staff opinion on whether this would be a burden.
2 Middleton stated this is an amendment that Mr. Jones brought up. It really doesn't
3 change how he would be doing subdivisions. The exact burdening of the easement
4 is a good idea, but if the Council says that the burden "shall" be specified, he would
5 hold up the short -plat until the owners file the information. If not, he would
6 approve the short -plat. It doesn't really matter in terms of administration of the
7 code. It is a political decision.
8
9 Dawson stated it is nice for the neighbors to have something clearly spelled
10 out.
11
12 Hoag stated that if the word is "may," they might as well not put the
13 requirement in at all, because they could skip it if they want. They haven't
14 accomplished anything.
15
16 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, stated the recommendation
17 came from Mr. Jones independently. The Technical Advisory Committee
18 recommended the word "may." Even though disclaimer language had been added,
19 it seems that making it mandatory may create quite a few problems if one specifies
20 that a certain ditch can only have a certain amount of water going through it.
21 Someone may have to hire a hydraulic engineer down the road because of a
22 dispute over how much water is going through it. Making it mandatory may wind
23 up putting County staff in a situation of spending quite a bit of time with those
24 types of disputes. If the County is telling someone that he or she must burden an
25 easement, and there is a hassle down the road, it seems that the County would
26 have some liability because it forced the burden to be specified.
27
28 McShane stated that staff would have to carefully review the burdening if it is
29 mandatory. Mr. Mills is saying that it opens the County up to making a mistake. It
30 isn't necessary for the Council to put the County in that position.
31
32 Hoag stated this was covered in the committee. The County is not involved.
33 All the County is saying is that it would be specified. In terms of the specification,
34 it was clear that the specification could be vague, if it was acceptable to both
35 parties. The only part the County played was requiring it up front.
36
37 McShane stated the buyer should beware, and the County should not step
38 into that arena in this case.
39
40 Motion carried 5 -2 with Hoag and Crawford opposed.
41
42 McShane clarified that the language is in three different locations: section
43 21.04.080(3), section 21.05.070(3), and section 21.07.070(3).
44
45 McShane stated staff recommended an amendment during the committee
46 meeting, which was approved, at the bottom of packet page 329, section
47 21.04.090(2)(b) regarding water supply, "Health Offm Director of Health and
48 Human Services." Make that change throughout the document.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 17
1
2 Motion carried unanimously.
3
4 Hoag moved to amend packet page 340, section 21.05.090(2) regarding
5 sewage disposal, "Outside of Urban Growth Areas and Small Tewn GenqpFehensive
6 Plan designatiens, subdivisions shall not...." Outside of urban growth areas,
7 extensions of public sewer can be only when it is necessary to protect the public
8 health, safety, or environment and the sewer is financially supportable at rural
9 densities and does not permit urban development. Striking the language would
10 also require that subsections (a) and (b) be met in small towns before sewer is
11 extended. That would be in compliance with what was read under Revised Code of
12 Washington (RCW) 36.70A.110(4).
13
14 Aamot stated the Growth Management Act (GMA) does have the provision
15 about providing sewer outside of urban growth areas. That was the language that
16 they initially had. There was a 1997 amendment to the GMA that related to rural
17 areas of more intensive development, under RCW 36.70.070(5)(d), which he read
18 into the record. Deming fits the description of an area with more intensive rural
19 development. He read the definition of public facilities in RCW 36.07A.030(12).
20 There are three policies in the Comprehensive Plan that talk about providing sewer
21 in small towns. They cite those policies in Finding 14. Staff's interpretation is that
22 small towns are appropriate under both the GMA and Comprehensive Plan.
23
24 Grant stated the analysis of Sherilyn Wells made during open session failed
25 to take into consideration the fact that Chapter 17, Title 58 controls subdivisions in
26 the state. All long -plats have to comply with the provisions of that particular
27 chapter. The issue addressed by Title 21 is not controlled specifically or solely by
28 the GMA. It is also controlled by this other act of the state legislature.
29
30 Hoag questioned what in the subdivision law argues with Ms. Wells
31 testimony. Grant stated there is a provision that directs local jurisdictions to
32 consider just whether it is necessary to protect public health. It dovetails in nicely
33 with what one must consider, according to this other chapter that controls the
34 division of land. It doesn't necessarily contradict Ms. Wells' statement, but her
35 analysis may not have incorporated that consideration.
36
37 Nelson stated he would vote against the proposed amendment. There have
38 been many cases in which they've talked about the small communities that have
39 been traditional areas where development occurred, but not on the grand scale of
40 Bellingham or Ferndale, but have potential to become larger hubs of the
41 communities. It isn't appropriate for the County to curtail development of sewer or
42 water resources from those areas if they are capable of paying for it and
43 implementing it to protect their environmental areas.
44
45 Brenner stated she wanted to be sure the Council doesn't do something that
46 violates GMA. Through the state legislation, they've lost the ability to do
47 townships. Through local legislation, they've found a middle ground to be able to
48 do that. She wanted to help small town communities be able to do whatever they
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 18
1 can to stay small town communities. Giving them sewer would not interfere with
2 GMA. It might allow them to stay small instead of forcing them to incorporate.
3
4 Hoag stated she agreed with the sentiments expressed. However, she
5 wanted to make sure they are complying with the law. She didn't think that this
6 matches what they read in RCW 36.70. She didn't know if the amendment he
7 referred to covers it because she hadn't had time to study it.
8
9 Grant stated he didn't want to discount Ms. Wells' arguments.
10
11 Hoag questioned whether RCW 36.70A and the 1997 amendment to
12 36.70.070 negate RCW 36.70 that was mentioned. Grant stated he felt
13 comfortable with what they are proposing in lieu of the fact that the County isn't
14 totally controlled by GMA. It is a consideration. The language that Ms. Wells cited
15 isn't as specific as she purported it to be, in particular when looking in conjunction
16 with the requirements that they have to have under state law built into the
17 subdivision ordinances.
18
19 Hoag withdrew the motion because of the 1997 amendment and lack of a
20 clear answer from legal counsel. She wished they had a chance to pursue this
21 ahead of time.
22
23 Brenner stated this is an issue they can bring back up if they find any
24 changes that warrant it. She was concerned, but not as much now that it is a legal
25 problem.
26
27 Motion to adopt the ordinance as amended carried unanimously.
28
29 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
30 TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.80.730, LAND CLEARING AND 20.97,
31 DEFINITIONS (AB2000 -391)
32
33 Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, gave a staff report and stated that he would
34 discuss five areas of the proposal, and then summarize the staff's findings. He
35 would refer to the supplemental staff report and the attached options one and two,
36 as well as Exhibit A -1. The proposal was initiated based on 1997 legislation that
37 amended the Forest Practices Act, Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 76.09. That
38 amendment had two main components. One component was a requirement to
39 impose and remove development moratoriums for forest practice violations. The
40 other component was for the County to assume responsibility for class IV forest
41 practices, which are conversions. That is required by December 31, 2001. The
42 County staff attempted to do that.
43
44 The process initiated in April 1999. The staff had a proposal ready for a
45 Planning Commission public hearing on September 23, 1999. Staff submitted the
46 proposal and referenced ordinances to the state Department of Natural Resources
47 (DNR) and state Department of Ecology (DOE) as prescribed by the legislation. In
48 that legislation, it requires that DNR authorize the County's assumption of the
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 19
1 responsibility for the conversions and all the permits required with conversions, to
2 be jointly reviewed by the DOE. The County submitted an entire packet for their
3 review. The County didn't receive any comment from DNR for some time. In fact,
4 the County finally received a letter on August 16, 2000. The letter said that the
5 County didn't comply. Part of the reason was that, on March 20, 2000, the DNR
6 adopted their emergency rules, several months after the County sent in its
7 application. The DNR judged the application against their emergency rules, which
8 were not written at the time the County initiated the product. It wasn't surprising
9 to find that the County did not comply.
10
11 This fall, the County staff had some issue come up where they wanted to
12 address this problem of the development moratorium and the fact that the County
13 doesn't have any process to remove a development moratorium, should the
14 individual who had that in place resolve his or her problems. The Land Use Division
15 staff requested the Planning Division staff to move the portion of the proposal
16 forward that addressed that problem. To do that, the Planning staff had to
17 reevaluate the proposal. The reevaluation is described in the supplemental staff
18 report, where they evaluated what they could move forward and what they needed
19 to change to make sure the proposal was clear in that the County was not assuming
20 class IV conversion responsibilities. There were other changes that were noted.
21
22 In addition, the County received comments from DNR on options one and two
23 that are attached to the supplemental staff report. Those comments are included in
24 Exhibit A -1. The proposal now is primarily the proposal that was forwarded on by
25 the Planning Commission. It had a public hearing and their language was modified
26 to take out any references to the County's authority over class IV conversions. In
27 looking at the body of the proposal, the majority of it was developed and run
28 through the process with the Planning Commission.
29
30 The County has two options, options one and two. He would discuss option
31 two first. It is the most basic version and basically adds specific language for the
32 development moratorium imposition and removal. Option one of the supplemental
33 staff report began on packet page 384. He referenced Whatcom County Code
34 section 20.80.730(7)(a) on packet page 387. That section discusses what gets one
35 into a moratorium and how one gets out of a moratorium.
36
37 Hoag stated this didn't go into the Planning and Development Committee. It
38 came straight to the Council. She had many questions, this is a lengthy staff
39 report, and the hour is getting late. She asked for a concise staff report, suggested
40 that they hold the public hearing, and then refer it to committee.
41
42 Dawson stated that was appropriate.
43
44 Roland Middleton, Land Use Division Manager, stated that the County has a
45 pending action with regard to lifting a six -year moratorium. The Hearing Examiner
46 has held off because this item was coming to the Council. That is the urgency.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 20
1 Olason stated the removal of the moratorium is in two forms. One is through
2 a public hearing process and the Hearing Examiner. The other is administrative and
3 has to do with single family residences. Those are all contained in item seven,
4 subsections (b) and (c).
5
6 Option one contains the more complete packet that came from the Planning
7 Commission. The main difference is that option one identifies a forest conversion
8 land clearing permit. It has a number of items that help clarify the difference in
9 land clearing permits between a regular land clearing and when one gets involved
10 in clearing land that has a forest on it. It first of all establishes an intended use for
11 the converted land. It asks what the owner would do after he or she harvests.
12 Secondly, it seeks to reduce the area disturbed by the tree harvest. If there is no
13 specific plan for conversion, it requires that the owner stabilize the site within the
14 first growing season. It also seeks to foster coordination of tree harvest in clearing
15 activities with development plans, road layout, drainage considerations, and the
16 like. So, if one does have a plan and knows that he or she is going to a short plat
17 or long plat, there is a conceptual plan drawn up before the harvest is done, so the
18 road layouts and other things are used for more than just the purpose of the
19 harvest.
20
21 It also has a limitation on granting permits for an 18 -month period if the
22 landowner does claim that he or she doesn't have an idea of what to do with the
23 property after the tree harvest. Many times, people just harvest the trees because
24 the price is right, and they are not sure what they want to do. Staff felt this added
25 an additional protection on clearing permits that are issued for forest conversions.
26 This, however, does not satisfy DNR's requirements for the County to assume the
27 conversion review process. This is essentially what the County does now by
28 requiring a clearing permit with the conversion permit that DNR would review.
29
30 DNR's comments are included in Exhibit A -1 of the supplemental staff
31 report. They are important to review and consider because they do incorporate
32 specific forest practice terms and forest practice processes in the language they
33 suggest be added to the County's original language. It improves the clarity and
34 doesn't alter the intent of the County's original language. Forest practices are very
35 specific and have extremely specific terms. It can be a very legalistic exercise to
36 work through. If the County could use the same terminology, it would be better
37 off.
38
39 On page three of Exhibit A -1, packet page 408, definitions are pulled out.
40 The crossed out sections are the activities that would not be allowed at this time.
41 They would come into play when the County eventually assumes the responsibility
42 for conversions of forestlands.
43
44 If this is going to go into the committee, he would hold the rest of the detail.
45 In the supplemental staff report, he provided separate findings for each option.
46 They need to make sure to coordinate the findings in each ordinance.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 21
1 Crawford stated he was unclear about the two options. He questioned
2 whether only option one was before the Planning Commission. Option two has
3 been proposed since that Planning Commission review. Olason stated option one is
4 what the Planning Commission approved, with the changes he explained. Option
5 two simply deals with the imposition and removal of the moratorium. The reason
6 he separated them out was because the intent of the original, complete package
7 was to assume responsibility for forestland conversions. Since the County is not
8 going to do that, based on DNR's response, there was a question about whether or
9 not to include that forestland conversion permit requirement. It is a more detailed
10 clearing permit requirement, but it doesn't meet the intent that the Planning
11 Commission had in mind when it approved it. When Council gets it, it can look at
12 either option. They are still going to have to deal with the conversion of forestland
13 responsibility assumption at some time. They have a need to get the moratorium
14 addressed. The simplest way to look at this is to defer option one and go with
15 option two to get this moratorium addressed immediately.
16
17 Crawford questioned whether they could do that without taking option two to
18 the Planning Commission and going through the normal process that they normally
19 go through for these kinds of decisions. Olason stated that is why they are having
20 a public hearing on this. They had a public hearing on the general concept. The
21 only thing that really changed was that the County is not in a position to use this as
22 the way to assume those responsibilities. The issue is that they've had this thing
23 languishing out there for months. There was a need to have this issue addressed
24 for a long time. Staff was encouraged to bring it forward and put it on the table
25 with the options. The moratorium is the issue.
26
27 Brenner was concerned about the legality of one of the options not having
28 gone through the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Olason stated that
29 option one, which is the most complete form, is the one that came through the
30 Planning Commission. Option two is a portion of option one. He just threw out the
31 land clearing section.
32
33 Brenner stated option two did go through the Planning Commission, but is
34 not as complete. Olason stated that was correct.
35
36 Middleton stated that in 1997, the state legislature passed regulations
37 changing the Forest Practice Act to put a great burden on to local jurisdictions with
38 regard to clearing of forested land to non - forestry use. Together with that, the
39 legislature put in enforcement regulations regarding a six -year moratorium. If one
40 commits a violation, he or she gets a six -year moratorium on the property. The
41 County has had about six of those violations. Option one tries to solve all of the
42 issues that was handed to the County in 1997. That is what went through the
43 Planning Commission. DNR has had some issues with that, and that is what the
44 bulk of the staff report is. He encouraged Mr. Olason to create option two, which is
45 the six -year moratorium issue. The six -year moratoriums are being imposed
46 because the state law says that the County shall impose a six -year moratorium.
47 The County shall also put together a public process in lifting those six -year
48 moratoriums. That process isn't there. The people who have the six -year
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 22
1 moratoriums and who would like to go through the procedure to have it lifted, do
2 not have a procedure to do that. That is what is before the Council now.
3
4 Brenner stated she didn't want to appear to rush this through because
5 someone is waiting on a Hearing Examiner decision. This is the first that they've
6 seen it. It sounds like the County has to set up a procedure to get it lifted. If the
7 landowner violated the regulations in the first place, she wanted to make sure the
8 County does this carefully. Middleton stated they are not looking at the entire
9 thing.
10
11 Nelson stated that they have a legal process, a moratorium, which takes
12 away a right, in essence. Under law, when they take away a right, they are
13 required to have some mechanism in which a person has their day in court.
14
15 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that the statute in control
16 is the Forest Practice Act, which gives the County that prerogative. The County just
17 hasn't built in the process, and it needs a process. The Hearing Examiner has
18 continued the hearing, so it shouldn't be a burden on the Hearing Examiner to wait
19 a couple of weeks while this goes to committee.
20
21 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
22
23 Steve Lemay, 9494 Sunrise Road, Blaine, stated a developer purchased 35
24 acres beside and behind him. The County imposed a six -year building moratorium
25 because his neighbor logged and built a road on the property surrounding him
26 without a permit. Part of the new laws that are proposed may undermine the
27 County's authority in this area. There is a problem with the appeal process. The
28 way it reads now, it allows moratoriums due to intentional misconduct to just be
29 lifted. He wanted to make sure the new laws are clear about why and how the
30 moratorium would be lifted. There should be criteria listed. The appeal process
31 should not be used to remove the consequences of the guilty party. Instead, they
32 should uphold the innocent people. If they don't have good reasons for lifting or
33 not lifting a moratorium, some people are going to do whatever they want, realizing
34 that they can go through the appeal process to get a moratorium overturned.
35
36 Dawson stated this item would go to the Planning Committee in two weeks.
37 She asked that any comments or suggestions be submitted in writing.
38
39 Ginger Essex, 1540 Franklin Street, Bellingham, stated that one doesn't go
40 through the appeal process to lift the moratorium. There are two phases. The
41 head of the Planning Department decides on single - family residence violations. The
42 development moratorium goes through the Hearing Examiner. Criteria must be
43 met, as listed in Mr. Olason's report and DNR's report. The criteria are stringent. If
44 harvestable timber was taken down, the landowner is double- fined, which means
45 that he or she must pay double the amount they received for the timber. There is
46 also mitigation that has to be done. Someone that is a biologist has to come to the
47 site and decide what types of trees and vegetation have to be planted. The owner
48 has to make it better than it was before the harvest. It is a stringent process. The
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 23
1 Planning Department worked hard at putting something together in a timely
2 fashion. Whatcom County does not meet the second half of the state requirement.
3 She asked the Council to support the recommendation.
4
5 Jeff Bode, 1207 Chuckanut Drive, stated he is the attorney for Mr. Steve
6 Lemay. The moratorium is imposed under requirements set out in the state
7 statute. There is nothing more stringent in the County's version of the ordinance
8 than in the state law. The only real question the Council has to decide is how
9 lenient the County is going to be in terms of lifting a moratorium. In one
10 circumstance, a landowner or developer inadvertently or by accident commits a
11 violation of the law. In another circumstance, the violations are intentional, or at
12 least the person should have known better. There is nothing in this ordinance that
13 speaks to that distinction.
14
15 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
16
17 Bode continued to state that they should come up with some technical
18 language to address the state of mind of the person who is doing this. The Hearing
19 Examiner is capable of taking evidence on the state of mind of the person who did
20 the illegal forest practices. State of mind is a fact, and the Hearing Examiner can
21 figure it out. The Council just needs to provide direction on what he should
22 consider. He would suggest language for that.
23
24 Bill Roessel, 6039 Northwest Road, Ferndale, stated he has a piece of
25 property in a six -year moratorium from Whatcom County. At the time the
26 moratorium was placed, he had a permit from the Engineering Division to construct
27 a road. He told Whatcom County what he was doing and kept them informed. As
28 he was clearing for the road right -of -way, he cut down one and a half truckloads of
29 trees. One can cut down 5,000 feet of trees per season. That is one truckload.
30 The DNR put a stop -work order up. The DNR said that all he had to do was get a
31 conversion permit. He started that process. In his conversion permit, he worked
32 out all the critical uses and it was all signed off. He'd worked out the problem he
33 created. He didn't know that he could cut down only a certain number of trees.
34 The DNR permit was issued. All the DNR wanted him to do was get a conversion
35 permit. He had a permit to put the road in. No trees were harvested. They were
36 cut down, and left there. DNR said he could sell some of the trees if he got a
37 conversion permit. That is what he did. When the Building and Codes Division got
38 the application for the permit, because of the stop -work order, the County has to
39 issue the six -year moratorium by state law. It is a catch -22 for the County. He is
40 now trying to go through the appeal process through the Hearing Examiner.
41
42 Dawson stated that the Council could not hear testimony from people going
43 through the Hearing Examiner process because the Council may have to hear an
44 appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision. There was no intent.
45
46 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 24
1 Nelson moved to refer the item to the Planning & Development Committee
2 and then to the full Council. The public hearing will be continued to December 12,
3 2000. The public comment period will be open for both written and oral comment.
4
5 Motion carried unanimously.
6
7 (Clerk's Note: The Council took a ten - minute break. Beginning of tape three.)
8
9 5. ORDINANCE REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF SPEED LIMITS WITHIN
10 A SCHOOL ZONE (AB2000 -393)
11
12 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, gave a staff report and stated
13 this is in the Geneva area, along Cable Street, to more closely match today's
14 conditions.
15
16 Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one else, closed the
17 public hearing.
18
19 Imhof moved to adopt the ordinance.
20
21 Brenner stated they extended the speed limit at Smith and Northwest roads.
22 However, instead of extending it, they just pushed down the 45 miles per hour
23 sign. When she is going 25 miles per hour going south, past the North Bellingham
24 school and the private school, people get impatient with her because they think she
25 is supposed to be driving 45 miles per hour. If they are going to extend the 20
26 miles per hour speed limit area, then install signs to show people what the speed
27 limit really is. There isn't a sign in front of the private school, which is the reason
28 the Council extended the speed limit zone.
29
30 Nelson stated that issue should be in the Public Works Committee and has
31 nothing to do with this ordinance.
32
33 Crawford asked if the traffic light is now a bottleneck for all the Sudden
34 Valley people coming into town in the morning. Mills stated there is a fair amount
35 of traffic. Most of the bottleneck is more toward town.
36
37 Crawford questioned whether going from 25 miles per hour to 20 miles per
38 hour doesn't have that much effect on traffic, and it is just a safety precaution for
39 the kids. Mills stated that was correct. There is already a 20 miles per hour zone
40 there. This just adjusts the length of the zone.
41
42 Brenner stated that when they extend the zone, they need to put another
43 sign up. She moved to add a second 20 miles per hour speed sign at the beginning
44 of the extension.
45
46 Nelson questioned whether the existing signs would be moved according to
47 the extension. Mills stated that was correct. In this case, those two signs are
48 electric signs that flash during school hours.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 25
1
2 Nelson asked what he would see at the end of the school speed limit zone.
3 Mills stated the regular speed limit sign would be re- posted at the end of the zone.
4
5 Brenner stated that the Engineering staff have always said that if they are
6 going to make changes that effect traffic patterns, they have to make sure there is
7 something visual that will make people change their patterns. People aren't used to
8 going that slow after the school. Mills stated that, typically, they put one sign on
9 the approaching lane in each direction of the school zones.
10
11 Brenner stated the drivers are not going to see the sign on the other side.
12
13 Dawson stated the speed limit is posted. A driver is supposed to stay at that
14 speed until there is another sign.
15
16 Hoag asked where the second sign would go.
17
18 Brenner stated the second sign would be placed at the beginning of the
19 extended area. It doesn't have to be an electronic sign.
20
21 Motion to amend failed 2 -5 with Brenner and Hoag in favor.
22
23 Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
24
25 6. ORDINANCE REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF SPEED LIMITS ON
26 CERTAIN COUNTY ROADS (AB2000 -394)
27
28 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, gave a staff report and stated
29 this is a bookkeeping item. They are taking new plats that have been approved and
30 established, and are approving the new speed limits within those plats. They do
31 this occasionally.
32
33 Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
34 hearing.
35
36 Hoag moved to adopt the ordinance.
37
38 Motion carried unanimously.
39
40 7. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY SPEED LIMIT CHANGE
41 FOR PARK ROAD (AB2000 -395)
42
43 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, gave a staff report and
44 explained the history of the request. This was discussed in the Public Works
45 Committee a couple of weeks ago. Recently, a school bus went into the ditch. The
46 proposal to alter the truck speed limit from 35 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour
47 temporarily until the County can improve Park Road came out of the committee.
48 The speed limit now is 35 miles per hour for all vehicles. Trucks are having a very
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 26
1 difficult time because it is a sharp, winding road. The lanes are only nine feet wide
2 and have very small shoulders. Buses are eight and a half feet wide. The Mt.
3 Baker School District has put a voluntary speed limit on their buses that go on this
4 road. This was a good idea to bring forward at this time, due to the nature and
5 condition of Park Road.
6
7 Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
8 hearing.
9
10 Imhof moved to adopt the ordinance.
11
12 Brenner stated this was not what came out of committee. The committee
13 talked about reducing the speed limit to 25 miles per hour for all traffic, not just
14 trucks. Many of the problems that people have encountered have involved cars.
15 Also, she did not want to call this a temporary speed limit change. She wanted it to
16 be a permanent change. If circumstances change some time in the future, the
17 County could always change the speed limit. She moved to amend the title of the
18 ordinance, "Ordinance establishing a teffipeFary speed limit change for Park Road."
19 It may be temporary forever. The County may make the changes and decide it still
20 does not want to increase the speed.
21
22 Motion to amend failed 1 -6 with Brenner in favor.
23
24 Brenner moved to amend line 20 of the ordinance, "...shall be temporarily
25 changed to 25 miles per hour , with the speed lingit fei= ether- tr-affie
26 Femaining 35 miles per hour." People on Park Road requested that all traffic be
27 reduced to 25 miles per hour.
28
29 Hoag stated there is a difference between the width of trucks and the width
30 of cars and also a difference in the ability to maneuver the road. She supported the
31 speed limit of 25 miles per hour for trucks. She was hesitant to change the speed
32 limit for cars. A speed limit of 35 miles per hour is a reasonable speed.
33
34 Brenner stated there is only an eight -foot lane, and the road is very winding.
35
36 Nelson questioned the length of this section of road. Mills stated the length
37 is 2.8 miles.
38
39 Nelson questioned whether those miles are in the winding section of the
40 road. Mills stated they are.
41
42 Nelson stated he would support the motion. There is going to be a tendency
43 for vehicles behind the trucks to want to pass the trucks. It could create even more
44 problems with different speeds. People will get angry and frustrated, even though
45 there are only 2.8 miles. The driver of a car could argue that he or she had a right
46 to pass the truck because of the ability to go a faster speed. He would support the
47 motion to protect the County's liability.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 27
1 Hoag agreed with Councilmember Nelson.
2
3 Motion to amend carried unanimously.
4
5 Motion to adopt as amended carried unanimously.
6
7 8. ORDINANCE REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF SPEED LIMIT ON
8 LOOMIS TRAIL ROAD (AB2000 -396)
9
10 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, gave a staff report and stated
11 Loomis Trail Road from Sunrise Road to Bob Hall Road was recently improved. It
12 now has very adequate shoulders and good road width. This ordinance would bring
13 the speed up from 35 miles per hour to 50 miles per hour, which is consistent with
14 the section of the road to the east.
15
16 Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
17 hearing.
18
19 Nelson moved to adopt.
20
21 Motion carried unanimously.
22
23 9. ORDINANCE REGARDING INSTALLING STOP SIGNS ON CERTAIN
24 COUNTY ROADS (AB2000 -397)
25
26 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, gave a staff report and stated
27 this is a bookkeeping item for recently approved plats.
28
29 Brenner questioned where Burnham Drive is located. Mills stated he didn't
30 know.
31
32 Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
33 hearing.
34
35 Imhof moved to adopt.
36
37 Motion carried unanimously.
38
39
40 CONSENT AGENDA
41
42 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
43 stated that both items were approved in committee.
44
45 Imhof withdrew item one.
46
47 Hoag withdrew item two.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 28
1 2. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING A SALARY SCHEDULE
2 AND POLICIES FOR UNREPRESENTED WHATCOM COUNTY EMPLOYEES
3 FOR THE YEAR 20 (AB2000 -370)
4
5 Hoag stated that item 3.2 on packet page seven talks about other positions
6 not on a salary matrix, the court reporter and the Health Officer. The Health Officer
7 is making more than a District Court Commissioner and almost as much as a
8 Superior Court Commissioner. That seems to be unreasonably high.
9
10 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated that, for the last three or four
11 years, this County has had a County Health Officer who is a medical doctor,
12 working a level of 60 percent of a full -time equivalent. The amount in place for that
13 period of time is equal to this amount.
14
15 Hoag questioned whether the Health Officer refers to the County's medical
16 doctor. Desler stated it does, Dr. Stern.
17
18 Hoag stated she had thought the Health Officer was just someone in the
19 Health Department. She appreciated the clarification.
20
21 Brenner stated she assumed that, at some time, they raised that salary back
22 up. Desler stated the County has not raised that full -time equivalency beyond 60
23 percent.
24
25 Brenner questioned whether the Health Officer is earning 60 percent of the
26 full -time amount of $7,804. Desler stated that was correct.
27
28 Hoag stated packet page 14 says that the monthly salary in the year 2001
29 for the Sheriff would be $6,667 at 82 percent of the Prosecuting Attorney. That is a
30 new change. The old percentage was 76.29 percent. The money amount had been
31 $6,082 per month. With the cost of living adjustment (COLA) for 2001, it would
32 have been approximately $6,200. The reason given for the change was because
33 the Sheriff is not making as much as the Undersheriff, but the Undersheriff was
34 chosen by the Sheriff, and he could have chosen someone makes less. It seems
35 that the appropriate criteria for raising pay and adjusting percentages within a
36 wage structure is if they determine that someone is doing an outstanding job, and
37 needs more pay, or if they find that someone is very much underpaid. She had
38 problems with the direction that the Sheriff has followed in her part of the county.
39 She has had a lot of complaints from constituents who feel that the response times
40 are not being adequately addressed. The Council recommended and approved
41 remote stations a couple of years ago. The Sheriff did not implement them. She
42 didn't see any reason to increase this just because the Sheriff's chosen Undersheriff
43 is making more than the Sheriff. She moved to put the percentage back to 76.29
44 percent, and then the monthly salary would be approximately $6,200. The wage is
45 an adequate compensation for the job. It is an elected position.
46
47 Brenner stated she was very uncomfortable with changing the scale because
48 someone underneath is making more, but she believed that the Sheriff's position
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 29
1 deserves this. The Auditor, Treasurer, and Assessor, for what they do and the
2 amount of responsibility they have, should be paid more. It is glaring when they
3 look at it in comparison. She would vote against the amendment. An increase for
4 anyone should not be brought forward because of someone under someone else
5 earns more money. She didn't have a problem with the Sheriff earning this amount
6 of money.
7
8 Dawson stated all the elected officials are doing an excellent job. She would
9 support the Sheriff getting that raise, but when there is an elected position, the
10 official accepts that pay going into the position, so she supported Councilmember
11 Hoag's motion.
12
13 Motion to amend failed 2 -5 with Hoag and Dawson in favor.
14
15 Brenner stated she had a long talk with Dewey Desler about several concerns
16 about this. People should understand that the Council is adopting this for this year,
17 but would look into some things and there may be changes next year. This isn't set
18 in stone. There are some changes she is nervous about. The Council is going to
19 evaluate some of the changes.
20
21 Motion to approve the main amended motion carried unanimously.
22
23 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #00-
24 105 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, FRONTIER FORD, TO
25 PURCHASE 15 REPLACEMENT SEDANS FOR THE SHERIFF'S
26 DEPARTMENT, FOR A BID TOTAL OF $355,093.20 (AB2000 -405)
27
28 Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
29 moved the recommendation to add five more vehicles to the request, as approved
30 in the 2001 budget, for a total amount of $439,200 plus tax. Fifteen of the vehicles
31 were replacement vehicles out of ER &R, and the added five vehicles would be out of
32 the revenue sources allocated during the budget process for the year 2001.
33 Frontier Ford was the lowest bidder.
34
35 Hoag questioned why they made the change from 15 to 20 vehicles.
36
37 Nelson stated there were five new sheriff deputies.
38
39 Brenner questioned whether this was done before the budget was approved.
40
41 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated there is an opportunity to take
42 advantage of this low bid. The administration proposed to add five vehicles for
43 eight new deputies, and try to extend the life of the remaining fleet as they brought
44 those additional deputies on.
45
46 Nelson stated they couldn't convert the new vehicles overnight, with all the
47 new equipment that goes on them. It would take time to get those improvements
48 done and the new sheriff deputies need time to get their training.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 30
1
2 Brenner questioned why they are getting the change at this meeting, rather
3 than before this meeting. Desler stated they had the opportunity to purchase
4 additional vehicles off of the same bid.
5
6 Brenner stated she was uncomfortable doing it this way.
7
8 Nelson stated the alternative was to do another bid later on for five vehicles,
9 which might result in a higher price.
10
11 Brenner stated she wanted to wait two weeks.
12
13 Hoag questioned whether the price on the first 15 is a better price than what
14 the County usually gets.
15
16 Mary Green, ER &R Manager, stated the bid was almost identical to the state
17 bid. It is the best price they are going to get.
18
19 Brenner questioned the number of bidders. Green stated there were two
20 bidders, Diehl Ford and Frontier Ford.
21
22 Brenner questioned whether the County has an obligation to put it out to the
23 bidders, because the other bidder may go lower if there are more. Green stated
24 that when she put the bid out, she specified that the bid was for 15 or more
25 vehicles.
26
27 Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
28
29 Nelson stated that it was brought to the Finance Committee's attention that
30 the County has an opportunity to obtain up to $300,000 next year from the federal
31 government's forest land grants, thanks to one of the County's councilmembers.
32
33 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated Congress and the President
34 recently signed into law the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self -
35 Determination Act of 2000. It creates the opportunity to provide stable payments
36 for roads, schools, and county services. Whatcom County got notice of the
37 opportunity to participate in the program. Councilmember McShane is being touted
38 across the country as the person who helped create an opportunity in the law by
39 talking directly to the Senate authors and a number of other people across the
40 county to organize a new Title 3, which allows funding to come directly to County
41 government governing boards, who decide how to allocate funds among six
42 different categories. The categories include such things as search and rescue and
43 emergency services, community service work camps, easement purchases, forest
44 related educational opportunities, and county planning. Whatcom County has been
45 told that it should plan on receiving approximately $302,000. The County can
46 choose to use it for these purposes, or give it back to the Forest Service for things
47 they decide to use. The administration will recommend an approach to allow the
48 Council to make some choices.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 31
1
2 Dawson stated the Sheriff's Office currently pays for search and rescue out of
3 his budget. Desler stated that was correct. He complimented Councilmember
4 McShane. Talking directly to the congressional delegation can have a local impact.
5
6 Brenner stated what they did was salvage the best of a bad deal. This is not
7 a great thing they are getting. Originally, that money was for the County's use.
8 They were going to take all of it out of the County's choice on how to deal with it.
9 Now, there is 85 percent that the County has a choice on. All they did was make
10 more work for themselves, because before the County could use all that money as
11 the County saw fit, within certain parameters. Now, they have to use it for certain
12 things or it would be taken away. Desler stated the law goes back almost 100
13 years. The federal government and counties with federal forestland have had an
14 arrangement for that time. The law gets changed once in a while. The
15 administration saw this law going down the tubes and the County would lose quite
16 a bit. The administration saw how the councilmembers' actions made a difference.
17
18 Brenner stated the County is still restricted.
19
20 Hoag asked if this was related to the timber de- coupling that they worked on.
21 Desler stated it is. There may be reference to payment in lieu of taxes. He
22 understood those are different funds. Those are still in the budget and continuing.
23
24 Hoag stated that if this is the timber de- coupling, the Council pressed to
25 make it so the funds for schools were not tied to timber harvest, but the county
26 could get the funds and freeze them in. She questioned whether that is what this
27 is, and if it means that the County is frozen at $302,000.
28
29 Imhof stated this is the same money the County got before, just re-
30 engineered with different restrictions. It is tied to harvest. They are still working
31 to completely get away from the need for the payments from harvesting. This goes
32 partially, but not all the way there.
33
34 Hoag questioned whether the County is guaranteed this money. With de-
35 coupling, they were trying to get a permanent allotment. Desler stated the
36 information is still coming in. The law just passed less than a month ago. They
37 know that approximately $302,000 will come in 2001 for this purpose. There are a
38 few strings attached, but they are more advisory than anything else. The
39 responsibility would still rest with the County Council as to the appropriate use of
40 the money, consistent with the law.
41
42 Hoag questioned whether this is the guaranteed payment they were looking
43 for in the de- coupling.
44
45 McShane stated it is de- coupled. The County would get 85 percent free and
46 clear. There is 15 percent to choose whether the County would choose to enter into
47 a regional forest plan with other counties. He questioned whether Whatcom County
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 32
1 has the staff or ability to participate in that plan. The County could also take that
2 15 percent and put it into the six items that were outlined.
3
4 Hoag questioned whether the $302,000 is supposed to be ongoing.
5
6 McShane stated it is.
7
8 Desler stated the law was passed for five years, from 2001 to 2006.
9
10
11 OTHER ITEMS
12
13 ADDENDUM:
14 DISCUSSION WITH WATER RESOURCES MANAGER BRUCE ROLL
15 REGARDING THE WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
16 (AB2000 -132)
17
18 This item was discussed during Committee of the Whole.
19
20 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
21 ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, SECTION 20.42.150 TO ALLOW PUBLIC
22 HEALTH AND SAFETY FACILITIES AND ROAD MAINTENANCE
23 FACILITIES WITHIN THE RURAL FORESTRY ZONING
24 CLASSIFICATION AS A CONDITIONAL USE (AB2000 -392)
25
26 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated
27 there was an amendment to add section 20.40.151 "Public facilities for emergency -
28 related health and safety purposes, such as fire halls and Washington State
29 Department of Transportation satellite road safety facilities." The reason was that
30 this would be consistent with language proposed in the agricultural zone, which is
31 coming forward to the Council soon.
32
33 Motion carried unanimously.
34
35 Hoag moved on to delete Finding 7 on packet page 45. It talks about
36 allowed uses in the agricultural and rural forest designations, and that they should
37 parallel one another. This finding doesn't have anything to do with that. Staff said
38 that the language was put in because what was proposed was for this to be an
39 allowed use. Instead the Planning Commission made it a conditional use.
40
41 Imhof suggested a friendly amendment that only the word "allowed" in
42 Finding 7 be deleted.
43
44 Hoag did not accept the friendly amendment.
45
46 Brenner stated she preferred to do it as suggested by Councilmember Imhof.
47 If Councilmember Hoag would not accept the friendly amendment, she would not
48 support the motion.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 33
1
2 Hoag accepted the friendly amendment. She further amended her
3 amendment to Finding 7, "...under the GMA the mowed permitted uses should
4 parallel one another."
5
6 Motion to amend carried 6 -1 with McShane opposed.
7
8 (Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side A.)
9
10 McShane stated that due to changes made during committee, the committee
11 recommended that a public hearing be held. He so moved. The Department of
12 Transportation said they did not have a concern about the change.
13
14 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated they felt it was more
15 prudent to take the safest road and send it through a hearing, however he did not
16 want to set a precedent.
17
18 Motion to hold a hearing on December 12, 2000 carried 6 -1 with Imhof
19 opposed.
20
21 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
22 MAP FROM RURAL, FIVE ACRES (1115A) TO SMALL TOWN COMMERCIAL
23 (STC) FOR APPROXIMATELY 3.4 ACRES OF A 5.18 ACRE PARCEL
24 LOCATED WITHIN THE SHORT TERM PLANNING AREA OF THE
25 COLUMBIA VALLEY /KENDALL URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2000 -322)
26
27 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved
28 approval.
29
30 Motion carried unanimously.
31
32 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.10 AND 20.97,
33 TO MODIFY THE PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING COMPREHENSIVE
34 PLAN AMENDMENTS (AB2000 -300)
35
36 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved
37 the following amendments that were approved in committee:
38 • amend language in section 20.10.010(4), "...an emergency exists, aig-d
39 or"
40 • place a semicolon after the last word in section 20.10.010(3) to be
41 consistent.
42
43 Motion to amend carried unanimously.
44
45 substitute the language in on packet page 96 in section
46 20.10.080(3)(b) with the stricken language on packet page 97, section
47 20.10.090(2)(c), with added language. The new language for section
48 20.10.080(3)(b) would be, "The anticipated effect upon the ability of
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 34
1 the County and /or other service providers, such as schools, water
2 and /or sewer purveyors, fire districts, and others as applicable, to
3 provide adequate services and public facilities including transportation
4 facilities."
5
6 Brenner stated she would support the motion. It is clarifying language, but it
7 isn't substantive enough to require a public hearing.
8
9 Dawson stated this change isn't significant enough for a hearing.
10
11 Hoag stated this wasn't the ordinance that would have a hearing.
12
13 Motion to amend carried unanimously.
14
15 reinstate suggested amendments on packet page 97, section
16 20.10.100(1), "(1) ... initiated amendments and shall take public
17 comment and hold a public hearing..."
18
19 Crawford spoke against the motion. The public comment period was unclear.
20 Mr. Aamot's attempt was to put this and item two in the context of the process as it
21 occurs at the Planning Commission. It made more sense to do it the way Mr.
22 Aamot suggested it because it was well thought out.
23
24 Brenner questioned whether they would allow public comment if there is a
25 public hearing.
26
27 Crawford stated that was correct. The discussion in committee was the
28 Planning Commission established the public comment period and the Council
29 establishes the public comment period as a matter of regulation. The public
30 comment period stems from the hearing process that is established by the Council.
31 It is the Council, not the Planning Commission. This language cleared up the
32 ambiguity of before.
33
34 Hoag stated the way that it was explained in committee was that the
35 problem was with the language "shall establish a public comment period." They do
36 have a public comment period at the Planning Commission. If they strike this
37 language, it sounds like they only have a public hearing, and that anyone who
38 couldn't attend the public hearing wouldn't be able to comment. The committee
39 asked if the language "take public comment and hold a public hearing" would cover
40 the issue, and staff agreed with that suggestion.
41
42 Brenner questioned whether Mr. Aamot had any problem with the new
43 language.
44
45 Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated that either way would be fine. Part of the
46 public hearing process is that they take public comment.
47
48 Motion to amend carried 4 -3 with Imhof, Nelson, and Crawford opposed.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 35
1
2 amend section 20.10.100, subsection (2), "At the conclusion of the
3 public hearings and comment period..."
4
5 Brenner questioned whether staff had any problem with that language.
6 Aamot stated he did not have a problem.
7
8 Motion carried 5 -2 with Crawford and Nelson opposed.
9
10 Nelson moved to delete section 21.10.060(3)(d) on packet page 95. The
11 Comprehensive Plan allows the Council to review Comprehensive Plan amendments
12 every year. Individuals pay a fee for that. Putting that item in the ordinance
13 prohibits the opportunity for people to bring their proposals forward. If the
14 individual pays the fee, the County shouldn't pre -judge the individual.
15
16 Dawson stated the idea is that the County is spending a lot of staff time
17 reviewing things that have not significantly changed and that have already been
18 rejected. She would not support the motion.
19
20 Hoag stated the fee paid does not come close to the cost. There is language
21 that says the fee is refunded if the amendment is not initiated.
22
23 Nelson stated this is a significant issue they addressed during the
24 Comprehensive Plan planning process. The Council said it would give the public an
25 opportunity once per year because they didn't want rezones and Comprehensive
26 Plan amendments coming forward all the time. Now, they are saying that the
27 Council won't look at it if there is no significant change. The City of Bellingham said
28 there was nothing significant that changed on the Sandell rezone, but there was a
29 significant problem - the gas lines. The Council should not make assumptions,
30 which it is doing here. Give the public the opportunity to present.
31
32 Hoag stated this language is talking about whether it would be considered.
33 The language does not say that something that came before could not be initiated.
34 It just says that the Council could consider this in deciding whether or not to initiate
35 it. That is appropriate because some stuff comes forward every year that has been
36 denied on good grounds.
37
38 Nelson restated the motion to delete section 20.10.060(3)(d) on packet page
39 95.
40
41 Crawford stated he argued against this, but was persuaded.
42
43 Motion carried 5 -2 with Hoag and McShane opposed.
44
45 Motion to adopt as amended carried unanimously.
46
47 4. YEAR END APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
48 FOR THE YEAR 2001 (AB2000 -326)
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 36
1
2 Board of Equalization - District 3
3
4 Dawson nominated K. Jeff McKay.
5
6 Hoag questioned whether the District 3 applicants were willing to serve as
7 alternates.
8
9 Dawson stated they would all be considered as alternates.
10
11 No other applicants were nominated.
12
13 Imhof moved to approve McKay by acclamation.
14
15 Motion carried unanimously.
16
17 Board of Equalization - Alternates
18
19 Imhof nominated Chris Hatch. He is the incumbent, and has done a very
20 good job.
21
22 McShane nominated Peter Tassoni.
23
24 Brenner stated she was concerned when incumbents are willing to continue
25 serving. Peter Tassoni would do a great job, but there is gentleman who was an
26 incumbent alternate. Unless an incumbent has done a bad job, the Council should
27 let the incumbent have a second shot at it. She nominated Jim Bliss.
28
29 Dawson nominated Gail Parlatore.
30
31 Hoag stated she would not recommend that.
32
33 Imhof moved to close nominations.
34
35 Hoag nominated Joyce Bauman. She's served on this board and also on the
36 San Juan Island Board of Equalization.
37
38 Crawford questioned what the Board of Equalization does.
39
40 Hoag stated they hear property tax valuation assessments.
41
42 Crawford questioned how often the board meets.
43
44 Dawson stated they meet about once per month.
45
46 Crawford stated they get paid $75 per meeting.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 37
1 Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated they meet on an as- needed
2 basis. It is usually busier in the fall and winter.
3
4 Dawson questioned how many hours they meet on the average. Brown -
5 Davis stated they meet on average 30 days per year, for a full day.
6
7 Brenner stated these are alternate positions.
8
9 Imhof voted for Bliss and Hatch.
10
11 Hoag voted for Hatch and Tassoni.
12
13 Nelson voted for Hatch and Parlatore.
14
15 Dawson voted for Hatch and Parlatore.
16
17 McShane voted for Hatch and Tassoni.
18
19 Brenner voted for Hatch and Tassoni.
20
21 Crawford voted for Hatch and Tassoni.
22
23 Hatch and Tassoni were appointed.
24
25 Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection Advisory Committee
26
27 Dawson stated there is one application.
28
29 Imhof moved to approve Robert Edward Williams Jr. by acclamation.
30
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32
33 Dawson listed the boards and committees that have vacancies, but no
34 applications. They include the Address and Road Name Citizen Appeals Committee,
35 Cable Television Administration Board, Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District
36 Advisory Committee, Horticultural Pest and Disease Board, Noxious Weed Control
37 Board, Open Space Advisory Committee, Portage Bay Shellfish Protection District
38 Advisory Committee, and the Sewage Control Appeals Board.
39
40 Planning Commission - District 2
41
42 Crawford moved to approve Ron Roosma by acclamation.
43
44 Motion carried unanimously.
45
46 Planning Commission - District 3
47
48 Brenner nominated Bob Wiesen.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 38
1
2 Imhof nominated Lesa Boxx.
3
4 Dawson closed nominations.
5
6 Crawford voted for Wiesen.
7
8 Brenner voted for Wiesen.
9
10 McShane voted for Boxx.
11
12 Dawson voted for Wiesen.
13
14 Nelson voted for Wiesen.
15
16 Hoag voted for Boxx.
17
18 Imhof voted for Boxx.
19
20 Robert Wiesen was appointed.
21
22 Sewage Control Appeals Board
23
24 Crawford questioned whether vacancies that are not filled stay open until
25 someone applies, when it is considered at that time.
26
27 Dawson stated that was correct.
28
29 Nelson moved to appoint David Simms and Marian Beddill by acclamation.
30
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32
33 Solid Waste Advisory Board
34
35 Brenner stated the citizen position is not representing a citizen group, only a
36 citizen.
37
38 Nelson moved to appoint by acclamation Peter Tassoni to the citizen position,
39 Arthur Wilkowski to the Business /Industry position, and Alex Cummings to the
40 Public Interest Group position.
41
42 Motion carried unanimously.
43
44 S. APPROVAL TO SEND A LETTER SUPPORTING THE NOOKSACK TRIBE'S
45 EFFORTS TO BUILD A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT (AB2000 -403)
46
47 Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, gave a staff report and stated he received a
48 letter from Councilmember Dawson. Staff reviewed this project and had a couple of
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 39
1 concerns. One problem regarded providing sewer outside of a small town. Staff
2 recommended that support be conditioned upon not extending the sewer beyond
3 the small town boundary unless there is a health hazard that they are trying to
4 correct. The County's flood control staff indicated that the treatment plant is in the
5 floodway of the Nooksack River. There is a dike in that area, but it is not up to the
6 100 -year protection, and water can get around it. There is a plan in the
7 Comprehensive Flood Plan to extend the dike to bring it up to the 100 -year flood
8 level. Staff recommended considering an alternative location or constructing it
9 after the dike is put in, at a minimum. Otherwise, the staff would recommend
10 support based upon those two conditions.
11
12 Harry Skinner, consultant, stated the first proposal is in the floodway on
13 tribal trust property. There is a long list of permits that they have to get from the
14 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the state Department of Ecology (DOE),
15 the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and others. There will be a fair
16 amount of input. Now, they are trying to get a request for funding.
17
18 Aamot displayed a map that showed the area of the small town
19 Comprehensive Plan designation. In addition, the tribe owns land across the Mt.
20 Baker Highway that is not trust land, it is fee land. They are trying to get it into
21 trust land. It is not in the small town Comprehensive Plan designation. It may be
22 an issue to consider also, because development plans for that area were submitted
23 in the letter.
24
25 Hoag stated she wanted to hear Mr. Skinner's presentation on why this
26 deserves the County Council's support.
27
28 Skinner stated there is an understanding with the school district, who is
29 considering allowing them to move the treatment plant to a site that is next to their
30 open sewage lagoon. The tribe would take title to that property, and build it there.
31 He believed that area is out of the flood plain and floodway. They understand the
32 limitations of trying to build there. They are trying to establish the need and
33 desirability for this. It is clear in the Comprehensive Plan in several locations that
34 the County Council is committed to supporting local communities develop and
35 improve infrastructure.
36
37 Brenner questioned whether the tribe would agree to not extend urban levels
38 of service outside of the small town Comprehensive Plan designation except for
39 health, safety, or environmental reasons outside of trust land.
40
41 Dawson stated that if the tribe puts the property into trust, they are not
42 subject to that regulation unless it is conditioned beforehand. They are talking
43 about substantial future development. That was her concern. If they manage this
44 and are able to turn property from fee to trust status, then the County needs to
45 address those concerns because it maintains the services. There have been other
46 areas where tribes have purchased property in agricultural areas and developed it
47 for residential and other uses. Unless there are agreements up front, the County
48 won't have control of the development. She wanted the approval contingent on it
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 40
1 complying with the state's Growth Management Act. She also wanted to make sure
2 that the fee land and the trust lands are treated equally so that non - Indian owners
3 have equal access and are charged the same fees. Her approval would be
4 contingent upon those conditions.
5
6 (Clerk's note: Imhof left the meeting at 11:00 p.m.)
7
8 Brenner stated she wouldn't want to see the tribe decide how Deming gets
9 developed, since much of it is not tribal land. It seems that they do need to include
10 a condition that it would not be extended outside a small town Comprehensive Plan
11 designated area that outside of trust land.
12
13 Skinner stated they don't have a choice there. Based on his understanding
14 of the definition of a small town area, that isn't a problem. He did see the 40 -acre
15 parcel uphill from the highway, which would certainly become trust property, as
16 being the area that they want to build the tribal center on. Outside of the trust
17 area, that would be a workable condition.
18
19 This is an interesting and important feature for the Deming community, and
20 it solves a county sewage problem as well. The tribe has 60 acres in the Deming
21 area. There is an area with very high groundwater and poor soils for sewage
22 treatment. The typical drain field systems they are using in the entire basin are
23 composed of septic tanks and drain fields that would not be permitted for new
24 construction in this area. All new sewage treatment would have to be raised beds
25 or in some kind of central facility. In addition, all of the stormwater that comes off
26 the property is dammed by the highway and railroad so that it has to drain six
27 miles west, all the way to Lawrence and Hoff Road, to get into the Nooksack River.
28 They have a very poor sanitary situation for any kind of increased development in
29 this vicinity. Rather than build a facility just for the tribe's requirements, they felt it
30 was much more efficient administratively, economically, functionally, and
31 environmentally to combine this into a large plant designed to handle the present
32 and future tribal and Deming loads.
33
34 They do have some permitting difficulties. Now, they are going beyond the
35 point of discharge into the river, which is the way many of the municipalities
36 downstream discharge their effluent. This plant would produce a class A effluent,
37 which is the highest grade of effluent. Temporarily, until they go into a phase two,
38 they would use the drain fields that they presently have at the riverside. The plan
39 is for class A effluent to be taken across the highway and store it for fire flow,
40 irrigation, and recycling. They also have wetland mitigation problems. They would
41 develop a constructed wetland that would take some of that class A effluent as well.
42 In addition, they have a facility that could process 120,000 gallons per day. It is a
43 good -sized facility with a very advanced design. Part of the plan is to market some
44 of it to industries as the water usage constraints get tighter. They are trying to be
45 creative and environmentally cautious and protective. They think they are on the
46 right track, but would like to get the support of the County. They feel it is a County
47 issue because there is a developing sanitation and sewage problem in that area.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 41
1 Brenner moved to send a letter of support with the condition that the
2 alternative site near the school be used, and the condition that it complies with the
3 Growth Management Act in areas outside of trust land. Aamot stated there is a
4 letter from staff that addresses both of those issues. He distributed that letter to
5 the councilmembers (on file).
6
7 Brenner questioned whether Mr. Skinner had a problem with the letter that
8 Mr. Aamot handed out. Skinner stated they would accept whatever letter the
9 Council approved.
10
11 Brenner amended her motion to send out the letter that Mr. Aamot just
12 handed out. It supports the proposal and also relieves her concerns regarding the
13 floodway and allowing the sewer system to extend beyond the small town
14 Comprehensive Plan designated areas.
15
16 Dawson stated she had concerns about it. At the federal level, the
17 Department of the Interior is asking to work with counties when there are
18 conversions to trust because there is an impact to the services and infrastructure.
19 It is important that the counties be involved before those properties are transferred
20 into trust.
21
22 Brenner stated that is a different issue. She was only saying that it is up to
23 the tribe what they do on their trust land.
24
25 Hoag stated she wanted to address one condition at a time. The first
26 condition would be that this is not built in the floodway. She didn't want to say that
27 it has to be built at the school. She moved to amend the letter to condition that
28 the treatment plant not be built in the floodway.
29
30 Brenner stated she would substitute Councilmember Hoag's wording for the
31 last paragraph.
32
33 Dawson stated they need to express the general points, and then have staff
34 develop the letter.
35
36 Hoag stated she didn't agree with the language in the staff report.
37
38 (Clerk's Notes: End of tape three, side 8.)
39
40 Hoag continued to state that it should not be built even if the dike is
41 improved.
42
43 Brenner agreed.
44
45 Dawson stated the motion is that the number one point as conditioned is that
46 it not be built in the flood plain.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 42
1 McShane stated the staff report is very appropriate. At some point in the
2 future, they are going to look at building that levee. He would be opposed to doing
3 that. Therefore, the proposed location is not very good. He would rather see it by
4 the high school where they've already constructed a good levee. Given that, the
5 letter addresses that issue concisely. The levee by the high school is stronger
6 because it was replaced after the 1990 flood.
7
8 Brenner stated she didn't want the treatment plant in the floodway.
9
10 Dawson stated that, as long as the Council took the position that it not be in
11 the floodway, the tribe could decide where it would be. That is their condition.
12
13 Hoag stated that if it is built in the floodway, it is another structure in the
14 floodway that the County has to protect, another reason that they have to maintain
15 the dike, and another concern if the dike should fail.
16
17 Crawford asked for a map showing the floodway.
18
19 Skinner stated that everything south of the railroad tracks is floodway and
20 flood plain.
21
22 Aamot agreed.
23
24 Skinner questioned whether the zoning ordinance allowed critical facilities to
25 be built in the floodway.
26
27 Aamot stated it discourages building in the floodway.
28
29 Crawford questioned whether they are eliminating the possibility of using the
30 area south of the high school, which is one of the things Councilmember McShane is
31 suggesting, as opposed to further upstream.
32
33 McShane stated the simplest thing to do is take the letter from staff, which is
34 very well done.
35
36 Dawson restated the motion that a condition of approval is that the
37 treatment plant not be built on the floodway.
38
39 Motion to amend carried 5 -1 with Crawford opposed and Imhof out of the
40 room.
41
42 Dawson moved that a condition be that the trust land and fee land are
43 treated equally.
44
45 Nelson questioned whether the intent is to service Deming. Skinner stated
46 yes.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 43
1 Nelson questioned whether there would be a different fee for Deming
2 residents. Skinner stated there are many issues they have to address. They are
3 looking for a letter of support in principle for their efforts to clean up the sewage
4 treatment system in growing Deming.
5
6 Dawson stated it would end up in litigation if there is a differential in access.
7 Skinner stated they would acknowledge that has to be resolved.
8
9 Dawson restated the motion that a condition be that the trust land and fee
10 land have equal access.
11
12 Motion carried 5 -1 with McShane opposed and Imhof out of the room.
13
14 Crawford moved to ask staff to rewrite the letter, incorporating the motions
15 that the Council just approved.
16
17 Hoag stated Mr. Skinner mentioned recycling the water to use for irrigation
18 and recharging wetlands. She questioned whether there is a danger with doing
19 that. She questioned whether the EPA Class A water contains bacteria and
20 organisms. Skinner stated it is decontaminated. There is no potential to
21 contaminate wetlands.
22
23 Dawson moved to approve a condition that the tribes work with the County
24 to ensure that the conversion of fee land to trust land would address fire services,
25 police services, and road improvements that might be necessary.
26
27 Brenner stated that is not their business.
28
29 Dawson stated it is. The County pays for those facilities. They are talking
30 about a substantial future development occurring in this area.
31
32 Nelson questioned who would provide fire protection to the casino. Skinner
33 stated the casino has three 10,000- gallon standing tanks with a 900 gallon per
34 minute pump.
35
36 Nelson questioned whether they solve their own fires. Skinner stated they
37 do. Those three tanks would relocate to the top of the hill. Right now there is a
38 pump system. The new system would be a gravity system from the top of the hill
39 to serve all of Deming.
40
41 Nelson stated the tribe used to support two deputies for the County, but
42 withdrew that funding because of the impacts to the casino. Skinner stated he
43 couldn't address that.
44
45 Brenner stated they don't have to ensure fire protection for tribal trust land.
46
47 Dawson stated they do.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 44
1 Nelson stated the County doesn't, but the fire districts do.
2
3 Dawson stated the County provides fire service, police service, and road
4 maintenance for trust land. The County ensures that those services are being met,
5 either by the tribe or the County. She didn't want the County to be impacted.
6
7 Hoag stated she didn't want to get in the business of telling the tribe what it
8 can do on trust land. However, Councilmember Dawson's motion has merit. She
9 suggested a friendly amendment that the tribe works with the County to address
10 potential impacts of development.
11
12 Dawson accepted the friendly amendment.
13
14 Motion carried 5 -1 with McShane opposed and Imhof absent.
15
16 Brenner stated that there are two points that they approved to add to the
17 staff's letter. Those points are the equal access and the requirement to work with
18 the County. There was also a change about not locating in the floodway.
19
20 Hoag stated the tribe asked for support of this kind of infrastructure and to
21 proceed in a timely manner because the project has merit. She moved to include
22 those positive statements in the Council's letter of support.
23
24 Motion carried unanimously.
25
26 Motion to approve sending the letter with the approved language, as drafted
27 by County staff carried unanimously.
28
29 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A NEW
30 LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR SUN RISE GROCERY, 8887
31 SUNRISE ROAD, CUSTER (AB2000 -406)
32
33 Nelson moved to approve.
34
35 Motion carried unanimously.
36
37
38 INTRODUCTION ITEMS
39
40 Nelson moved to accept the Introduction Items.
41
42 Motion carried unanimously.
43
44 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
45 ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.89, TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE
46 OF THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) PROGRAM FOR
47 ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES, TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL PROGRAM
48 INCENTIVES, AND TO PROVIDE NEW MECHANISMS FOR
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 45
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
DESIGNATING ADDITIONAL TDR RECEIVING AREAS (AB2000 -407)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 13
(AB2000 -408)
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
There were no reports.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on January 9—, 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/28/2000, Page 46