HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil October 24 20001
2 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
3 Regular County Council
4
5 October 24, 2000
6
7
8 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene
9 Dawson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
10
11 Also Present: Absent:
12 Dan McShane None
13 L. Ward Nelson
14 Connie Hoag
15 Barbara Brenner
16 Sam Crawford
17 Robert Imhof
18
19 ANNOUNCEMENTS
20
21 Crawford moved to send a letter entitled Who Gets Saved and Who Doesn't
22 to Bellingham Herald regarding Medic One, which he read into the record.
23
24 Dawson appreciated the effort of drafting the letter.
25
26 Motion to send the letter carried 6 -1 with McShane opposed.
27
28 Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated he understood the rationale for
29 sending out the letter. To update the Council, the administration has made
30 progress with the City of Bellingham. He met recently with the mayor, the fire
31 chief, the County's deputy administrator, and the director of the Whatcom Medic
32 One program. They have made significant progress, and have reason to believe
33 that a satisfactory agreement for the County would be announced possibly by the
34 end of the week. They are in the midst of working on coming to a mutual
35 agreement that is beneficial to the entire county. He hoped that cooler heads
36 would prevail and that they would be able to announce an agreement regarding
37 Medic One.
38
39 Imhof stated he appreciated that effort, but the letter still needed to go out
40 to counter the misinformation that was in the Herald.
41
42 Hoag asked to include a paragraph in the letter that summed up Executive
43 Kremen's comments.
44
45 Dawson stated that would be up to Councilmember Crawford. There has
46 already been a vote to go ahead.
47
48 Crawford stated he was aware of the negotiations, and fully supported them.
49 He did not state anything in the letter that was not simply a factual review of how
50 the County got where it is today. He would go so far as to say that the County
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 1
1 needs to continue to keep the door open for discussion of alternative ambulance
2 service plans, including the possibility of establishing an oversight authority. He
3 endorsed the concept of having a commission that would include all of the vested
4 parties. That would be one option. The City of Bellingham Medic One program is
5 not the County's only option for the future. The County needs to keep the door
6 open. That is all the letter says. There isn't anything in the letter that threatens to
7 walk out of the program or the negotiations. He was trying to inform the citizens of
8 the facts of how they got where they are today and the realistic concerns they
9 have.
10
11 Brenner stated this is a long -term, general letter. She supported the hard
12 work the Executive has done to work with the mayor of Bellingham. This is a more
13 general type of response. The citizens all over Whatcom County need to know what
14 the County Council has been doing on this issue. She was glad for the response for
15 the newspaper.
16
17
18 OPEN SESSION
19
20 The following people spoke:
21
22 Mike Kaufman, 1620 Huntley Road, stated the Utility Planning Committee
23 met and is a good group. Mr. Rodney from the Williams Corporation sat in and
24 made clear their deadline of November 26, which is the end of the 180 -day
25 moratorium period. After that period, they would release their lawyers.
26
27 The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council ( EFSEC) Task Force Review
28 Committee met last Tuesday. He was trying to drive home the fact that the
29 environmental review is fraud. EFSEC allowed the draft environmental impact
30 statement (EIS) to be entered into evidence in the adjudicated process.
31
32 (Clerk's Note: Councilmember McShane left the room.)
33
34 Kaufman stated the draft EIS, not the final EIS, went into the adjudicative
35 hearing, not an environmental process. They said that they had public input, but
36 the public has input on the draft environmental impact statement, but those
37 comments are not a part of that draft EIS. Those comments are part of the final
38 EIS, not the draft EIS. The public's comments were not a part of the adjudicated
39 process. EFSEC is deliberating on the Sumas Energy 2 (SE2) project, but there is
40 no environmental assessment, only the draft. EFSEC is a fraud.
41
42 Leonard Lindstrom, 2858 W. Maplewood, stated most are aware that they
43 need a common religious term in the dictionary. They have Webster's dictionary in
44 common, but immaturity keeps people from communicating. People need to grow
45 up and get rid of out -of -date thinking.
46
47 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated they have had low- impact economic
48 development in the county for 30 years. Don't make hasty decisions on home
49 based businesses. This issue is similar to the recreational vehicle (RV) issue at
50 Point Roberts. These businesses have been developing for many years with very
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 2
1 little negative impact. A lot of good has been accomplished because of them. New
2 businesses start in rural areas, then move to more urban locations as they develop.
3 One example is Kraus Manufacturing, located on the Guide Meridian. He suggested
4 that the Council create a home -based business advisory committee, similar to the
5 agricultural advisory committee. There are many home -based businesses in the
6 county. It is important to take a good look at this issue. He recently put a new
7 roof on his barn, and justified the expense with the fact that he uses the barn for
8 more than working on his trucks. There are barns falling down all around the
9 county because there is no reasonable use for them.
10
11 Dick Gilda, Jensen Road, discussed cottage industries. He agreed with Bob
12 Wiesen. They've put a lot of effort into saving local wildlife, but they are not
13 putting the same effort into saving people and their way of life. He couldn't figure
14 out why they have to make stronger regulations every time something comes up.
15 Once in a while, come up with something that makes life easier for people. On this
16 subject, they could do a better job of keeping the media and public informed, and
17 don't rush into a decision. Put off the decision on home -based businesses to really
18 study it.
19
20
21 PUBLIC HEARING
22
23 1. RECEIPT OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE AND COMPLETION REPORT TO
24 CTED GRANT — WHATCOM SELF -HELP HOMES, FOR LOW -COST
25 HOUSING (AB2000 -358)
26
27 Nancy Larsen, Executive Director of Whatcom Self -Help Homes, gave a
28 report and discussed the program. Whatcom Self -Help Homes is a non - profit
29 agency, funded through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development.
30 Rural Development is the arm of the USDA that was formerly called the Farm Home
31 Administration. They help limited income families build their own homes. They
32 have been in existence in Whatcom County since 1976, and have helped 375
33 families build their own homes. Their goal is to build 20 homes per year, and they
34 are currently building 16 homes in the Blaine and Ferndale families. Seven to nine
35 families build their homes at the same time. Whatcom Self -Help assembles a loan
36 application package and submits it to Rural Development for approval. They also
37 provide home ownership counseling, buildable lots, give site instructions and
38 support for every phase of the building process, compile suppliers and
39 subcontractor bids for family approval and manage the families' construction loans.
40 Families perform 68 percent of the labor to build the house, and are required to
41 contribute 35 hours per week toward this project. These people are also working
42 40 hours per week and raising families. All homes must be done before anyone can
43 move in. Families and individuals in the program must be at or below 80 percent of
44 the county median income. For example, a family of four cannot earn any more
45 than $38,500 per year. They must have job tenure, good credit, and must qualify
46 for the payments. USDA subsidizes a portion of the interest that they pay. When
47 the home is refinanced or sold, that subsidy must be paid back.
48
49 In 1995, they began working with a developer on a proposed 49 lot
50 subdivision in Ferndale called Shield's Estate. At the same time, they began the
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 3
1 application process for the block grant to help them purchase the subdivision. The
2 sale was closed in January of 1998, and they now have 40 homes completed and
3 occupied. The last nine are under construction. When those nine homes are done,
4 there will be approximately 190 children and adults living in Shield's Estate.
5
6 The Ferndale Parks Department is in the process of developing a park
7 adjacent to the subdivision. That was land was donated to the City of Ferndale by
8 the developer. It should be done next summer. One of the requirements for the
9 grant was that they recapture the grant money through the sale of the lots. They
10 have accomplished that requirement. The money is divided into two accounts.
11 One of those accounts is restricted, and one is unrestricted, but the majority of the
12 money will be used for future lot purchases. He introduced three of the board
13 members.
14
15 Karen Lawson, Self -Help Homes Executive Board President, stated she
16 testified before the Council five years ago and praised the program. She testified of
17 her experience as a previous owner - builder. It was through this program that she
18 and her husband were able to turn their hard work, or sweat equity, into the reality
19 of owning their own home. She spoke of the importance of home ownership and
20 building stable communities. She asked for the County Council's support of the
21 Whatcom Self -Help Homes program through the funding of the community block
22 grants.
23
24 At this meeting, she would testify not only as an owner - builder, but also as
25 the program's Executive Board president. As such, she expressed her gratitude to
26 the Council for its sponsorship and the support it provided through the community
27 block grant. There is a continuing need for affordable housing in the community.
28
29 Larson thanked the County for helping the program sponsor this grant.
30 Home ownership is something they all take for granted. That is not the case with
31 the families in their program. The great thing about this program is that it is about
32 personal empowerment as well as home ownership. The program is not a
33 government give -away.
34
35 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
36
37 Paul Schissler, 1101 Harris Avenue, thanked the County Council for
38 supporting Whatcom Self -Help Homes proposal in 1995. This was the first time in
39 Washington State that a non - profit housing developer was able to take a federal
40 community development block grant, use the money effectively, and then recapture
41 the entire amount to reuse again. What they were able to do was create a
42 revolving fund for Whatcom Self -Help Homes that they will be able to use again and
43 again.
44
45 Dawson asked the average of the government subsidy that is repaid. Larsen
46 stated it varies from 1 percent to five percent, depending on the income. Payments
47 are subsidized in the amount of $200 to $300 per month. An owner - builder ends
48 up with $25,000 in equity when the home is done.
49
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 4
1 Imhof asked the turnover rate for selling the homes in a year. Larsen stated
2 there is none. When a person puts 1,200 hours into doing something, it is a major
3 accomplishment. In addition, the families could not sell their house and get
4 another loan from the bank with the incomes they have.
5
6 Pete Kremen, County Executive, thanked the Council for its vision and
7 wisdom in setting up the program. The benefits are far - reaching. It not only helps
8 people who might not have been able to realize the American dream, which is
9 owning one's own home. They are able to help the county overall by helping these
10 individuals by becoming contributing, successful members of their community. He
11 also wanted to thank Whatcom Self -Help Homes for their stellar administration of
12 the program. He specifically thanked Nancy Larsen for her supreme direction.
13
14 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
15
16 Brenner moved to accept the report and continue supporting the grant.
17
18 Motion carried unanimously.
19
20 2. POSSIBLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
21 APPLICATION (AB2000 -362)
22
23 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, gave a staff report and stated they
24 have had a great deal of success with this more recent community development
25 block grant (CDBG) program. Now, they are coming forward with a public hearing
26 to consider doing this again. In this case, they propose to work with a group that is
27 trying to do something similar in the community, the Kulshan Community Land
28 Trust. As a part of the grant application, the request needs to go through a public
29 hearing.
30
31 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
32
33 Paul Schissler, 1101 Harris Avenue, Bellingham, stated he was enthused
34 about the community land trust approach to affordable housing for the last several
35 years. Enough energy came together last year to create a new private, non - profit
36 affordable housing development corporation that is a federally exempt 501c3
37 organization. It is new, but only because the existing affordable housing
38 developers, including the Housing Authority, Whatcom Self -Help Homes, the
39 Opportunity Council, and Habitat for Humanity, are maxed out. They are all very
40 busy doing affordable housing work. This new approach was not something they
41 were able to take on. He helped to organize the corporation last year. At this
42 point, they have support from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
43 Development for technical assistance. This is a scattered site project that would
44 help people buy existing homes in Whatcom County, in a neighborhood where they
45 need to live. Many times, people can afford a mortgage, but they just can't afford a
46 large enough mortgage to purchase a starter home. The Community Land Trust
47 can help close the gap between the price of the house and the purchase price. The
48 beauty of this model is that, when the family needs to sell, they get back their
49 down payment and a share of the equity that was built up over the years. There is
50 a resale formula in the land -lease agreement so the next buyer also gets to
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 5
1 purchase at an affordable price without any additional subsidy needed. They will be
2 able to create a growing number of affordable home ownership opportunities
3 throughout the county with this infusion of community development block grant
4 funding that they hope to get. With the County's support, they will be able to get a
5 faster start next year helping up to 30 families purchase a home within the first 12
6 to 18 months of the project.
7
8 He thanked Dewey Desler and Pete Kremen. As soon as they heard about
9 the project, they spent time learning about the new approach. It is an elegant legal
10 tool. Public funding becomes an investment that grows in value over time. He
11 thanked them for recommending to the County Council that the County submit this
12 application. If it is successful, $750,000 would come to the County. There would
13 be some administrative burden, but those costs are reimbursable from the grant,
14 and the grant funding would flow through to help with the closing costs of home
15 ownership.
16
17 Dawson stated the individual families are well integrated into the larger
18 community. They don't know who is being subsidized where, which is a real
19 positive.
20
21 Imhof questioned whether the funds that are being paid back on the loan go
22 into a revolving fund that could be used again. Schissler stated not in exactly the
23 same way. While Self -Help is recapturing the grant funding for re -use, the grant
24 funding stays in the value of the land in this model. While they don't recapture the
25 grant and have to buy more land, they've purchased land that grows in value over
26 time, and they never have to pay for it again. It is an investment in a new form. It
27 stays in that property, so the next purchaser doesn't have to get a much bigger
28 mortgage.
29
30 Crawford stated the funds are allocated over time. He questioned whether a
31 waiting list of people is developed. Schissler stated that was correct.
32
33 Crawford asked if these houses would be put through the normal multiple
34 listing service. Schissler stated this is a community land trust that could do housing
35 development in many ways. Their first project would be the scattered site
36 approach to finding existing housing. These will be houses that are already on the
37 market. When the houses are resold, they won't be put on the multiple listing
38 service. There would be very little in the way of marketing costs, and there would
39 be no commissions.
40
41 Hoag asked if the resale would only go to people who qualify. Schissler
42 stated this grant program is targeted to people who have a low to moderate
43 income, which is 80 percent of the area median income. A family of four would
44 have to make less than $38,500 per year. Those are the only people who could
45 buy the house when it was sold.
46
47 Kelly Mulford, 1325 - 22nd Street, Bellingham, stated he got involved in the
48 Kulshan Community Land Trust as a volunteer. He was very excited about the way
49 this form of land trust can provide a lot of housing in a short amount of time for
50 people who have jobs and are hard workers, but don't have high paying jobs. It
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 6
1 bridges the gap so they can get into the home instead of paying rent. It is good for
2 the people and the community. It keeps families in houses and home prices within
3 reach. He liked the way the program recycles the home funding.
4
5 Tanner Dotser, 210 Texas, Bellingham, stated he is an intern with Kulshan
6 Community Land Trust and a student planner at the Huxley College of
7 Environmental Studies. He supported the program and the scattered site model.
8 During the last four months, he's been doing a lot of research on affordable housing
9 opportunities. He is impressed with the unique qualities of the land trust and its
10 ability to be effective and creative in the opportunities it can work with. Because of
11 the homes being brought into the land trust, and the land remaining with the trust,
12 the homes remain perpetually affordable in the long -run. That is its greatest asset.
13
14 Mike Kaufman, Huntley Road, Bellingham, stated he worked with Habitat for
15 Humanity this year. He is a person who is blessed with the things he has. They
16 just dedicated the Ferndale house. It was an extremely rewarding experience to
17 participate in the community, participate with a family, and bring these things
18 together.
19
20 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
21
22 Danny Neill, realtor, stated she grew up in Seattle and watched housing
23 prices go up. Many of the older houses have been knocked down and replaced with
24 more expensive houses. She moved to San Juan County and watched land values
25 skyrocket. Affordable housing has disappeared in both of these places. She was
26 heartened by a land trust in San Juan County that came along to begin working on
27 overcoming that problem. She moved to Bellingham 15 years ago. In 1985, the
28 average price in Bellingham was $59,940. The average sale price for a house last
29 year was $157,233. Prices have gone up and they are continuing to go up very
30 quickly. A lot of the buyers they see are from out of town. She was concerned
31 about maintaining affordable housing. The way this Community Land Trust works
32 is a wonderful asset for the community. Home ownership gives people a vested
33 interest in their community. It is a great thing. She urged the Council to support
34 this.
35
36 Jim Spike, 1305 Wilson Avenue, encouraged the Council to support the
37 application. It is another option. They are slowly working on incorporating several
38 different facets of low -cost housing and making homes available to people. People
39 leave the community because they've been priced out of Bellingham. He urged the
40 Council to support the application.
41
42 Schissler stated more people wanted to attend this meeting, but couldn't.
43 There are letters of support from the Christian Hope Association. Jeff Littlejohn, the
44 director, is hoping that their Whatcom Dream Program, which helps people
45 establish savings accounts that are matched by community savings, can become
46 part of the down payment. United Way of Whatcom County is also supportive.
47 They encourage this kind of model. Kay Sardo from the Opportunity Council is also
48 supportive.
49
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 7
1 Brian Evans, 1535 E. Kelley Road, Bellingham, stated he moved here in
2 1981. He's supported his family through the speculative real estate housing market
3 in this town. He just learned about the land trust. It is a fabulous concept.
4 Anything they can do to reduce the ever - increasing cost of housing is a step in the
5 right direction. Home ownership is slipping away from the hands of the average
6 citizen in this country. He urged the Council to support the project.
7
8 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
9
10 Imhof moved to apply for the community development block grant as
11 proposed.
12
13 McShane urged everyone to join the Kulshan Community Land Trust.
14
15 Motion carried unanimously.
16
17 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY URBAN FRINGE
18 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP
19 TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 24 ACRES IN THE BELLINGHAM URBAN
20 FRINGE FROM UR4 TO LII ZONING (AB2000 -346)
21
22 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated
23 this is a rezone of 24 acres within the City of Bellingham urban growth area (UGA).
24 The County staff is processing this jointly with the City of Bellingham. This is the
25 third public hearing. There is a joint meeting scheduled the following day with the
26 City of Bellingham to discuss this issue. Therefore, she encouraged the Council to
27 not take any action at this meeting. The rezone has to be considered concurrently
28 with all of the other Comprehensive Plan amendments on November 14. The site is
29 24 acres, zoned urban residential now, which would allow 96 homes to be built on
30 the property. The property is on the edge of the city limits, bordered by urban
31 residential zoning to the north. Ludtke Trucking is to the west. To the south and
32 east are the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) forestry land, zoned urban
33 residential. The intent is that this site would, within the 20 -year planning period,
34 be developed for an urban use, either urban density residential, commercial, or
35 industrial. That is the purpose of an urban growth area. She distributed
36 photographs of the site and displayed an aerial photo of the site and surrounding
37 area.
38
39 McShane asked the date of the aerial photography. Goodwin stated the map
40 is the DNR 1998 photograph. There are a couple of other issues related to this site
41 that were discussed at the City Council and Planning Commission hearings. One is
42 the issue that there are wetlands on the site. The National Wetlands Inventory
43 map, based on air photos and soils, shows approximately 80 percent of the area
44 being wetland. There was a study by Jim Wiggens of Aqua -Terr, who went to the
45 site. His map shows wetlands of 20 percent on the site. Before any development
46 occurs on this site, either residential or industrial, there would have to be more
47 detailed wetland studies and a mitigation plan. If there are wetlands, they could
48 not be filled without mitigation.
49
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 8
1 Another issue is the presence of the pipelines. Olympic Pipeline, Cascade
2 Natural Gas, and TransMountain Pipeline all transect the property. Two of the high
3 pressure pipelines go through the middle of the property. They are all shown on
4 the map. Other issues that were discussed include the Squalicum Creek watershed
5 issues. The City of Bellingham, the County, and other resource agencies are all
6 working together on a Squalicum Creek watershed plan. They project that it would
7 be done in a year or so. It is to look at managing the stormwater and surface
8 water, and protecting the water quality of Squalicum Creek. The creek is not
9 adjacent to the property. Other industrial development is adjacent to it, and there
10 is an opportunity to retain and treat stormwater through stormwater detention at
11 one end of the site, rather than flowing to Squalicum Creek. The rest of the site
12 has the railroad to act as a buffer between the site and Squalicum. The analysis
13 and findings are in the packet. The rezone would be consistent with the Growth
14 Management Act, the County's Comprehensive Plan, and the Countywide Planning
15 Policies. They all talk about encouraging urban growth within urban growth areas.
16 There are policies on economic development and encouraging the provision of fully -
17 serviced light industrial land within urban growth areas. There are also policies that
18 support maintaining residential land and protecting the environment. The deciding
19 issue for staff is the presence of the pipelines on the site. With that many
20 pipelines, it is not a particularly suitable area for residential. Because the site is
21 adjacent to other industrial development, it seems to be a more appropriate use of
22 the site. That is the staff's recommendation and the Planning Commission's
23 recommendation.
24
25 Relating to wetlands and stormwater, the County has regulations about
26 those. There are performance standards in the Light Industrial zoning that would
27 protect adjacent residential development, to the north of the site. There are
28 increased buffers and performance standards within the urban growth area of the
29 city. There are wetland mitigation and stormwater policies to deal with stormwater
30 and wetlands, regardless of whether there are 96 residential houses or industrial
31 development. She recommended that the Council not act on this rezone at this
32 meeting. Wait until after the joint meeting with the City Council, and then act on
33 November 14. At that time, staff recommends approval.
34
35 Brenner questioned the amount of acreage of the rezone at Cordata and
36 whether that property was rezoned from Light Industrial to Residential zoning.
37 Goodwin stated there was some rezone there.
38
39 Nelson stated it was 20 or 40 acres.
40
41 Brenner asked who determined that 80 percent of the site was wetlands.
42 Goodwin stated that National Wetland Inventory is a nationwide assessment. It is
43 not ground - truthed or considered 100 percent accurate. It provides a general idea
44 of where wetlands are, based on air photos and soils. The Aqua -Terr study was
45 more detailed because it was based on ground - truthing. The person who conducted
46 the study actually went out on the site to look at the vegetation and the site.
47
48 Brenner questioned whether that study was commissioned by the city or the
49 owners. Goodwin stated it was done by the owner.
50
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 9
1 Hoag stated she thought the amount of wetlands was up to 90 percent
2 according to the staff's report of the National Wetland Inventory. Goodwin stated
3 she would find out.
4
5 Hoag stated the photos show a mowed field. She asked how much of the
6 site is mowed. Goodwin stated almost the entire site is mowed pasture.
7
8 Hoag stated that when mowed, it's hard to see the wetland vegetation. On
9 the edges of the site where it is not mowed, she can see the wetland vegetation.
10
11 McShane stated the ditch on the east side will always have water in it. There
12 is probably a low spot against the railroad grade with wet spots, so it is hard to tell
13 what is happening in the field compared to the edges.
14
15 Imhof stated that would be determined in the delineation. Anything else is
16 speculation.
17
18 Hoag questioned whether the plan requires mitigation or would not be
19 allowed if the delineation shows a large amount of wetlands. Goodwin stated there
20 could be mitigation. If there are extensive wetlands of 90 percent, there probably
21 would be no more development of the site other than what is already on the paved
22 apron. The existing building that is there could be converted to industrial use.
23
24 Hoag asked if it would remain rural if the Council didn't rezone. Goodwin
25 stated that it is Urban Residential zoning, four units per acre. If the Council did
26 nothing, there could be 96 houses. The City Planning Commission and City Council
27 recommended against the rezone. The County Planning Commission recommended
28 in favor of the rezone.
29
30 Nelson asked how that occurred if they haven't had a public hearing.
31 Goodwin stated the process is to have a joint planning commission hearing, which
32 they did. The City Planning Commission recommended against it and the County
33 Planning Commission recommended in favor of the rezone. Then, it went forward
34 to the City Council, who heard both sides and recommended to the County Council
35 against it. The County Council makes the final decision, but the interlocal
36 agreement says that if the County Council is going to go against the City Council,
37 then the two have to have a meeting. If the County Council takes the staff's
38 recommendation, then the County Council has to have a joint meeting with the City
39 Council. If the County Council wants to go along with the City Council, then the
40 County Council can cancel the joint meeting.
41
42 McShane stated they would have to have a public hearing.
43
44 Dawson stated the County makes the ultimate decision. The councilmembers
45 want to meet with the City Council.
46
47 Brenner stated she believed that the County Council was supposed to meet
48 with the City Council to do a negotiation. Goodwin stated that if the two councils
49 agree, they don't need to have a joint meeting.
50
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 10
1 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
2
3 Greg Aucutt, City of Bellingham Senior Planner, stated he would make the
4 city's presentation. This is the third hearing on this issue. He thanked the Council
5 for hearing his comments and the opportunity to work with the County's staff. The
6 city spent approximately seven years working with the County to come up with the
7 urban growth boundary for Bellingham, and also review the zoning in that area.
8 That occurred in 1997. As a part of that process, they attempted to establish a 20-
9 year land supply for commercial, residential, and industrial zoned land. They
10 included a 25 percent market factor in that calculation. City staff, the City Planning
11 Commission, and City Council all recommended that the rezone be evaluated in the
12 context of the update of the urban growth boundary in 2002. When the County
13 adopted the urban fringe plan in 1997, the County and city agreed to review the
14 boundary and zoning every five years. That review will come up in 2002. The City
15 would like to analyze this particular rezone in the context of the five -year review,
16 when they will have census information and an analysis of the land supply. The city
17 felt that it was inappropriate to approve a rezone on a parcel -by- parcel basis,
18 looking only at that parcel and not at the full urban growth area. That is the
19 recommendation, not that the rezone be denied, but that it be evaluated in the
20 2002 update of the urban growth area.
21
22 The purpose of the joint meeting is to resolve any differences. This is the
23 first application that the city and County have taken through this process. The
24 applicant was nice enough to agree to do that. The different recommendations are
25 unfortunate, but there is value in the process, especially with the joint planning
26 commissions meeting.
27
28 Imhof stated the owner could put in an application for 96 houses tomorrow.
29 There are three pipelines going through and around this property. He questioned
30 the city's rationale for putting houses here. Aucutt stated the applicant can only do
31 one house per five acres without sewer and water from the city. Industrial zoning
32 may be appropriate, but it needs to be looked at in the context of an urban land
33 supply for the urban growth area. If they have to add industrial -zoned land, they
34 have to take a look at what land is available for industrial use, and pick the most
35 appropriate. This is a parcel that is either 20 percent or 80 percent wetland. It is
36 hard to say that if this would be the one parcel, out of all the parcels in the urban
37 growth area, they would chose to be industrial zoning without looking at them all.
38
39 Dawson asked if sewer and water are going by the property. Aucutt stated
40 sewer and water are at the corner, but it requires an extension from the city.
41
42 Hoag stated she didn't want to put up houses by the pipelines. She
43 questioned whether the applicant could not residentially develop the property at
44 this point. She questioned what development they could see if the County does not
45 approve the rezone at this time.
46
47 Goodwin stated that if the city did not agree to give utilities, the applicant
48 could only build one house per five acres for a total of only four houses without city
49 utilities. It is in the city UGA and short -term planning area (STPA), so the city
50 should provide services, but that is a city decision.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 11
1
2 Hoag questioned whether the city has to provide services. Goodwin stated
3 they are supposed to be able to provide services in a UGA, but the city would still
4 have to approve it.
5
6 Aucutt stated the City Council would evaluate and decide to extend services
7 or not, depending on what they feel is in the best interest of the city.
8
9 Nelson asked the total land supply in the UGA. Aucutt stated the total UGA
10 for the City of Bellingham is about 7,000 acres. The City of Bellingham is about
11 16,000 acres.
12
13 Nelson asked if the city had a percentage of the UGA for Light Industrial or
14 Residential. Aucutt stated they did not. They took what was present in the city,
15 and then the County rezoned property.
16
17 Nelson stated this piece is .3 percent of the total UGA.
18
19 McShane asked about the grade of the natural gas pipeline. Aucutt stated he
20 didn't know.
21
22 Goodwin stated she didn't know.
23
24 Brenner asked about the amount of acreage on the Trillium rezone from Light
25 Industrial to Residential. Goodwin stated it was about 60 acres.
26
27 Dawson asked about the comment that, if the city doesn't get a benefit, the
28 city doesn't provide services. People move to the urban growth areas to get the
29 services. Some people would view density as not benefiting the city. She
30 questioned whether the city is trying to discourage higher density. Aucutt stated
31 that with any sewer and water extension, it is up to the City Council to decide if the
32 extension is in the best interest of the city.
33
34 Brenner asked if the city has flexibility in its process. The County can move
35 something forward if there is merit. She asked if the city ever takes any proposals
36 out of the batch. Aucutt stated there is an annual rezone process in the city.
37
38 Dawson asked if this is considered a part of the yearly rezone. Aucutt stated
39 it is not in the city. The County is reviewing the rezone.
40
41 Brenner asked if the city has any flexibility in the UGA on proposals that may
42 have merit to come before the five -year review. Aucutt stated that is not the
43 policy.
44
45 Deane Sandell, 4148 Cougar Road, spoke in favor of his family's request. His
46 family owned this property for many years. Both the County Planning staff and
47 County Planning Commission recommended that this rezone be approved. The City
48 of Bellingham recommended that the County Council deny the rezone request. He
49 read and listened to the city's arguments. He still didn't understand the reasoning
50 behind their recommendation. There appears to be no disagreement between
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 12
1 County and City staff that the presence of several underground gas pipelines
2 adjacent to and crossing the property makes the property an undesirable location
3 for residential development. That fact, coupled with the fact that the property lies
4 adjacent to land that is already zoned industrial and developed with industrial uses,
5 would support the idea that it is appropriate for a non - residential zoning
6 designation for his property. The designation of Light Industrial would be
7 appropriate, rather than commercial. The city argues that there is a sufficient
8 supply of industrially zoned land, about 2,800 acres according to the city staff
9 report, and therefore this rezone is not needed. However, both the city and the
10 County staff agree that the amount of industrial land with ready access to urban
11 level services, including all- weather roads, sewer, and water, is much smaller. The
12 city, during the Gateway Industrial -West Bakerview disagreement, made this very
13 point in support of their argument for the need for industrial land at that location.
14 They argued the other side of the equation at that time.
15
16 The fact is that if this rezone is approved, this 24 acres would only increase
17 the supply of industrially zoned land by a very small percentage of the total supply.
18 It would not appear to have a significant impact on the overall supply of industrial
19 land one way or the other.
20
21 More importantly, the 24 acres is essentially fully serviced land with ready
22 access to improved all- weather road, municipal sewer, and water service. The
23 amount of this type of industrial land is relatively small and growing smaller. The
24 impetus behind this rezone request is not to create more industrial land. It is that
25 they believe this land is very unsuited for residential development.
26
27 The city argues that this rezone would lead to a request by others in the area
28 to have their property rezoned to industrial as well. As the pipeline map shows,
29 there really is no other land in Whatcom County that is similar to this, except the
30 property immediately to the west, which is already industrial property. They don't
31 believe there will be pressure on like lands, because there aren't any. The way the
32 land lies, this 24 acres is already like a finger of residential land poking into the
33 current industrial area.
34
35 The issue of the presence of wetlands and how it affects the ability to
36 develop the property has been a concern throughout this process. The city has
37 used the National Wetland Inventory map to argue that the site is 90 percent
38 wetlands. That was done 13 years ago by aerial photography. He submitted a map
39 prepared by a certified wetlands scientist who visited the site, and shows the
40 general location of the wetland area. That map shows that 20 percent of the site or
41 less is affected by wetlands. The wetlands are distributed in a way that leaves
42 sufficient area for the development, whether that land is developed as industrial or
43 residential. Any development must comply to the applicable wetland regulations.
44 If someone walked on the land today, he or she would not encounter any standing
45 water. Also, the north end of the property is currently developed with a 12,500
46 square foot steel frame building that includes a large paved apron. These existing
47 improvements are adequate currently for industrial use with minor modifications.
48
49 When all the factors are taken into account, it is difficult to understand where
50 the problem lies. Both the city and County staffs acknowledge that the site is
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 13
1 undesirable for residential development. The only issue is whether industrial zoning
2 would be suitable. After careful consideration, both the County Planning
3 Department staff and the County Planning Commission believe that it would be
4 suitable for industrial zoning. They recommended that this rezone be approved
5 now rather than later.
6
7 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
8
9 Sandell continued to state that if they don't do this now, it is reasonable that
10 the process would take another five to eight years before anything would change.
11 He hoped the Council would grant the rezone.
12
13 Chris Spens, City of Bellingham Environmental Planner, stated the National
14 Wetland Inventory map is accurate to +/- .5 mile. The wetland work done on the
15 property is called a reconnaissance, and someone walks the property to decipher
16 visual indicators. It is reasonable to conclude that there are wetlands after a
17 reconnaissance, but he would not represent the exact amount of wetlands based on
18 that information alone. Until they dig the holes, check the soil, and test for water,
19 one doesn't know. The City of Bellingham doesn't make a representation that there
20 is a specific percentage of coverage. They like to consider these situations in a
21 broader context. One alternative use to consider is a regional wetland mitigation
22 site, such as the sites that are sought on the north side of E. Bakerview. Right
23 now, this property could be helpful. Wetlands are an item to dodge. In part, that
24 is why the land in Cordata was rezoned from industrial to residential. It is difficult
25 to work around wetlands. There are other uses, such as low density residential,
26 which is what one gets by default when there are not utilities. Open space and
27 natural resource conservation are other uses. The railroad grade on the west side
28 is part of a link in the Bay -to -Baker trail. The message is not that this specific
29 property is suitable or unsuitable. It is, at a minimum, uncharacterized physically.
30 There is not any detail. When they consider a rezone on a per - parcel basis, it's nice
31 to have detail. When they consider a rezone as a matter of preference, it's nice to
32 have the broader context of consideration of all candidates' parcels that might be
33 suitable, and evolve a plan for that neighborhood or vicinity. They don't say there
34 is a certain percentage of wetlands. They do say there may be a range of
35 alternative uses. Wetland mitigation banking is very lucrative and worthy of
36 consideration.
37
38 Brenner asked how long the area has been zoned UR -4. Spens stated it has
39 been zoned UR -4 since the County Council last established the zoning in the area
40 and it was brought into the UGA with UR -4 zoning.
41
42 Brenner asked if they changed any of the light industrial zoning in that area
43 to commercial zoning. She asked if they eliminated any of the light industrial
44 zoning in that area. Spens stated there were some changes from light industrial to
45 residential.
46
47 Brenner stated there was a change of the Trillium property. She asked what
48 acreage the City has made into light industrial zoning that wasn't zoned light
49 industrial before. Spens stated they haven't taken any action since the addition of
50 the UGA.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 14
1
2 Brenner asked what is the benefit of a regional wetland mitigation site for a
3 property owner. Spens stated the owner is in it for the ability to take un- serviced
4 rural land and create mitigation on a square foot basis that can free up land in
5 commercially zoned areas, industrially zoned areas, and areas that have a much
6 higher ground value. The property owner can create the opportunity for someone
7 else. For example, a subdivision may need mitigation onsite, within city limits, and
8 it has completed an agreement for the use of property on the north side of E.
9 Bakerview. If given the opportunity to consider a large range of uses, this might be
10 an appropriate use.
11
12 Brenner questioned who would pay the property owner for the use of their
13 land as a regional wetland. Spens stated the property owner would be paid by a
14 project proponent trying to achieve mitigation approval from agencies to make
15 available commercial and industrial land.
16
17 McShane questioned whether there are any fish on the surface water of the
18 property. Spens stated he didn't know. It hasn't been investigated.
19
20 McShane asked if the land would still be allowed for use as wetland
21 mitigation if it was still zoned light impact industrial. Spens stated he wasn't aware
22 that it is either expressly permitted or prohibited in the County's zoning
23 classification. Goodwin stated that wetland mitigation banking isn't specifically
24 allowed in any zone. Right now, the state DOE is going through a lot of work on
25 writing rules for wetland mitigation banking, of which they are at least three or four
26 months away from adopting. At this point, to get any type of a wetland mitigation
27 bank anywhere would be difficult. They are hoping those will be adopted soon. At
28 that time, there would be state rules on how a person would create a wetland
29 mitigation bank. It is not an option at this time. Neither light industrial or urban
30 residential zoning are designated for wetland mitigation banks. If they could do it
31 in urban residential zoning, they could certainly do it in light industrial zoning.
32
33 Spens stated it needn't be a mitigation bank, which is a system. It can
34 simply be a mitigation project.
35
36 Goodwin stated the County allows for offsite mitigation in the current wetland
37 rules. That could happen.
38
39 McShane asked if this area is particularly attractive for that use. Spens
40 stated it is because what are hard to find are locations for this purpose that are
41 saturated or have a water table close to the surface, are in close proximity to a
42 salmon- bearing stream, and are fully degraded in terms of vegetation. There is no
43 vegetative diversity in terms of trees, shrubs, or natural cover. What they have is
44 hydrology and a degraded site with all of the other features. That is why sites are
45 sought in Squalicum Valley. That is why the city has purchased land in Squalicum
46 Valley. That is why there is a mitigation project occurring on the north side of E.
47 Bakerview to mitigate development elsewhere.
48
49 Dawson questioned whether something like this could be conditioned so that
50 a portion of the property might be used for mitigation. Spens stated he was not
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 15
1 trying to drive this to a particular outcome. It is a possibility. One could establish
2 a zoning that would allow it. It is allowed now on a per - project basis.
3
4 Nelson questioned whether the mitigation project would require a willing
5 participant. Spens stated it would.
6
7 Nelson questioned whether Mr. Spens would recommend this area for UR -4
8 development in a year or so. Spens stated that the city and County staff are
9 unanimous in minimizing public risk.
10
11 Hoag asked how the profit of a wetland mitigation project compares to a
12 rezone to light industrial land. Spens stated suitable mitigation sites are very hard
13 to find. There are two large developments in the city that have looked for years for
14 appropriate mitigation sites. That opportunity doesn't take any development or
15 utilities.
16
17 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
18
19 Brenner asked how long the area has been zoned UR -4. Goodwin guessed
20 since the late 1970's.
21
22 Imhof stated they need to hold in Council until the next Council meeting, so
23 the City Council and County Council can have their joint meeting.
24
25 Hoag stated this item is a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and has to be
26 considered concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan amendments.
27
28 Goodwin suggested that the Council could do a straw vote. The Council
29 couldn't adopt the ordinance at this meeting, but can make a decision on what it
30 wants to do. All the Comprehensive Plan amendments have to be considered at the
31 same time.
32
33 Imhof moved that the Council attend the joint work session with the City
34 Council the following day.
35
36 Crawford stated he would abstain from the vote because he didn't
37 understand why they need a motion to attend the joint work session.
38
39 Imhof stated that if a councilmember supports the city, then he or she should
40 vote against the motion. If enough councilmembers vote against the motion, then
41 they know they support the city and don't have to have the joint work session.
42
43 Motion to attend the meeting carried 5 -0 with McShane and Crawford
44 abstaining.
45
46
47 CONSENT AGENDA
48
49 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
50 moved approval of items one through five.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 16
1
2 Hoag withdrew items three and four.
3
4 Motion to approve items one, two, and five carried unanimously.
5
6 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
7 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND DUKE
8 ENGINEERING AND SERVICES, INC. FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
9 THIRD AND FINAL YEAR OF MONITORING FOR THE DAVIS-
10 RIVERBERRY AND VANDELLEN PROJECTS AS REQUIRED BY THE US
11 ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, IN THE
12 AMENDMENT AMOUNT OF $55,685 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED
13 CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $226,836 (AB2000 -365)
14
15 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO TWO
16 CONTRACT AMENDMENTS BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
17 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES INCREASING
18 WHATCOM COUNTY'S ALLOCATION FOR BECCA SERVICES FOR AT-
19 RISK YOUTH (ARY), CHILDREN IN NEED OF SERVICES (CHINS) AND
20 TRUANTS, IN THE TOTAL AMENDED ALLOCATION AMOUNT OF
21 $237,605.03 (AB2000 -366)
22
23 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
24 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE WASHINGTON
25 STATE MILITARY DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE FEDERAL AND STATE
26 GRANT FUNDS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THREE FLOODPLAIN
27 PROPERTIES, AND REMOVAL OF ALL STRUCTURES FOR A TOTAL
28 AMOUNT OF $450,000, WITH A COUNTY SHARE OF $56,250 (AB2000-
29 367)
30
31 Nelson moved approval. The properties are located at 1945 Marine Drive,
32 7495 Emerson, and a location in Ferndale.
33
34 Hoag questioned the types of properties.
35
36 Imhof stated they are homes.
37
38 Imhof questioned how they set the value of the properties.
39
40 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated they are residential dwelling units.
41 He submitted an excerpt from the grant application.
42
43 Dawson questioned the average parcel size.
44
45 Nelson stated they are all slivers of land.
46
47 Monsen stated these are the properties owned by interested parties.
48
49 Hoag asked what would be done with the properties and who would own
50 them. Monsen stated the properties, once acquired, cannot be used for residential
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 17
1 or other structures. It has to remain restricted in that nature. He did not know if it
2 must remain in public ownership, but he thought it does.
3
4 Hoag stated there was talk about the County owning farmland that could be
5 leased out. The military said they don't take any claim to the property. Monsen
6 stated they are in the granting business.
7
8 Hoag questioned who ends up owning the property. Monsen stated the
9 County would end up owning the property. They have not gone far enough into the
10 process to decide what to do with the parcels. The County knows it cannot put up a
11 structure. There are many other options.
12
13 Hoag questioned whether any of the properties are big enough to be used for
14 salmon habitat. Monsen stated he was not familiar enough with the sites to answer
15 that question. Those opportunities are likely there, depending on the site and what
16 else is going on in the area.
17
18 Motion carried 5 -0 with McShane abstained.
19
20 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
21 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND IT CORPORATION TO
22 CONDUCT SOIL INVESTIGATIONS IN AND ABOUT THE EASTERN
23 MAINTENANCE SHED AT THE CENTRAL SHOP FACILITY, REMOVE ANY
24 CONTAMINATED SOIL AND PROVIDE HARD SURFACE IN THE SHED,
25 IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,520 (AB2000 -368)
26
27 Nelson moved approval.
28
29 Hoag stated she believed all the contaminated soils had already been
30 removed. She questioned why they are contracting out again to remove
31 contaminated soils.
32
33 Dick Prieve, Assistant Director of Operations, stated they don't know if there
34 is contamination. They are trying to finish the plan at the shop. These vehicles
35 have been parked undercover since 1981. There is some stain on the ground.
36 They would like to hard surface that area and also build a couple of containers to
37 park some of the equipment so there aren't drippings. To do that, they have to
38 have the ground tested and make sure there is not any contamination. They know
39 there is some, but not much, oil and hydrocarbons, but they still have to have it
40 tested. Next spring, they are going to hard surface the area.
41
42 Hoag questioned whether this is the same spot as where they had the soils
43 removed from the shop. Prieve stated this is a different location. There are two
44 equipment sheds out there. This is the shed on the eastern side. They will come
45 back in six months to do the other shed.
46
47 Motion carried unanimously.
48
49 S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
50 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WILSON
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 18
1 ENGINEERING, L.L.C. FOR PERMITTING, DESIGN AND
2 CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT OF THE LUMMI ISLAND VILLAGE POINT
3 SEAWALL PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,110 (AB2000 -369)
4
5
6 OTHER ITEMS
7
8 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET, REQUEST #12 (AB2000-
9 359)
10
11 Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
12 moved approval of the final substitute ordinance showing the amendments made in
13 committee to include the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) information.
14
15 Hoag asked about the changes.
16
17 Nelson stated the original request contained the first three requests. The
18 first substitute ordinance included an appropriation of $16,000 for roof and gutter
19 repairs for the Sun Residential center, which the County owns at 515 Chestnut
20 Street. The building has had significant repair issues. The committee discussed
21 creating a revolving fund for the maintenance and repair of all County facilities.
22 The final substitute ordinance then included the appropriation for the employer
23 contribution to PERS in the amount of $27,000 to $28,000 because of one
24 additional councilmember's request to be included.
25
26 Brenner stated people need to understand about the PERS appropriation. As
27 councilmembers, they were always eligible for retirement benefits. Until a year
28 ago, the councilmembers were always told that they were not eligible. None of the
29 councilmembers were able to take advantage of having that benefit. To be able to
30 have the benefit, the County administration is paying the employer's share.
31 Councilmembers are paying a huge amount of money because they had to pay
32 interest that they wouldn't have had to pay if they'd been told up front that they
33 were eligible. This problem was from a former administration. It's discouraging to
34 put that money out of pocket.
35
36 Motion carried unanimously.
37
38 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO PROVIDE WRIA CAUCUS SUPPORT
39 (AB2000 -377)
40
41 Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
42 stated the committee approved a cap of $30,000 for each caucus and to come back
43 to committee in two weeks to formulate grant criteria and application system to
44 evaluate the needs, assess their capabilities of funding, and look at the use of the
45 funds. The committee recognized that all the caucuses need some form of support
46 in a limited fashion, particularly those that do not have an available revenue
47 stream. The funding would enable the caucuses to get their information out during
48 the process to their individual membership, to get feedback, and to obtain the
49 ability to get technical expertise when needed. This is not a process similar to
50 Growth Management, where they had many groups meeting and providing a vision.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 19
1 This is a process in which the County requires the volunteer representatives to
2 provide technical information and data. The caucuses need technical support and
3 to provide that information to their individual members. The committee
4 recommends that the administration draft a proposal system similar to WA -CERT
5 that could come back to the County Council to be disseminated and to find funding.
6 The County Council would vote on those proposals separately.
7
8 Brenner stated she did not want to include the major taxing districts in the
9 process.
10
11 Nelson stated the administration had discussion with the Port of Bellingham,
12 and they would not submit a proposal.
13
14 Brenner stated she didn't want them to even be on the list.
15
16 Hoag stated that if a caucus has taxing ability, it should be included in the
17 grant application. They need to define the difference between the flood district and
18 the Port of Bellingham. She questioned whether the $30,000 cap is per caucus.
19
20 Nelson stated it is per caucus.
21
22 Bruce Roll, Waters Resources Manager, stated the proposal for $30,000 came
23 from the Planning Unit in a unified proposal. This was brought before the County
24 Council to consider at its previous Water Resources work session.
25
26 Hoag stated that is too much money. They proposed $5,000 per caucus
27 already.
28
29 Imhof moved to amend the cap to $30,000 total for all caucuses.
30
31 Hoag asked what happened with the $5,000 they already approved. Roll
32 stated the current budget has $50,000 total for all the caucuses.
33
34 Imhof amended his motion to cap at $50,000 total for all caucuses.
35
36 Crawford spoke against the motion. From the proposal that came out of
37 committee, they are suggesting that there will be some caucuses who want
38 flexibility to be allowed a larger sum of money. They needed to put a cap on that
39 amount, and the committee determined that $30,000 was appropriate. They are
40 not committing to fund each caucus $30,000 at this point. The committee agreed
41 that it is unlikely that they are going to approach that figure for each caucus. They
42 would like to retain the flexibility for some of the smaller caucuses. The full Council
43 would review the application from each caucus. He proposed during committee
44 that they don't establish a precedent to pay people to go to meetings. They are
45 looking for opportunities to help some of the smaller caucuses on the technical
46 nature of this. They are not going to set the precedent that caucus members would
47 get paid to go to Planning Unit or caucus meetings. Councilmember Nelson's
48 motion comes with a very strong message along that line. He would attend the
49 Planning Unit meeting to observe the County representative convey that message
50 to the Planning Unit.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 20
1
2 Dawson stated the Council needs to review and evaluate each proposal on its
3 own merit, but they need to be realistic. It would be insulting to lead the caucuses
4 on with the idea that they have a funding potential of $30,000, and then spend
5 time trying to substantiate why they need it when there is no realistic expectation
6 of even getting near that amount. She would support the proposal of the $50,000
7 cap for all caucuses.
8
9 Imhof stated they are creating false expectations. If the caucuses think they
10 can get $30,000, they would build their work programs to justify the $30,000. If a
11 caucus comes up with something, the Council can amend the budget. There are
12 many caucuses. The County would spend all their money on caucus support and
13 not much on getting the job done. It is unrealistic.
14
15 Nelson stated no one knows what support is really needed. Support in the
16 amount of $5,000 per year may provide clerical help and money to do mailings.
17 That would be it. They are not going to assist the caucuses in the technical
18 knowledge that they need to have for these difficult issues. This is not like growth
19 management with its idea of what they want in the community. The caucuses need
20 to look at quantification issues, quality issues and riparian habitat so they can be
21 sure to address those issues. The County Council could pay this amount in the
22 beginning of the process and get a product that has support, or wait until the end
23 and have a product that would be challenged.
24
25 Brenner agreed with Councilmember Dawson. She didn't want the cap at
26 $30,000 or $5,000. She also did not want to cap the entire amount at $50,000.
27 The smaller caucuses aren't able to have technical assistance. This reminded her of
28 the visioning committee. If they don't have ownership by the diverse caucuses, the
29 County could do all the work it wants and there would still be a big mess. It is
30 important that all the caucuses feel as if they had input and have access to
31 technical assistance. She suggested a cap of $20,000 for some of the caucuses.
32
33 Crawford stated that, rather than lower the amount at this point, without a
34 review of the budget situation, hold off on the vote. He would rather send the
35 Planning Unit no message than a message that the County Council has already
36 defined how much money it is going to spend. He would make it clear to the
37 administration, as a Finance Committee member, that he is looking for money from
38 other areas of the County's proposed 2001 budget to put into this area. The
39 administration presented a balanced budget. He is looking for the money. The
40 Council has not even come close to concluding that process, but it will in the next
41 few weeks. He would like to defer giving a specific recommendation of an amount
42 until they know what they have to play with.
43
44 Dawson stated she would support that suggestion. It would be better to
45 wait, to show a more thoughtful process.
46
47 Hoag stated that if there is group support, the technical assistance could be
48 contracted out. It is not something they want to pay individual caucuses to be
49 doing on their own. There needs to be common support for things that are being
50 done. She understood that there are technical expertise items that need to be
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 21
1 addressed, but Councilmember Imhof's motion would address that need. She
2 would support deferring until after the budget, but wouldn't support having $30,000
3 for each because people would formulate their work plans around the idea that
4 there is $30,000 available.
5
6 Dawson moved to refer to Finance Committee.
7
8 Nelson stated there needed to be some vote. The Council needs to
9 encourage the caucuses. If they are not going to establish an amount, then move
10 it forward to get a budgetary line item established, even with no amount specified.
11 Take the proposals with no amount specified and review each proposal. That would
12 acknowledge the work of the caucuses and not let them get discouraged by keeping
13 this in committee
14
15 Dawson stated people don't get discouraged if they understand the reality of
16 a situation. It is important to make the situation real to the people.
17
18 Hoag stated Councilmember Nelson is saying he wants a vote. The County
19 Council can say they do support giving money to the caucuses, but would like it to
20 go through the budget review process. That is an appropriate message to send.
21
22 Brenner stated she agreed with Councilmember Nelson.
23
24 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
25
26 Dawson accepted a friendly amendment to include the message that the
27 Council would bring the issue to the Finance Committee to review it because they
28 support it, but they want to look at it in terms of the budget. Her motion did not
29 include asking the caucus to do their plan up front.
30
31 Brenner asked how the County Council is going to budget for support if it
32 doesn't know what the caucuses need.
33
34 Crawford stated the Council already has proposals from most of the
35 caucuses.
36
37 Motion approved 4 -3 with Brenner, Nelson and Imhof opposed.
38
39 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
40 PLAN'S SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, CAPITAL
41 FACILITIES CHAPTER AND TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER (AB2000-
42 347)
43
44 Brenner reported for Public Works and Capital Projects Committee and stated
45 it was approved in committee. She brought up some points that Matt Aamot is
46 going to look into. She would abstain because of a concern about things that are
47 outdated and need to be revised. The changes could be done in the next year
48 without holding anything up. She suggested text reviews over the next year.
49
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 22
1 Hoag stated this item had to be held with other Comprehensive Plan
2 amendments.
3
4 Brenner stated the committee moved to recommend approval 2 -0, with one
5 abstention. This is just for information. She withdrew her motion to approve.
6
7 Dawson stated this would be held until November 14.
8
9 4. ORDINANCE ADOPTING NEW WHATCOM COUNTY LAND DIVISION
10 REGULATIONS (TITLE 21), REPEALING THE EXISTING WHATCOM
11 COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (TITLE 21), AND MAKING
12 MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO TITLE 2 AND TITLE 20 (AB2000 -160)
13
14 McShane reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated the
15 committee worked through to completion of Title 21. The committee felt it would
16 be a good idea to go through the amendments and vote on the final document with
17 these amendments at the next meeting.
18
19 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, suggested that they don't
20 continue until November 14th because of budget and the Comprehensive Plan items
21 that are scheduled for that date. Schedule it on November 28.
22
23 Hoag questioned whether the staff recommendations were adopted in
24 committee.
25
26 McShane stated some were and some were not approved. Others were just
27 discussion items.
28
29 McShane listed the amendments approved in the Planning and Development
30 Committee, and as outlined in the memo from Senior Planner Matt Aamot to the
31 County Council dated October 20, 2000.
32
33 1. Page three of the October 20 memo from staff, issue four regarding
34 adding an exemption to section 21.03.020 and amending 21.03.030,
35 approved as it is.
36
37 McShane moved to approve the staff recommendation.
38
39 Nelson stated there was discussion regarding smaller lots and reducing the
40 size of the second lot. He questioned the outcome of that discussion.
41
42 McShane stated that issue had to do with boundaries.
43
44 Crawford stated they discussed deleting the minimum five acres, but they
45 decided it was an appropriate measure. One person wanted to delete them, and
46 another person wanted to defer to the state minimums. There was this discussion
47 in the context of the Whatcom County Code (WCC) 21.03.020(7)(x). They
48 discussed deleting that section because they didn't want to discourage people from
49 creating conservation easements that have less than five acres. Then there was
50 discussion about deferring to the state law, which says the minimum will be five
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 23
1 acres. Then, they decided to not worry about it, and only change it if the state law
2 changes. The reason for that is so people who come to the counter have clear
3 direction from staff, as opposed to an ambiguous referral to an Revised Code of
4 Washington (RCW) or Washington Administrative Code (WAC). The people would
5 know that right now it stands at five acres. It would be worthy of bringing back the
6 state regulation never changes.
7
8 Nelson questioned whether there was discussion about why these needed to
9 be done by a surveyor. Aamot stated the committee brought that up at the last
10 Planning and Development Committee meeting. The thought was that, if they are
11 going to set aside areas for preservation, it is important to know where those areas
12 are.
13
14 Dawson stated these aren't interior lot line adjustments.
15
16 McShane stated the idea is that they want to have a record of a very clear
17 survey, in case an adjoining property owner began encroaching on the conservation
18 area.
19
20 Nelson questioned whether the property owner that is submitting the area for
21 environmental mitigation would have to pay for the survey.
22
23 Dawson stated that was correct.
24
25 Crawford stated they would get to the issue of surveyors and lot line
26 boundary adjustments.
27
28 McShane stated that discussion was in regard to another section. They really
29 need to have these areas surveyed.
30
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32
33 2. Page four of the October 20 memo from staff, issue five regarding
34 legal descriptions for five -acre exemptions in section 21.03.020(4)(f),
35 approved as it is.
36
37 McShane moved to approve the staff recommendation.
38
39 Hoag stated this was to make the process easier. The applicant doesn't have
40 to do this up front, when he or she submits the application.
41
42 Motion carried unanimously.
43
44 3. Page five of the handout, issue six regarding renumbering WCC
45 sections, as it is.
46
47 McShane moved to approve the staff recommendation.
48
49 Motion carried unanimously.
50
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 24
1 4. Page six of the handout, issue eight regarding surveys for boundary
2 line adjustments in section 21.03.060(4), as amended:
3
4 McShane moved to approve the staff recommendations with the following
5 amendments:
6 • Section (4) "...shall have prepared all maps, FeeeFds ef SUFvey, and
7 instruments of conveyance..."
8 • Section (4)(a) "...with a legal description ,
9 conveying that..."
10 • Section (4)(b) delete the entire subsection
11 . Section (4)(c) renumber to become subsection (b) and "...the above -
12 described final map, , and instruments..."
13
14 Hoag stated the language in the memo above the suggested amendment
15 talks about why the staff recommended the delineation that they did. Originally,
16 the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) recommended that there be a survey for
17 all boundary line adjustments, and then staff thought it would be reasonable to
18 revise it to require surveys only if the boundary line adjustment included a lot that
19 was less than two acres. The reasoning for staff was that a survey wasn't needed
20 for five -acre parcels because it was unlikely that there would be development close
21 to exterior property lines, but it is more likely with smaller lots. There would be
22 greater certainty to ensure that the new lot line does not run through a drain field.
23 She agreed with the staff's assessment. By deleting subsection (4)(b), it would not
24 only apply to lots less than two acres in size. She didn't support deleting
25 subsection (4)(b).
26
27 Crawford stated they received extensive testimony that lot line adjustments
28 are a very common thing that occurs on a regular basis. Adding the requirement
29 for a survey would burden the applicant in every situation, with an additional
30 $1,000 cost. Many of these are about moving a fence a few feet. The regulation to
31 require a survey on all of those was overbearing. People testified specifically about
32 the smaller parcels.
33
34 Motion carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed.
35
36 5. Packet page 282, section 21.03.020(6)(d)
37
38 McShane moved to approve an amendment, "...further exempt divisions of
39 sheet plats may be created ... the appropriate long subdivision, short subdivision, or
40 binding site plan...." An exempt division may be made, and there may be an
41 instance in which it was appropriate to go to the short -plat route, instead of
42 requiring long subdivisions. He supported forcing the long- subdivision before, but
43 information was presented that was compelling, regarding a five -acre parcel gifted
44 as an exempt.
45
46 Aamot stated that the existing code requires that, if an applicant divides it
47 within five years, he or she has to do a final plat. One could gift four parcels to
48 relatives, who could then turn around and short -plat it. One could end up with
49 sixteen lots without a long -plat.
50
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 25
1 McShane stated he may have overlooked that, and wanted to hear that
2 again. Aamot stated that if they remove the short -plat language, they would allow
3 someone to gift four parcels. The people who receive those four parcels could
4 create short -plats the next day, which could create sixteen lots from the original
5 parcel without going through a long -plat. The existing regulation has a requirement
6 that a person can't further divide the parcels within five years without filing a final
7 long -plat.
8
9 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated RCW 58.17 uses the five -
10 year requirement.
11
12 Aamot stated there is a similar provision in the state law. If a person short -
13 plats a parcel, and then further divides within five years, the division has to be
14 done by a long -plat.
15
16 Grant stated the gift exemption is not a creature of state law. When the
17 County decides to allow people to do exempted gift plats, it creates a loophole to do
18 back -to -back short -plats by the recipients of the gift plats.
19
20 McShane questioned whether that regulation has been abused. Grant stated
21 it has been.
22
23 Hoag asked the difference between the results of doing that and an earlier
24 comment about sixteen parcels being created without any review of impacts to
25 roads, stormwater, streams, and wetlands. She questioned whether a short -plat
26 does that kind of review. Aamot stated it would go through that review. The short -
27 plat process would avoid a public hearing and notice.
28
29 Crawford spoke in favor of the motion. They are not going to allow additional
30 exemptions from previously exempted divisions. That should be the clear message
31 here. Bringing in additional elements of other subdivisions is not pertinent.
32
33 Brenner supported Councilmember Crawford, but if there is a chance that it
34 could be abused, she wouldn't support the motion.
35
36 Dawson stated this eliminates the piggyback short - plats.
37
38 Imhof stated it doesn't eliminate the piggyback short plats within five years.
39
40 Aamot stated they could easily insert that language.
41
42 Imhof suggested a friendly amendment to have staff incorporate language
43 regarding five years.
44
45 Hoag asked if the language that has been moved for approval creates is
46 more lenient than other short -plats because it starts with the gift exemption and
47 doesn't have the five -year requirement. Aamot stated that was correct.
48
49 Hoag supported adding requirement language before voting to make the
50 changes.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 26
1
2 McShane accepted the friendly amendment.
3
4 Crawford questioned whether that amendment is subject to public comment
5 in four weeks, when it comes back to the Council. Every word of this document has
6 been fought out. He was concerned about putting things in on the fly at the end of
7 the process without some input. This would affect many people. He would support
8 it with the sense that they would allow public input in four weeks.
9
10 Brenner stated she was uncomfortable. This is committee discussion work.
11 There was much discussion during committee. If they are going to have a
12 committee process, they should use it. If something came out of committee with an
13 agreement, then it is something that should be written up for the full Council to
14 digest. She didn't want to go through the stuff they did in committee already.
15
16 McShane stated this may be odd, but Title 21 has been brutal on the
17 committee. It is time to move it along. Every one of these issues has already been
18 dealt with during committee.
19
20 Dawson restated the motion to amend language in 21.03.020(6)(d),
21 "...further exempt divisions ei= sheFt PI may be created ... the appropriate long
22 subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan...." In addition, add language
23 regarding incorporating the five -year limit.
24
25 Aamot suggested language regarding the five -year limit, "...created from any
26 of the lots. Any further division within five years of the lot that was given as a gift
27 or the remaining slot shall go through the appropriate long subdivisions sher-t
28 s.."duvws* .A, or binding site plan procedure; and..." The concept is that one has to do
29 a long -plat if he or she plats within five years. After five years, the person could do
30 a short -plat.
31
32 Hoag asked if that suggestion would also allow further exempt division after
33 five years, due to the placement of the language. The language now doesn't allow
34 any more exempt divisions from an exempt division. Regarding this discussion
35 being in committee, they are not all on committee, this is a full Council, and it is
36 appropriate that they discuss the issue.
37
38 Aamot questioned whether Councilmember Hoag wanted to not allow any
39 further exemptions.
40
41 Hoag stated the language from the TAC and the Planning Commission, that
42 they had approved earlier did not allow any further exemptions on an exempt
43 parcel. Mr. Aamot's suggested language would make further exempt divisions
44 prohibited for only five years. Aamot agreed.
45
46 Brenner stated she did not say this didn't belong in the Council's discussion.
47 When things are of a controversial nature that did not come out of committee with a
48 unanimous vote, they should be discussed in committee first. This was not
49 something she had an objection to.
50
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 27
1 Crawford suggested language... "...from any of the lots. Furthermore, no
2 short -plat may be created within five years. Any further division..." However, he
3 was not in support of that language. He wanted the short -plat language to be
4 removed.
5
6 Hoag stated she liked Councilmember Crawford's language. She offered his
7 language as a friendly amendment.
8
9 McShane accepted the friendly amendment.
10
11 Aamot restated the motion, "...no further exempt divisions or short plats may
12 be created from any of the lots. Furthermore, no short plat may be created from
13 the lots within five years. Any further division... through the appropriate long
14 subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan..."
15
16 Motion carried 4 -3, with Imhof, Crawford, and Brenner opposed.
17
18 McShane moved to amend section 21.05.080 regarding water supply,
19 "...withdraw more. If the applicant does not hold a valid water right, usage of water
20 shall not exceed 5,000 gallons per day per subdivision under any of the following
21 circumstances: a) the subdivision would withdraw groundwater from source
22 aquifers in hydraulic continuity, with streams defined in WAC 173 - 501 -030, as
23 streams where no further consumptive use can take place." He made the motion
24 during committee, and it received a split vote of 1 -1. The streams are named within
25 the WAC.
26
27 Hoag asked how this wording affects the wording before it. She didn't see
28 language that shows a person would be able to withdraw more if those conditions
29 don't apply.
30
31 McShane agreed that there might be a conflict in the language. If someone
32 wants to put in a 30 -home subdivision without a water right, the way he or she is
33 going to get water is by putting in exempt wells. They would withdraw more water
34 than they would from a water right. There would be multiple exempt wells to
35 provide water for the subdivision. He didn't believe that the County should limit
36 those for no reason. They should be limited under two circumstances. The first
37 circumstance is where there are identified streams, per the WAC, for no further
38 consumptive use to take place because of instream flows. There are 16 or 17
39 streams that are prohibited. They could be taken off that list. That is why they
40 have the Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA). WAC 173 - 501 -030 is the
41 enabling act that created WRIA. They are spending a lot of money on instream
42 flows this year.
43
44 Dawson stated there was a court case in which the state Department of
45 Ecology (DOE) can prevent groundwater withdrawal if it is proven that a stream is
46 impaired.
47
48 Hoag stated that doesn't apply to exempt wells, and that is what they are
49 discussing. She wanted to see the list of streams in the WAC.
50
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 28
1 Brenner moved to refer this item to committee. She questioned how many
2 streams are not listed as prohibited.
3
4 Motion to refer to committee failed 3 -4 with Hoag, McShane, and Brenner in
5 favor.
6
7 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B.)
8
9 McShane stated there are a couple of issues in the WAC that people should
10 be aware of. When the County allows people to subdivide their land and homes are
11 built, those people are under the assumption that they are going to have a certain
12 lifestyle that includes watering their yard. Within the WAC, it says that if water
13 usage impacts streams in an area, the DOE could prohibit water usage outside of the
14 residential home. It also puts some water rights in jeopardy. One of the reasons
15 the County is looking at instream flows is because of the Endangered Species Act,
16 which has implications and impacts on farmers who have an existing water right.
17 They are putting people at risk.
18
19 Dawson stated that water availability needs to drive the zoning.
20 Predictability of zoning is what is driving this issue.
21
22 Brenner agreed that they don't want people using up the water if it's in
23 jeopardy, but Councilmember McShane's first argument is strange. She questioned
24 whether that could happen to houses that exist now.
25
26 McShane stated it absolutely could happen.
27
28 Brenner stated she was supportive of the intent, but would abstain because
29 she doesn't have all of the information.
30
31 Crawford stated he didn't support the motion for reasons presented to the
32 County Council when this first came up in executive session. One of the reasons the
33 County Council goes into executive session is to discuss issues of liability. That is of
34 concern.
35
36 Nelson stated he understood Councilmember McShane's concerns. The state
37 has recognized a process, due to federal regulations, on salmon enhancement.
38 Otherwise, this issue wouldn't even have to be discussed. If that whole issue is
39 resolved and they come up with a plan, they need to look at their zoning. That is
40 how they take care of these problems. The County can't go out and tell people not
41 to do something in a zone because they don't have the water right or water
42 capability. That takes away the owner's development right. The appropriate step is
43 to identify the areas and make the appropriate zoning reflect the density so that all
44 people are treated fairly.
45
46 Hoag stated this regulation does not close people to have their own well of
47 5,000 gallons per day. This language says that someone can't create a subdivision,
48 for which they would typically have to apply for a water right, and then avoid
49 applying for a water right by putting in many exempt wells. The concern that
50 Councilmember McShane expressed about the impact to people who are doing the
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 29
1 right thing is a very valid concern. The Council should not vote on something
2 without the adequate information. She read from WAC 173 - 501 -040, which lists the
3 streams that are closed. Those streams include Bertrand Creek, California Creek,
4 Dakota Creek, Deer Creek, Fishtrap Creek, Fourmile Creek, Johnson Creek, Kamm
5 Ditch /Stickney Slough, Squalicum Creek, Sumas River, Tenmile Creek, an unnamed
6 stream by White Creek, Barrett Lake, Green Lake, Lake Terrell, Lummi Indian
7 reservation streams, and Wiser Lake. There are others that are listed as open with
8 partial year closures, low or minimum flows. There are about 30 water sources.
9 She read the ones that are closed. This regulation only applies to the ones that are
10 closed.
11
12 McShane stated that if someone subdivides and puts in six homes, he or she
13 could put in a well and still be exempt. Someone recently put in an exempt well
14 with ten hookups, due to low water usage. They were able to stay under the 5,000-
15 gallon minimum. This is an effort to prevent serious degradation. The County is
16 spending millions of dollars on water resource issues, particularly groundwater and
17 have every right to have some control. If the County can't do something like this
18 and have some control on water use, then he would question why they are doing
19 WRIA at all.
20
21 Brenner stated it sounds as if a minority of the creeks is closed. She
22 questioned whether it is a minority of the area. She understood that most of the
23 water areas are closed in the County.
24
25 McShane stated most are not closed for consumption.
26
27 Brenner stated it is a minority of number of creeks, but also a small land
28 area.
29
30 Hoag stated the list shows water sources that have limitations. The list
31 doesn't show water sources that are unlimited. Other water bodies that are closed
32 include Oyster Creek, Padden Creek, Saar Creek, Saxon Creek, Whatcom Creek,
33 Kendall Creek, and Maple Creek.
34
35 Councilmember McShane's motion carried 4 -3, with Crawford, Dawson, and
36 Nelson opposed.
37
38 McShane moved to add language to his previous motion above by adding a
39 second condition to section 21.08.080, "...If the applicant does not hold a valid water
40 right, usage of water shall not exceed 5,000 gallons per day per subdivision under
41 any of the following circumstances: a) the subdivision would withdraw... b) the
42 subdivision would withdraw groundwater from an aquifer declared closed to further
43 water rights by the Department of Ecology." If the applicant does not hold a valid
44 water right, water use shall not exceed 5,000 gallons per day per subdivision under
45 the circumstance of A, which they voted on, and circumstance B. It is not a
46 situation in which the DOE hasn't been processing the water rights, which has been
47 a problem. This is a situation in which DOE is saying that they are not going to
48 issue any more water right claims on a particular aquifer. He questioned why the
49 County would allow someone to put in 50 homes and ten wells to take water out of
50 an aquifer that is closed from further water right withdraws.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 30
1
2 Brenner asked which areas those are.
3
4 McShane stated he didn't know. He doubted there are very many. There
5 may be more in the north area of the county.
6
7 Nelson asked if an aquifer impacts the streambeds.
8
9 McShane stated they don't.
10
11 Nelson questioned whether the DOE has those aquifers mapped.
12
13 McShane stated that if it isn't mapped, it isn't closed. No map means that
14 they don't know anything about it. This amendment doesn't address the streams.
15 It is specifically about the underground water, which may or may not be connected
16 to a stream.
17
18 Nelson questioned whether the aquifers are mapped out.
19
20 McShane stated they do in places. In places, the DOE cannot close the
21 aquifer unless there is a very good understanding of a problem. He's heard that
22 there is one closed aquifer in Whatcom County.
23
24 Nelson stated he could accept that condition.
25
26 Hoag stated they close an aquifer if it is determined that the rate of withdraw
27 is greater than the rate of recharge.
28
29 Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
30
31 Hoag moved to add a third criteria, "...c) the subdivision is located over an
32 aquifer where pending water rights applications have been submitted prior to the
33 subdivision application, but not yet granted." A legitimate application for a water
34 right shouldn't be imperiled by someone using the exempt well process.
35
36 Imhof stated there have been applications in every aquifer in Whatcom
37 County for over seven years, so that would effectively shut down all development in
38 Whatcom County from an exempt well.
39
40 Hoag stated an exempt well would not shut down all development. It is
41 about putting together a subdivision and putting in six exempt wells to do it. One
42 could still put in an exempt well in Whatcom County, but one couldn't get 30,000
43 gallons under an exemption to water a subdivision. There are people waiting for
44 water. They shouldn't legitimize people who are trying to get ahead in the line.
45
46 McShane stated this is an issue that is in the state's purview. The legislation
47 should fund the DOE to process water rights.
48
49 Hoag stated this isn't going to go away. Developers would rather do a six -
50 pack than apply for a water right. The exempt limit is set at 5,000 gallons per day.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 31
1 When they put six homes together, it is an abuse of the privilege. She was
2 concerned about water going to subdivisions instead of farmers.
3
4 Brenner asked what would prevent the same subdivision from punching a
5 well for every house, and still withdrawing 30,000 gallons.
6
7 Imhof stated nothing would prevent it except the size of the lot.
8
9 Motion failed 1 -6 with Hoag in favor.
10
11 Crawford stated he would put his motions in writing to be discussed later.
12
13 Goodwin asked if the County Council would have another public hearing on
14 the water issues on November 28. They don't want to do it on November 14
15 because of the budget discussion.
16
17 Crawford stated it would.
18
19 McShane stated they could bring forth Crawford's language during the
20 Planning and Development Committee on November 14.
21
22 Goodwin stated they would schedule a public hearing on November 28.
23
24 S. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
25 DR. EMIL HECHT AND GARY GOODMAN TO THE BELLINGHAM
26 WHATCOM COUNTY COMMISSION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
27 (AB2000 -371)
28
29 Imhof moved approval.
30
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32
33 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP TO BRING CONSISTENCY TO THE
35 SOUTHERN UGA BOUNDARY FOR LYNDEN AND THE COUNTY
36 (AB2000 -323)
37
38 This item was held until November 14.
39
40 7. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNINCORPORATED URBAN GROWTH
41 AREA AND SHORT TERM PLANNING AREA POLICIES OF THE
42 WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2000 -344)
43
44 This item was held until November 14.
45
46 8. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
47 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MAP 20, AND CLARIFYING THAT AREAS
48 DESIGNATED RURAL FORESTRY (RF) AND COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
49 (CF) ON MAP 20 ARE FOREST RESOURCE LANDS WHICH HAVE BEEN
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 32
1
DESIGNATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF LONG TERM COMMERCIAL
2
SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO RCW 36.70A.170 (AB2000 -345)
3
4
This item was held until November 14.
5
6
7
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
8
9
Imhof moved to accept the Introduction Items.
10
11
Brenner stated that Councilmember Hoag is also a sponsor on the infectious
12
waste issue. There are five sponsors.
13
14
Motion carried 6 -1 with Imhof opposed.
15
16
1.
ORDINANCE IN THE MATTER OF ACCEPTING A PORTION OF JUDY
17
WAY AS A PUBLIC ROAD (AB2000 -355A)
18
19
2.
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE OF BOARD OF COUNTY
20
COMMISSIONERS ADOPTED APRIL 14, 1969, GRANTING A 50 -YEAR
21
NON - EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CITY OF BLAINE TO INSTALL,
22
OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ELECTRIC UTILITY DISTRIBUTION LINES
23
ALONG CERTAIN ROADS IN WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
24
(AB2000 -372)
25
26
3.
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR COUNTY AND
27
STATE PURPOSES IN WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON, FOR THE
28
YEAR OF 2001 PURSUANT TO HOME RULE CHARTER SECTION 6.10
29
(AB2000 -373)
30
31
4.
ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2001 WHATCOM COUNTY UNIFIED FEE
32
SCHEDULE (AB2000 -374)
33
34
S.
ORDINANCE IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF THE FINAL
35
BUDGET OF WHATCOM COUNTY FOR THE YEAR 2001 AND
36
RESTRICTING THE EXPENDITURE OF CERTAIN FUNDS THEREIN
37
(AB2000 -363)
38
39
6.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WHATCOM COUNTY 2001 SIX -YEAR
40
PHYSICAL PLANT AND FACILITIES CAPITAL PROGRAM (AB2000 -375)
41
42
7.
ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE WHATCOM COUNTY 2001 ONE -YEAR
43
ROAD CONSTRUCTION PLAN (AB2000 -376)
44
45
8.
ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 24.06, SOLID
46
WASTE DISPOSAL STANDARDS, IMPOSING LIMITS ON ACCEPTANCE
47
OF INFECTIOUS WASTE (AB2000 -024A)
48
49
This item introduced by the Council acting as the Board of Health.
50
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Dawson stated she attended a United Property Owners meeting. She is a co-
chair. There was a report by the Building Industry Association of Washington.
They anticipate a lawsuit with the Department of Ecology after the election for
taking the initiative to adopt policy regarding shoreline regulations. Expect
Governor Locke to sign that, right after the election. They say the legislature is
responsible for the policies, not the DOE. This is going to the United States
Supreme Court. There is a federal agency that is adopting policy. They cannot
leave that to bureaucrats. It has to be done by the lawmakers. At this meeting,
the speaker quoted Mr. Fitzsimmons as it related to the shoreline regulations, who
said they would not allow the legislature to diminish the power of the DOE.
McShane stated the Solid Waste Advisory Committee would talk about
Recomp at its next meeting.
Brenner stated she wrote a memo to the councilmembers about the salmon
summit. She wanted some direction. There were three speakers whom she
wanted to make presentations to the Council in Committee of the Whole.
Dawson stated any of them sounded interesting.
Brenner stated there was a hearing on the Energy Facility Site Evaluation
Council (EFSEC) process. If other councilmembers have any interest in ensuring
that the process becomes more efficient, there is still an open comment period.
On November 19, there was a meeting with the Peaceful Valley and Paradise
Lakes residents. There is a task force meeting on January 25. It is incredible how
they are bringing in people from all the different County departments. Hopefully,
people from the state would also come in. They are getting problems resolved.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated he would send the councilmembers
minutes of the meetings.
Crawford expressed his appreciation to the Council Chair for expressing his
announcement at the beginning of the meeting.
Hoag stated that the Marine Resource Committee has grant money available
for next year's projects. People are putting together proposals on what they would
like to have done in terms of improving near -shore habitat.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on November 28 , 2000.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/24/2000, Page 35