HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil September 26 20001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
September 26, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Dan McShane
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Sam Crawford
Robert Imhof
ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS:
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR SEPTEMBER 12, 2000; REGULAR
COUNTY COUNCIL FOR SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
Imhof moved approval.
Motion carried 6 -0 with Crawford absent.
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Sharon Roy, 8026 Birch Bay Drive, #253, stated she is a member of the
Birch Bay Traffic sub - committee of the Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
Committee. In June, an open community meeting was held to get community input
and participation in the design and implementation of a coastal zone management
grant. The objective was to envision how they would like Birch Bay to look in the
future, and to discuss shoreline enhancement issues. Approximately 50 citizens
attended, representing all sections of Birch Bay. The first order of business was a
brainstorming session to gather citizen's concerns related to shoreline issues.
However, there was an outpouring of frustration and dissatisfaction regarding law
enforcement issues. They formed a separate committee on traffic and law
enforcement. After several meetings, they drew up a report listing
recommendations for long- and short -term solutions. They reported back to the
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 1
1 main body, and were urged by the membership to continue work, including sharing
2 the recommendations with the Sheriff, the County Executive, and the County
3 Council. The report has six major sections. The overriding issue is enforcement.
4 They kept coming back to the main issue: laws, ordinances, and signs do not do
5 much good without enforcement. She read the first recommendation on page one.
6
7 Dora Lee Booth, 8180 Birch Bay Drive, Vice - President of the Birch Bay Traffic
8 sub - committee of the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Committee, thanked Sheriff
9 Dale Brandland and County Executive Pete Kremen for meeting with the traffic
10 committee earlier this summer and listening to their concerns about the lack of a
11 law enforcement presence at Birch Bay. She also thanked Councilmembers Bob
12 Imhof and Barbara Brenner for consenting to come to a public meeting next week
13 to discuss the issues with the Birch Bay residents. There is a petition from the
14 members of Birch Bay regarding law enforcement. She read the language from the
15 petition. They requested additional deputies for more and quicker enforcement.
16 She also serves on the Birch Bay Planning and Development Group, which has been
17 meeting for the past year on a grant from the Port of Bellingham. To better
18 understand the attitudes of the community of Birch Bay and their planning process,
19 a resident's survey was conducted by a professional research firm and funded by
20 the Trillium Corporation. She provided a copy of the page that rates the residents
21 satisfaction with community services. Residents were very satisfied with education,
22 fire protection, and emergency medical service in Birch Bay. Law enforcement
23 services rated at the lower end of the scale, along with public transportation, of
24 which there is next to none in Birch Bay. Public safety is important to the quality of
25 life in a community and that is why they attended the meeting.
26
27
28 Milt Bowling, 3570 Corsica Way, Vancouver, B.C., stated he would voice his
29 opposition to the Sumas Energy 2 (SE2) project.
30
31 (Clerk's Note: McShane left the room.)
32
33 Hoag stated that a number of people have come to speak on SE2. She
34 requested that they all be able to speak at the same time so Councilmember
35 McShane only has to step out of the room one time.
36
37 Bowling continued to state that he is the Executive Director of the Electro-
38 Magnetic Radiation Task Force in Canada. He has researched this and interviewed
39 scientists around the world for several years. His concern was not just with the
40 visible pollution that will be in the air. He was also concerned with the invisible
41 electromagnetic pollution. According to the American National Institute for
42 Environmental Health and Science, which has reviewed all the science on this, the
43 health effects are numerous. Some of the associations with health effects and
44 power lines are weak, but the one that is unanimously agreed upon was with
45 childhood leukemia. A study done at the University of Toronto showed a five -fold
46 increase in childhood leukemia around power lines.
47
48 Dennis Jones, 122 Sudden Valley Drive East, stated he has been the
49 Democratic Caucus representative for the last eight years for Sudden Valley. He is
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 2
1 a former geography teacher and a soccer coach. It was his pleasure to work with
2 the County on the Smith Road soccer fields. He saw what the community could do
3 when they work together with the County and a core of people who are dedicated
4 to something. He supported the urban growth area for Sudden Valley. The people
5 there are interested in lot consolidation. During yesterday's board meeting, 69 lots
6 were set aside for non - development, including a buffer along Austin Creek.
7
8 Edward Fast, City of Abbottsford Deputy Mayor, stated that the City of
9 Abbottsford would be impacted most directly by Sumas Energy 2. The City Council
10 is unanimously opposed to the construction of the plant. No other issue in his
11 community has generated such universal consensus as the opposition to this plant.
12 The Frasier Valley Regional District, equivalent to the county government and
13 represents about 250,000 residents, is also unanimously opposed to the plant. The
14 government of British Columbia has now officially opposed the construction of SE2.
15 The Provincial Minister of Environment will address the Energy Facility Site
16 Evaluation Council (EFSEC) this week on the issue. The government of Canada has
17 not yet taken a clear position on this issue. Last week, experts from Environment
18 Canada attended an open house in Abbottsford and shared their research on the
19 impact of SE2. They unanimously agreed that SE2 would definitely increase the
20 measurable level of risk to health. When he asked why the Minister was not taking
21 a more active role in opposing SE2, he was told that the Minister had to deal with
22 political considerations. After all the consultant reports and environmental impact
23 studies are complete, one fact will not be in dispute: SE2 will worsen the quality of
24 air. The community has done three things to improve air quality. They have
25 instituted Air Care, which is a program that measures and regulates motor vehicle
26 emissions. They instituted outdoor burning bans, and many municipalities banned
27 wood burning stoves. The Province of B.C. issued new, stringent car emission
28 requirements similar to those in California. They are doing their part to protect the
29 air. Approximately a year ago, his council had to make a decision about Judsen
30 Lake, which straddles the border. The proposal was to mine gravel. It was clear
31 there was going to be impact on the water and aquifer. They denied the
32 application. There was a lot of money and loyalties at stake, but they voted against
33 it. It is a reflection on how they feel about their relationship with Whatcom County.
34
35 Holly Siano, 4209 Nordham Road, Everson, stated she lives halfway between
36 Everson and Sumas. Her children go to school at Sumas Elementary. She felt that
37 the impacts to children attending Sumas Elementary would be too harmful. Three
38 tons of hazard pollutants going into the air only 500 yards away from the children,
39 who would be playing in the school yard, is not right. The Sumas City Council is
40 not taking these children into consideration. The benefit doesn't outweigh putting
41 children in harm's way. She asked the County Council to speak out for the children.
42 It isn't fair for them to not be able to go to school without worry. The experts have
43 concerns about the pollutants in the air. She presented a petition of the parents in
44 the area. She read the petition into the record. The plant is too close to the
45 schools.
46
47 Joan Yoo, 2044 West Third Avenue, Vancouver, BC, stated she is the air
48 quality health educator for the British Columbia Lung Association. She spoke in the
49 interest of the public health of B.C. residents. They all know about the quality of
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 3
1 the air in the Abbottsford /Chilliwack area, as well as other airsheds within
2 Washington State. It is already a vulnerable area because it is susceptable to the
3 whether, climate conditions, and topography. All this serves to do is concentrate
4 the pollution in airsheds like this one in Chilliwack /Abbottsford. Emissions for
5 respiratory problems are higher in the areas of Abbottsford and Chilliwack. The
6 number was 1.8 per 100,000 people per day within that health region. This is in
7 comparison of 1.3 per 100,000 in Vancouver. For heart related hospital emissions,
8 the Abbottsford /Chilliwack region was 50 percent higher. The number was 3.1 per
9 100,000 people per day, as opposed to 2.0 per 100,000 people per day within the
10 Vancouver area. Fifty percent higher is enough to make a possible correlation
11 between the quality of the air, combined with many other factors, to hospital
12 emissions. This is the highest rate for cardiac and respiratory conditions within the
13 mainland. More and more research is relating the quality of the air to asthmatic
14 symptoms and rates, to the point where asthma is the leading cause of trips to the
15 hospital room and absenteeism in school children. If there is a concentration of
16 poor air quality, it is lodged deep in the lungs and affects the lining of mucus that is
17 supposed to be there to expel the pollutants. There is nothing a person can do. It
18 will eventually increase a person's chances for asthma and respiratory symptoms.
19
20 Crawford stated he received a letter from the people building the plant. The
21 letter implied that they were talking about negotiating to create a net benefit for
22 the air by negotiating some mitigation measures. He questioned whether Ms. Yoo's
23 association would support the plant if they create a net gain in the quality in the
24 airshed. Yoo stated they wouldn't. The B.C. Lung Association does not support
25 that type of mitigation measure. Her association supports opposition of the plant,
26 regardless of whether mitigation measures could be put in place.
27
28 Candice Ambrosio, 1712 High Noon Road, Bellingham, stated she was
29 concerned about SE2 for a number of reasons. There was a rally at the border.
30 There were 300 -400 people attending, many of whom were Canadians and business
31 people adamantly opposed to this project. They are not radicals. They want to
32 protect their quality of life, be it health or views, but not pollution. The last two
33 EFSEC hearings are September 27 and 28. She encouraged councilmembers to
34 attend the last two hearings to hear the comments of the citizens of Whatcom
35 County, which they represent. The more they are educated about the result of
36 what this huge power plant will be, the more they are opposed to it.
37
38 Bo Bumford, Sumas, stated he is a builder opposed to SE2. SE2 is going to
39 present serious problems to the entire community, especially from air pollution.
40 SE2 has options allowing for it to produce the daily output of three tons of toxic and
41 hazardous pollutants for 50 years to come. These pollutants include persistent bio-
42 accumulative toxins (PBT) from burning diesel oil to generate electricity. The
43 present permit under consideration allows SE2 to turn to diesel instead of a primary
44 fuel, natural gas, for 15 days maximum per year. Diesel emits anywhere from two
45 to six times the amount of pollutants as natural gas. They would have a 2.5 million
46 gallon tank of diesel on site in a seismic zone, above an aquifer. It would be the
47 biggest in Washington State, if allowed. When SE2 turns to Diesel, it will only take
48 4.5 days to empty that 2.5 million - gallon tank. That equals 27 percent of the
49 release of sulfuric acid mist that the plant will emit during only four percent of the
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 4
1 time the plant operates in one year. That is 2.5 tons in 15 days. Diesel is a source
2 of the neuro- toxins dioxin and furan, which cause liver damage. He is skeptical
3 that this plant will use natural gas for at least 350 days per year. The Council of
4 Trade and Economic Development said SE2's voracious consumption of natural gas
5 may bring about a short supply. SE2 will not sit idly by and not operate. Instead,
6 diesel will become a primary fuel under new, extenuating circumstances. The
7 Sumas City Council opposed the diesel oil tank in a vote, for the second time, yet
8 the City Administrator, in his testimony, stated that Sumas would accept the diesel
9 tank rather than not have the SE2 plant. He had no trust for SE2. The president of
10 SE2 told the City Council that burning diesel doesn't present any health risk. He
11 asked if the County should entrust this man. In Sumas, 82 percent of the people
12 are opposed to SE2. That number would correlate across the county when people
13 hear the facts. Sumas Mayor Peterson said that the City of Sumas would support
14 the plant unless someone could show him that it is a health threat. A national
15 expert said that an association exists between lung function and elementary school
16 children with asthma and fine particle air pollution levels. The fine particle air
17 pollution that is projected to be emitted by the SE2 plant poses a health hazard to
18 the public. He submitted a petition.
19
20 Hoag questioned the number of people who signed the petition. Bumford
21 stated that 280 people opposed signed the petition, versus 59 who were in favor of
22 SE2. Those are people who live in Sumas. There are 160 signatures on the
23 petition asking Mayor Peterson to back up his word.
24
25 Karen Young, Abbottsford, B.C., stated she represented the Abbottsford
26 Chamber of Commerce. The Abbottsford business are totally opposed to SE2.
27
28 Robert Boss, Abbottsford Downtown Business Association President, stated
29 he represented about 225 businesses and 185 properties, which is a very small
30 portion of the entire economic area in the City of Abbottsford. This came about
31 when they began talking about putting the power lines straight through the City of
32 Abbottsford. They were going to do that because it is the shortest route and
33 because they have to put in three 230 kV lines. Whatcom County won't allow them
34 to go through any farmland. Next, they found out about all the other pollutants
35 that would happen when they begin burning a fossil fuel to generate electricity. It
36 sounds strange that they would take a product used for heating homes and begin
37 burning it to generate electricity, especially in the Northwest, where there is an
38 abundance of water. There is an abundance of opportunity to generate
39 hydropower. There are too many negatives with this plant, including air pollution,
40 water consumption for cooling, natural gas consumption, and sewage disposal.
41 There is an agreement with the City of Sumas to take the sewage and treat it in
42 their plant, and then put it into the Frasier River. The reason for the agreement is
43 because raw sewage was going into the creeks and polluting everything around the
44 area. It is a good working arrangement. Now they are talking about pumping a lot
45 more in. All this is for only 24 permanent jobs and a bit of a tax base. It doesn't
46 make any economic sense that this would be considered with all the health risks.
47 The people of Abbottsford appreciated the opportunity to speak to this plant.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 5
1 Dawson explained that the County Council has taken intervener status to
2 address the issues of health and safety only. They are not taking a position of
3 support or opposition.
4
5 (Clerk's Note: McShane returned to the meeting.)
6
7 John Larsen, 4055 Alder Street, Birch Bay, stated he is on the traffic
8 committee that spoke earlier. His committee has discussed at length the speeding
9 and volume of traffic on Birch Bay Drive, the commuter route from Birch Point to I-
10 5 and the Cherry Point industrial area. In the early 1970's, it was not necessary to
11 provide a separate access route to I -5 for Birch Point residents because there were
12 few residents. Currently, the continuous volume of traffic from the developments
13 on Birch Point funnel through Birch Bay Drive to Cottonwood, to Harborview, and
14 then to Birch Bay- Lynden Road and I -5. They are opposed to the portion of the
15 1992 transportation report that designates Birch Bay Drive as a commuter arterial
16 for the developments from Birch Point. Birch Bay Drive has always supported
17 heavy usage of recreational activities, including pedestrians walking, jogging,
18 rollerblading, biking, and a continuous flow of small children, families, and pets who
19 cross the road to enjoy beach activities from their homes and vacation rentals.
20 Access to the beach is no longer safe because drivers exceed the 25 miles per hour
21 summer speed limit, as well as the 35 miles per hour winter speed limit. Even
22 drivers obeying the speed limit believe they have the right -of -way. This makes
23 people involved in recreational activities in and around Birch Bay Drive feel
24 insecure. The situation is dangerous and will only get worse. Commuter arterial
25 usage of Birch Bay Drive is not acceptable. Other routes from Birch Point to I -5
26 and Cherry Point do exist and should be developed as quickly as possible. In
27 addition, the Sheriff's budget should include enough money to provide traffic
28 control in the Birch Bay area.
29
30 Frank Eventoff, 7086 Atwood Road, Ferndale, stated he was opposed to
31 Sudden Valley becoming an urban growth area due to impacts on Lake Whatcom.
32 It would allow thousands of additional homes to pollute the drinking water
33 reservoir. The increased traffic and other effects could seal Lake Whatcom's fate.
34 The City Council has no idea what it will cost to provide all of the urban services
35 that an isolated urban area would require. They are willing to consider acting
36 anyway. Sudden Valley straddles the largest tributary to Lake Whatcom, which has
37 been tested as having the largest pulse of mercury, a potential neuro- toxin, which
38 the Department of Ecology tested for in 1998. The source has not yet been
39 identified. The tributary now contains cryptosporidium, a microorganism that can
40 kill vulnerable people. It gets past water treatment systems. Its increase can be
41 directly linked to increasing urbanization in the watershed. This is a tributary
42 whose fish - spawning habitat has been virtually destroyed by urbanization and
43 logging, contributing to the imminent extinction of at least two Lake Whatcom fish
44 species: Kokanee and Cutthroat. The health of Austin Creek is key to the future of
45 the lake. For over 15 years, Bellingham has diverted water from the Nooksack
46 River into Lake Whatcom. That diversion dries up part of the Nooksack,
47 threatening the survival of the fish in the system, already listed for endangered
48 species. Future use of the diversion at historical values is very questionable. They
49 will depend on a clean Austin Creek to maintain Lake Whatcom's water quality.
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 6
1 Stormwater controls for development do not protect drinking water. They have
2 limited effectiveness, only remove certain types of pollutants, and are extremely
3 expensive to maintain.
4
5 Roy W. Nicholas, 8194 Birch Bay Drive, Birch Bay, stated the County's
6 consultant reported that the Whatcom County Sheriff's Office is about 25 deputies
7 short. They also report that the national norm is about 12 officers per 10,000
8 people in the population. Birch Bay is being shorted by 4.2 deputies in the winter
9 and 12 deputies in the summer. During the winter, the Birch Bay population is
10 reported to be about 3,000 people. The population consists primarily of full -time
11 residents and people taking advantage of low winter rent available at Birch Bay. By
12 having someone living in the cabins, the property owners seek to avoid the
13 vandalism that occurs during the winter to the unoccupied cabins. Some renters
14 turn out to be gang members and burglars. It seems that the Sheriff's Office is
15 looking for drug dealers and murderers. They quite often come to Birch Bay to find
16 them. During the summer, they still have vandals and drug dealers. There are
17 also more traffic violations and watercraft violations. It is futile to call 911 because
18 there is seldom a response from the understaffed Sheriff's Office. When there is a
19 response, it usually takes 20 to 30 minutes. Sometimes the response is by the
20 Blaine police department or other law enforcement agencies. They need more
21 deputies in the Birch Bay area.
22
23 Yvonne VanderMolen, 3011 Green Valley Drive, Sumas, submitted
24 photographs and stated she is the president of the Peaceful Valley Homeowners
25 Association. The Kendall Valley was originally developed as a recreational area in
26 the 1970's.
27
28 Dawson stated that her remarks would be taken during the public hearing.
29
30 George Astler, 4815 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated that last summer he
31 worked very hard with a gentleman from Sudden Valley to check on the speed
32 watch radar with the Sheriff's Office. The speed limits were fairly close. They were
33 in the 21 to 27 miles per hour speed in the 20 miles per hour zone. That is not too
34 bad. The other violators are flagrant. He questioned whether it would take a death
35 on Birch Bay Road to get enforcement. One motorcyclist was killed going into Birch
36 Bay last summer. He submitted a letter (on file) which he read into the record.
37 There is much speeding and many squealing tires in Birch Bay. Public urination
38 along Birch Bay Drive is an ongoing problem.
39
40 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
41
42 Astler continued to state he was attacked by kids who slashed his tires and
43 broke his leg.
44
45 In addition, he urged the Council to not grant the vacation of James Way to
46 Pete Hanson. That easement has been a lifelong public beach access easement.
47
48 Tom Pratum, 2241 North Shore Road, urged the Council to deny or delay the
49 urban growth area of Sudden Valley. They need to consider whether they want to
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 7
1 add another urban growth area in the watershed. even though the current
2 residents in Sudden Valley may have good intentions, this urban growth
3 designation is a legal definition that would transcend the residents' intentions. He
4 suggested they think about this later, and to not approve it lightly.
5
6 Craig Butler, 2809 Lafayette, Bellingham, discouraged the emergency
7 proposal to declare Sudden Valley an urban growth area. The watershed is a very
8 sensitive area. It has already been listed as a 303(d) failed waterway. Any growth
9 in the area should be carefully considered. The County should consider
10 moratoriums in the watershed and joining the City of Bellingham in purchasing land
11 around Lake Whatcom. There is no reason to rush into a proposal such as this
12 when they don't even know if the residents of Sudden Valley want to be in an urban
13 growth area or if they want to be in a city of their own. There is no emergency to
14 push this through an emergency process. There is no imminent loss of life, danger
15 to property, or major economic hardship. This makes a mockery of the emergency
16 process. This is a reprehensible attempt by a few developers to get around current
17 litigation by pushing this measure through. Regardless of the reasons, it is not an
18 emergency. It needs to be considered carefully.
19
20 Tim Paxton, 2120 Ellis, Bellingham, stated he was opposed to the emergency
21 passage of the urban growth area in Sudden Valley. He agreed with the previous
22 speaker. Sudden Valley is one of the major lot consolidators out there. He didn't
23 understand why that constitutes an emergency process. If it is an issue of money,
24 the Sudden Valley Association could always create a local improvement district
25 (LID) to raise money to fix up the storm sewers, roads, or whatever they need to
26 do. He questioned whether the staff has done a financial analysis of what would
27 happen if this urban growth area removed its tax base from the county. The other
28 major factor is that Lake Whatcom is a sensitive drinking water watershed. There
29 are not many counties in Washington State that are encouraging cities to be
30 developed in a sole drinking water source. He expected the County Council take its
31 time to consider the effects of this designation.
32
33 Mark Beckwith, 8666 Delta Line Road, Custer, Owner of Beacon Batteries and
34 Used Tires, stated he has been in operation since May 1984. The County did a
35 rezone in June of 1986. He is now in the agricultural zone. The zone across the
36 street is General Purpose zoning. The GP zone allows for all kinds of things,
37 including a restaurant. In the Agricultural zone, they are extremely limited.
38 They've had a sign up since the early 1980's that is 4 feet by 8 feet, 32 square feet,
39 and another that is 4 feet by 4 feet. They were licensed as a used car dealer in
40 May 1984, which requires a clearly visible sign from the main artery stating the
41 name of the business and what they sell. They can't get that information on the
42 small sized sign that is allowed. He has been hassled lately to remove their signs.
43 The sign serves a safety purpose because the customers can see the unlit
44 intersection by the light of the sign. There is an article in the Bellingham Herald
45 that says the County may tighten up regulations for cottage industries that may
46 affect him. A lot of the business requirements for businesses are either too
47 restrictive or too loose. He asked the Council to consider the Planning Commission
48 recommendations.
49
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 8
1 Dawson suggested that he speak with Planning Division Manager Sylvia
2 Goodwin to see if his business would be grandfathered into the old regulation.
3
4 Sherilyn Wells, 1020 Geneva, Bellingham, stated she was opposed to the
5 emergency consideration of Sudden Valley as an Urban Growth Area. The
6 resolution does not meet judicial requirements or the requirements of the County
7 Code. It says that the facts creating it shall be stated in a separate section of the
8 emergency ordinance, but the ordinance that she looked at does not have such a
9 section. Courts regularly overturn an ordinance that does not contain a factual
10 basis for the general existence of an emergency. She submitted a public disclosure
11 request. Given that there are no facts, she wanted to know why it is being declared
12 as an emergency and to see the documentation on which the Council is basing its
13 decision.
14
15 Sudden Valley's letter stated that they have a full range of urban services
16 that are available. That statement is not true. There are stormwater deficiency
17 issues, sewer deficiency issues, and extreme transportation problems with
18 Bellingham. Bellingham stated that, with the build out of sudden Valley and
19 Geneva, their transportation system would be completely overwhelmed. This
20 violates portions of the Growth Management Act (GMA). There is no adequate
21 SEPA analysis to work from in making this decision. It is always the case that they
22 have to have adequate environmental analysis before taking important actions like
23 this. Even Water District 10, in its final environmental impact statement (FEIS),
24 said they didn't have enough background data because the County hadn't produced
25 a comprehensive study. This will not stand up in court. The 303(d) listing is an
26 open admission that the County has insufficient information to know how much
27 loading that lake can accept. They are taking premature steps at this point without
28 adequate environmental, economic, or public health and safety analyses.
29
30 Marion Beddill, 3600 Seeley, Bellingham, stated that she objected to the
31 Lake Whatcom /Sudden Valley development. She asked that the Council not take
32 action. There is no emergency. She opposes development in the watershed.
33 Sudden Valley, while having done commendable work in the Association on many
34 aspects of their environment and water management, have failed to act and do any
35 significant work at patching the old, existing sewer lines that were built with
36 substandard pipe in the 1960's. They are still leaking rainwater into the system,
37 which is the cause of the sewer overflows. Regarding a new sewer pipeline, she
38 reviewed the design of the proposed pipe. It is of such capacity to accommodate
39 full build out as originally platted, and more. That pipeline should only be built, if
40 ever, at a limited capacity to accommodate immediate current needs.
41
42 In addition, there is a rally the next day at noon in front of the Federal
43 building against hate and racism. There was an incident the previous day at the
44 Bellingham Public Library. An African - American was targeted and his car was
45 struck with anti - racist emblems.
46
47 Lastly, there is also a hearing the next day at the Skagit County Courthouse
48 called by Olympic Pipeline against Sarah Spense, who owns a property that has an
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 9
1 easement for Olympic Pipeline. Olympic Pipeline has violated the terms of the
2 easement. This court action is ensuing.
3
4 Karrie Gabbato, 7564 Birch Bay Drive, stated the easement on lot F, the
5 subject lot that wants the vacation. The lot is subject to the conditions of the Birch
6 Bay Park, first addition, which say that the streets and alleys are to be used for
7 public access. A public map shows a public footbridge that accesses all the lots of
8 the Birch Bay First Addition, to the public use of the beach. A letter dated June 26,
9 1995 from Claudia Oates stated that she tried to vacate James Way, but that it
10 must be left to the public for public foot traffic forever. The other issue is that, on
11 the SEPA report, Mr. Hanson asked for his two five - plexes to be built. Because of
12 the public easements that are to be dedicated, he proposes to give them Alderson
13 Way, which is already their public easement. Also in the SEPA report, Mr. Hanson
14 said there would be a ten -foot public easement on Lot F. That is now fenced. The
15 original plat of Birch Bay Park and Birch Bay First Addition has a beach reserve.
16 The original covenants say that the beach reserve is reserved for the public and the
17 owners of the lots for recreational water use. That is the piece of property that he
18 is trying to build on. She asked who she would work with to get this issue cleared
19 up.
20
21 Dawson suggested she talk to Public Works Director Jeff Monsen.
22
23 McShane stated that this 1912 plat map from the Birch Bay Park is new
24 information. The 1957 title transfer is very interesting and new information. He
25 was curious about why James Street suddenly disappeared.
26
27 Janice Reed, 1825 Olympic Place, stated she opposed of the Sudden Valley
28 urban growth area. She is the owner of a vacant lot in Sudden Valley. When she
29 purchased her lot over ten years ago, she hoped to build a home on it some day, or
30 realize a return on her investment, however she opposed this because the big
31 environmental picture is the ultimate long -term consideration, before her personal
32 immediate gain.
33
34 Ali Cummings stated she is a nurse doing an independent health survey in
35 Whatcom County. She used to live in Sudden Valley and was against the Sudden
36 Valley urban growth area. During the time it was there, there were many
37 management challenges and difficulties regarding collecting dues, maintenance of
38 facilities, and youth crime. These are minor issues to a small community that were
39 presenting major challenges to a community that is now looking to become a city.
40 This shows a true lack of planning and foresight. As a survey nurse that is already
41 examining multiple health effects in the county, she questioned the emergency of
42 this situation. An emergency is contaminated water that they are all drinking and
43 bathing in daily. An emergency is finding heavy metals in the lake's fish. An
44 emergency is when a -coli is found in significant amounts in the city's drinking
45 water. An emergency is when already documented watershed studies are totally
46 and blatantly ignored.
47
48 Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated the County made a
49 mistake when it allowed property to be sold on James Way. It was an exchange of
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 10
1 property and of a developers right to go on the property, but he did not sell
2 people's rights to go across the property. That right was put in there with right of
3 passage over a piece of property. The person who bought the property respected
4 that right. When she sold the property, to Peter Hanson, he realized that right was
5 there because he tried to move it back onto the property of the previous owner.
6 She didn't want it there so she went to court and had it moved back onto the
7 buyer's property. The County Council is entertaining the idea that this is just a civil
8 matter.
9
10 Jim Smith, 14 Valley Crest Way, Sudden Valley, stated he's heard a lot of
11 opposition to the proposal that is going to be submitted. There are a lot of people
12 who support this proposal, although their voices haven't been heard tonight.
13
14
15 PUBLIC HEARING
16
17 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
18 ORDINANCE, TITLE 20 TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY IN THE R AND RF
19 ZONES FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF RV'S, REVISE RV STANDARDS
20 IN THE UR AND RR ZONES, PROVIDE RV STANDARDS IN THE R, RF
21 AND RC ZONES, AND DESIGNATE ADDITIONAL AREAS IN POINT
22 ROBERTS WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF
23 RV'S (AB2000 -215B)
24
25 Dawson stated there is a substitute ordinance.
26
27 McShane stated it is a substitute ordinance that was sponsored by
28 Councilmembers Brenner, Crawford, Nelson, and McShane. Councilmembers
29 Brenner and Nelson worked very hard on improving the ordinance. There was one
30 amendment to remove the word "chassis" in the Urban Residential (UR) and Rural
31 Residential (RR) areas, item seven.
32
33 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
34
35 Yvonne VanderMolen, 3011 Green Valley Drive, Sumas, stated she is the
36 president of the Homeowners Association for Peaceful Valley. She submitted
37 pictures of her neighborhood. In those pictures, there is one RV with a roof. It is
38 currently a rental unit. Kendall Valley was developed as a recreational area in the
39 1970's. Due to a lack of success in that industry, the area has become 75 percent
40 residential. Her community continues to evolve as a middle class suburb in
41 Whatcom County, with new manufactured and stick -built homes going up daily.
42 The new Kendall Elementary School opened in 1999, with a need for two portable
43 classrooms due to the increased residential population and enrollment in the district
44 at the time of the opening. The tax base of Urban Residential zoning, four homes
45 per acre, that supports the schools will be diminished in an area with very little
46 industry as a tax base. They would lessen the tax base on a recreational lot. She
47 questioned who would regulate the 14 visitation of an additional RV being parked.
48 She also questioned whether Whatcom County would be the responsible party to
49 make sure that an RV was used only 120 days per year. They all know that at
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 11
1 most commercial and state -run campsites, there is a check -in and check -out
2 process in place to ensure that a recreational status remains recreational.
3 Residents in a recreation property do not belong side -by -side on one quarter acre
4 lots. If she is on vacation, she wants to relax, have late night entertainment, and
5 not be bothered by the alarm clock. As a resident of a UR -4 zoning development,
6 she is not here on vacation. She didn't want to be kept awake late while she
7 listened to voices. Most campers will set a campfire in a valley that burned to the
8 ground twice. This is not her vacation home. Her family history is housed inside
9 her home. The citizen's of Kendall Valley pay taxes and deserve to be heard.
10
11 Patricia Barton, 77 Victoria Way, Delta View 3, Point Roberts, stated there is
12 emotional stress and physical repercussions due to a correction notice placed on
13 their property in Point Roberts. They have forwarded every document and
14 numerous letters to the Council. She asked that they have a final, fair, and just
15 decision so they can continue to enjoy Point Roberts.
16
17 George Barton, 77 Victoria Way, Delta View 3, Point Roberts, stated this is
18 about people who have been put through an emotional wringer for the last 14
19 months. They wonder what their future is going to be for their trailer and their
20 retirement dreams for Point Roberts. They have been an asset in Point Roberts
21 since 1978 by paying local taxes and spending money at the local merchants.
22 They've improved the beauty of their lot, and have never been an annoyance or
23 eyesore to their American neighbors. They should be left alone to enjoy their
24 remaining retirement years. Once their presence is assured, they will spend
25 several thousand dollars on the property to make it even more beautiful. He asked
26 the Council to find a middle ground.
27
28 Deborah Smith, 1301 Deep Valley Drive, Kendall encouraged the Council to
29 approve UR -4 zoning in Kendall. It is obvious this is a residential area with the
30 building of the Kendall Elementary School.
31
32 Pat Brady, 173 Kennedy, Point Roberts, stated this ordinance was placed in
33 effect 23 years ago by this Council. In that time, the people who have set up these
34 RV's have shown total unconcern, disinterest, and disrespect for their laws. He
35 asked the Council to show to the children that are growing up that lawbreakers
36 have to show responsibility for their actions. All too often, people in the society
37 don't take responsibility for their actions. For that, they get let go. The owners of
38 the RV's state that what they do doesn't affect anyone. It does. He is a resident
39 and small business owner in Point Roberts. These RV individuals have no use for
40 his business. If he cannot generate the income to support his family and business,
41 he will have to pack up and leave the community. This is not fair. These people
42 knew that the law was in effect, but showed disrespect for the law.
43
44 Hoag questioned the nature of his business and how long he has lived on
45 Point Roberts. Brady stated he has lived on Point Roberts for over a year. He runs
46 a housecleaning and maintenance service.
47
48 Forest McElroy, 8635 Golden Valley Drive, Sumas, stated many people from
49 Bellingham testified that they've camped in the county for many years, and wanted
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 12
1 to maintain that right. No one from the county testified that they want the RV rule
2 to go into effect. Years ago, one could do many things that they cannot do now.
3 Things change. Quit working against the people in the county. Consider the county
4 tax base. RV's are not going to generate any taxes. Areas listed as recreational
5 have their own clubs and covenants, but are still listed as recreational. The Council
6 is also fighting the clubs. There is no logic to do this. There is a large RV club,
7 Black Mountain Ranch, which is not even listed. It is strictly recreational. School
8 buses pick up 300 kids in the recreational area. It is not a recreational area.
9
10 Ruth Glover, 2501 E Street, Bellingham, stated she is a long -time travel
11 trailer resident. It would be a good idea for travel trailers to be allowed on property
12 for mentally ill family members.
13
14 Bruno Morris, 1597 Harbor Seal Drive, Point Roberts, stated he is the
15 president of the Point Roberts Voter's Association. During the day's Planning
16 Committee meeting, the association presented 12 reasons why this ordinance
17 should not be approved. Two of those reasons are that they are condoning spot
18 zoning, which is illegal; they are sunseting a grandfather clause, which legalizes 23
19 years of illegal RV usage.
20
21 Frank Lucci, 1785 Heather Way, Point Roberts, stated that an analogy is that,
22 if he exceeded the speed limit, the County Council would suspend the law and
23 change it to accommodate him. This ordinance is about condoning illegal behavior.
24 There has been very little said about the American residents of Point Roberts and
25 the Canadian cabin owners. There has only been sympathy for the lawbreaking RV
26 owners.
27
28 Margaret Morris, 1597 Harbor Seal Drive, Point Roberts, stated she is a U.S.
29 citizen and a registered voter. She was opposed to the ordinance because it will be
30 very difficult to enforce. It will cost the County money. The legislation encourages
31 the intermingling of RV's and permanent residences. The lifestyles of the owners of
32 each are generally diametrically opposed. RV owners are usually vacationers, and
33 owners of permanent residents have a pattern of living requiring regular hours. It
34 favors the wishes of the few, most of who are not residents of Point Roberts, over
35 most permanent residents and citizens of Point Roberts. It is economically bad for
36 Point Roberts. The taxes paid on the unimproved lots of the RV owners are not as
37 substantial as the taxes paid by those who have improved their lots with cabins and
38 homes and who have to meet Whatcom County standards. The taxes do not even
39 cover emergency services. The increase in RV use in Point Roberts will hurt the
40 construction industry. The presence of RV's in residential areas de- values the
41 assessed values of residential lots, thus decreasing taxes paid to the County. The
42 development of Point Roberts will be hampered by this legislation, although the
43 Point has relied heavily on the Canadian tourist dollars, numbers have steadily
44 declined because of the severe decline in the Canadian dollar. More Americans are
45 coming to Point Roberts. Some are considering making it their home. Their main
46 fear is that, because of the decline in property values, they consider their
47 investment to be risky. She had no problem with RV's. She has vacationed in one
48 on three occasions. The experience has been fun and allowed her to see parts of
49 the world she would not otherwise have visited. However, she always used an RV
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 13
1 park, two of which are in Point Roberts and are losing business. The fun of sharing
2 adventures with other RV'ers has been memorable. Do not pass this legislation. It
3 is bad for Point Roberts and Whatcom County.
4
5 Bob Lewarne 246 Bayview Drive, Point Roberts, stated he represented the
6 Point Roberts Recreational Owners Association and was in favor of the amendments
7 being proposed to the ordinance related to RV usage in Title 20. His members have
8 communicated their view to the Council. Since the beginning of this saga, they
9 constantly asked for existing users to stay if they met defined standards. They've
10 tried to work with all parties to find an acceptable solution. The amendment clearly
11 lays out the standards. His group will abide by those defined standards. The
12 timelines for residency and visitation are also acceptable. Their role is to ensure
13 that responsible RV owners be accommodated in parts of Point Roberts. His
14 members are interested in continuing their contribution to the Point, economically,
15 through the community, and in many other ways. The vast majority of their
16 neighbors want existing users to stay if they meet those standards. They have
17 demonstrated this by writing, in the public meetings, and by their verbal support
18 after the Council's decision on July 11. The family links in this area go back almost
19 100 years and through multiple generations. Too much time has been spent on this
20 issue. He asked those of the audience to stand in favor of the ordinance.
21 Approximately 30 people stood.
22
23 The Council has heard their points of view before. They have not changed.
24 In the interest of time, he asked that the Council view his statement as the
25 statement of these people in attendance and those they've heard from previously
26 but were unable to attend. The amendment is a reasonable response that satisfies
27 all but a very few. Not much would satisfy those few. He thanked the Council for
28 its patience, diligence, and the opportunity to be heard. He also thanked the
29 County staff, who has been very helpful, extremely responsive, and professional.
30 He asked the Council to support the amendment.
31
32 Bill Furnival, 1570 Edwards, Point Roberts, stated he is a United States
33 citizen and registered voter. Point Roberts is only 4.5 square miles. They have
34 different visions for Point Roberts. Some would like to see it remain as rural as
35 possible and some see it as a seaside residential community. One thing all of the
36 1,700 American residents and landowners do not want to see is trailers
37 everywhere, especially mixed with single - family homes. The Voter's Association,
38 the Taxpayer's Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the Fire Commissioner, and
39 many other groups agree that Point Roberts should not be allowed to be a trailer
40 park. For the first time in history, they have more Americans moving to Point
41 Roberts than Canadians. As they develop the character plan, they will see even
42 more new residents, businesses, and tourists. Do not let the action of 65 foreign
43 violators dictate the law of the land. Do not sunset or spot -zone around the law as
44 it presently stands. End the nightmare once and for all by enforcing existing law.
45 The councilmembers will have their votes when the proposal is defeated.
46
47 John Gallinger, 1621 Endersby Ave., Delta, BC, stated he owns an RV in Point
48 Roberts. The Voter's Association talked about declining property values. As an
49 advertising sales representative, he has reason to go to Point Roberts often to sell
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 14
1 advertising to realtors in Point Roberts, including the ones who spoke at the public
2 hearing a month ago. Their only objection to buying an advertisement was because
3 no one would buy property in Point Roberts because of the value of the Canadian
4 dollar. They never talked about how this is an undesirable place due to the trailers.
5 The demand is what increases the real estate values. Point Roberts has a very
6 limited market. If there aren't hordes of people buying permanent residences in
7 Point Roberts, it is not because of 65 trailers. It is because of its locale and the
8 value of the Canadian dollar.
9
10 The Voter's Association also talked about some of the trailers looking trashy.
11 That is a generalization. A homeowner could also not keep a house very well. He
12 provided a photograph of a house in Point Roberts that is not kept very well. Most
13 of the RV's are kept really nice.
14
15 Sid Wallace, 528 South Beach Road, Point Roberts, stated that since he
16 moved onto his block 27 years ago, there have been a number of modest homes
17 that have been built. There are eleven now. Five years ago, there were no RV's.
18 This summer there are eleven. The RV's don't mix with their way of life. They stay
19 for two or three months, then they leave. They need neighbors all year round. The
20 cost of enforcing this ordinance would be more than the taxes collected from the
21 RV's. The RV average tax is $150 per year. Point Roberts should be treated as a
22 residential area, not a parking place for RV's for the residents of Vancouver. Most
23 of those RV's on his street live within one hour from there. The Council is setting
24 up a competition against the RV parks. One property owner has the right to build
25 an RV park, but can't afford it because he can't compete. More RV's have come to
26 Point Roberts in the last year because they realize that restrictions are coming.
27 They are trying to preserve their right to stay there. RV's are not allowed around
28 Vancouver.
29
30 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
31
32 Brenner moved to approval of the ordinance.
33
34 Dawson stated that that Point Roberts RV violators have claimed an
35 ignorance of the law and misrepresentation by the realtors. Ignorance of the law
36 has never before been used to adopt a sunset law. That is a road to create a
37 grandfathering situation for a special group. This ordinance creates a loophole for
38 the historical practice of grandfathering. When new buyers come into an area and
39 see RV's spot -zoned throughout an area, it adds confusion. They don't understand
40 why they can't do it. It leads to more enforcement problems. Enforcement is going
41 to be impossible. It is impossible to know if 120 days or 360 days have been used.
42 If someone lives there all year long, it would require more law enforcement and fire
43 services, which aren't paid from any tax collection. Some people equated golf
44 courses, marinas, and recreational facilities as the ability to use travel trailers. The
45 reality is that they have never had any zoning or any covenants in the state that
46 allow residential use of travel trailers next to stick -built homes. It is not good land
47 use planning. If they adopt this legislation, it will make the County Council the
48 laughing -stock of the state.
49
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 15
1 Nelson stated this was a tough issue for him. He grew up in rural Whatcom
2 County. He used to go to Toad Hill and walked around for many years without a
3 care at Emerald Lake, before it was developed. The developers put in recreational
4 land up there. He came back from college after being in the Army. He bought a
5 house on Toad Hill, amongst RV'ers, cabins, and other people. They lived fine.
6 They enjoyed their neighbors. They met people that came in during the summer
7 with their RV's and stay the summer. They had a great time recreating with them
8 on the lake. His children grew up with some of their children. It doesn't have to be
9 a divisive issue. There are serious issues regarding enforcement of regulations.
10 Enforcement is an important issue. No one would be able to justify that any
11 enforcement has taken place, regardless of whether or not there was an ordinance.
12 He moved to the other side of the hill, and there are still RV'ers that come down to
13 the lake and enjoy the lake. He lives right by them in a nice, new house. He didn't
14 have a problem with that. They enjoy the lake and he enjoys the lake. They leave
15 after the summer is over. It hasn't affected his property value at all. It probably
16 has enhanced his value because people like to use the lake. The thing he would
17 like to point is that they need to work together in solving community problems and
18 not try to be divisive. There have been very valid points made about responsibility.
19 He had a neighbor up the street in a trailer and a pick -up truck with a canopy on
20 five acres, which had more garbage than Cedarville could collect in ten years. That
21 was not responsible. Enforcement has to be done whether or not they have this
22 ordinance. His concern was that they've never had any language that the County
23 could enforce. This ordinance offers steady and consistent rules that can be
24 enforced. No one would be confused about what is required for the different zones.
25 It is consistent and requires responsibility. He thanked councilmember Brenner for
26 working with him to address his concerns. The Comprehensive Plan encourages
27 recreational use and industry that does not have impacts on the community. They
28 recognize that recreational activities are an important aspect. It doesn't mean that
29 they will condone irresponsible behavior. There is room in their hearts to welcome
30 new people into the community, as he has. They've heard from many new people
31 who have testified. Many of them have issues with what they are trying to develop.
32 He urged people to open their hearts.
33
34 Hoag asked Planning Division Manager Sylvia Goodwin if the administrative
35 permit that would be required had a cost.
36
37 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that the cost is
38 approximately $150.
39
40 Hoag questioned whether someone who doesn't have sewer yet, would be
41 grandfathered in when they apply for an administrative permit. Goodwin stated
42 that if someone had a complete application, including a complete application for a
43 sewer permit, the staff would work with the applicant until it was either approved or
44 denied. If the application, including the sewer permit application, is complete, it is
45 a vested application. It is the same as they do for a building permit or subdivision
46 if one of those regulations changed.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 16
1 Hoag stated she appreciated the fact that people came all this way to talk to
2 the councilmembers about this. She also appreciated comments on both sides of
3 the issue.
4
5 There are people who have come to the council saying they represent the
6 voters in Point Roberts, and that the Council was ignoring them. The Council also
7 received many letters and phone calls from other voters in Point Roberts who do
8 not share their views. The Council is not ignoring the voters. The Council is
9 looking at all the information they have received, and is trying to resolve the issue.
10
11 There is a historic use here. It is not a matter of 23 years of flagrant abuse
12 and violation of the law. There is a historic use of RV's on Point Roberts that has
13 gone on for generations. When the law changed, there was no enforcement.
14 People were not aware that what they were doing was illegal. That should be
15 clearly understood. This isn't a matter of changing the speed limit for someone
16 who is flagrantly breaking the law. The Council is trying to honor historic use, and
17 at the same time, protect the interest of the people living on the Point who don't
18 have RV's. The compromise that Councilmember Brenner put together is a good
19 compromise that does that. The cost of enforcement on the current ordinance
20 would also be very prohibitive.
21
22 Crawford stated that he echoed the comments made by Councilmember
23 Nelson. He appreciated the work of Councilmembers Brenner and Nelson on this
24 issue. They did a great job and put a lot of time into it. He fully supported the
25 ordinance.
26
27 Brenner moved to approve the final substitute ordinance.
28
29 McShane moved to amend the substitute ordinance, sections 20.20.135(7)
30 and 20.32.135(7), "...supported by their own chassis, wheels..."
31
32 Motion carried unanimously.
33
34 McShane thanked Councilmember Brenner and Councilmember Nelson for
35 their work on this ordinance.
36
37 Imhof stated they heard about the Paradise Lakes and Peaceful Valley area,
38 and how it is transforming from recreation to a residential community. He
39 questioned whether the committee discussed removing those areas from the
40 Recreational Subdivision designation.
41
42 Hoag stated the subject was not brought up in committee at all.
43
44 Imhof stated he'd heard that recommendation earlier from some people. He
45 drove through that area a couple of weeks ago. There are many permanent houses
46 and lots of school kids. Those areas should not be put in that definition. He moved
47 to strike those two areas from the Recreational Subdivision definition.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 17
1 Brenner stated that if the Council doesn't pass this ordinance, then Paradise
2 and Peaceful Valley would remain the way they have been. This ordinance was to
3 beef up protection for the permanent residents in Paradise and Peaceful Valley.
4 She believed that, because it is already an existing Recreational Subdivision, the
5 Council would have to have a hearing and go through a hearing process to change
6 that designation. They are not creating it now. If the Council can take those areas
7 out of the definition without that process, she would support it, but it is a more
8 complicated process.
9
10 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated Paradise Lakes and
11 Peaceful Valley have always been Recreational Subdivisions. This ordinance would
12 tighten the standards to require septic tanks or sewer, screening, and
13 administrative approval, so the County has a better way to track the RV's that go in
14 to make sure the standards have been met. She has not talked about this with
15 legal counsel. She believed that if they strike Paradise and Peaceful Valley, it would
16 probably exceed the advertisement for this ordinance. If the Council is interested
17 in doing that, she would recommend reviewing it in six months, in time to collect
18 input from the citizens.
19
20 Imhof withdrew his motion to strike.
21
22 Dawson stated they have a recreational overlay, but she had never seen any
23 language that says the RV's are permitted in the Recreational Subdivision overlays.
24 Goodwin stated the language is in the existing zoning code, in the current sections
25 of the Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.20.056 and 20.32.056. Peaceful Valley and
26 Paradise Lakes are listed in the definitions as two of the recreational subdivisions.
27 Some people confuse those with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Resort
28 Recreational, which is Sudden Valley.
29
30 Brenner discussed the comments made during the hearing. With this
31 ordinance, one wouldn't be able to have rentals 365 days per year. With the
32 administrative approval process, it would be much easier for County staff to
33 determine whether or not someone is legal, which didn't exist before. She
34 supported changing the zoning in those areas from Recreational Subdivision to a
35 residential zoning. It would have expanded the issue of already existing, as
36 opposed to what they are doing throughout the county. People are going to have
37 to hook up to a septic system, or they are going to get an order to vacate. People
38 are going to have to get administrative approval to get their screening up, or they
39 are going to have to vacate. It is not the perfect solution for those areas, but it is a
40 lot better than it was, and the Council is still working. She liked the idea of
41 bringing it back in six months.
42
43 Regarding who will regulate, the County's administrative services people say
44 that this ordinance will be much easier to regulate, because it is as uniform as
45 possible. Everyone has had to tighten their belts and compromise on this. This
46 Council did not place this ordinance 24 years ago. The existing ordinance was not
47 placed by any Council. The county had a commissioner form of government back
48 then and things were done differently. The only evidence she could find about why
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 18
1 the original ordinance was passed was to get rid of the hippies. Times have
2 changed a little bit.
3
4 Regarding the woman with the mentally disabled child, a person can have an
5 accessory dwelling. Having an RV for her son is not necessarily a bad thing, but it
6 may be allowed now.
7
8 Hoag stated it is not allowed all year long.
9
10 Brenner stated someone with a house can have an RV as an accessory
11 dwelling.
12
13 Dawson stated they had a singlewide trailer.
14
15 Hoag stated they could store one, but a person cannot live in it for more than
16 120 days.
17
18 Sam Ryan, Planning and Development Services Director, stated there is a
19 provision to have a permanent RV or mobile on the property, provided there is a
20 doctor's order and an elderly parent or a dependent needing support. That would
21 meet her need. They do allow RV's. That is why Park Models have become so
22 popular. They are really mobiles designed to be removed. They are called a
23 temporary second dwelling. They are for an emergency need. It is regulated and
24 monitored by the County staff on an annual basis. Doctor's reports are to be
25 submitted annually.
26
27 Brenner stated she was confused about why someone testified against the
28 sunset clause in Point Roberts on the Recreational Subdivision. This is to give
29 recognition of a historical use; many of whom have been there before the obscure
30 RV ordinance happened. It is very difficult to prove these things. It used to be
31 enough that everyone knew about it. It's not enough in this day and age. When
32 they recognize it for the good guys, the bad guys sometimes fall in too. If it is a
33 question of working mostly with people who are trying to make something better,
34 and a few others would get away with something, she was willing to do that instead
35 of punishing everyone.
36
37 Brenner stated that someone testified that very little has been said about the
38 non -RV users in Point Roberts. She disagreed. This is the third or fourth hearing.
39 The Council went to Point Roberts for one of the hearings. They've heard from
40 everyone they could possibly reach out to hear from. She's appreciated the
41 diversity of what they've heard about. It definitely moved her from the direction
42 she was going previously.
43
44 Regarding the taxes paid at Point Roberts, the main tax they get back is the
45 gas tax. That depends on tourism. The other taxes go into a pot, except for
46 designated taxes, and everyone shares it. She understood that people with very
47 nice, expensive homes may not feel like people who can't afford those homes and
48 who want to enjoy the Point in an RV shouldn't have the same access. However,
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 19
1 they've appreciated the diversity all over Whatcom County, which is a very diverse
2 county.
3
4 Brenner stated that someone said RV's don't mix with the way of life. She
5 hoped that she never lives in any community where they can't respect each others'
6 diversity. She supported the ordinance. They all worked hard on it and she
7 appreciated the work of the other councilmembers.
8
9 Hoag stated she had two concerns about the screening. One of them is
10 requiring screening regardless of whether or not the owner is there 120 days. The
11 other concern is about the existing trees providing visual screening. She moved to
12 include the language from packet page 371, section 20.72.051(3) to the substitute
13 ordinance, "Existing trees and natural vegetation that provide visual screening shall
14 be maintained in all side and rear setback areas adjacent to the recreational
15 vehicle." She moved to include that language in all areas except Rural Forestry
16 zoned areas. It is important in providing the protection of neighbor's property. It
17 was removed because of Councilmember Nelson's concern that they not be able to
18 completely harvest trees in the forestry section. For that reason, she didn't move
19 the language in the Rural Forestry zones. It is important protection for the
20 neighbors and should remain in the other areas.
21
22 Brenner spoke against the motion because administrative approval would
23 take care of Hoag's concern. They will ensure that trees that are not scrub trees
24 will stay on the property. This language was not included in the substitute version
25 because it is to ensure that, in the rural areas, someone doesn't have to keep any
26 sort of special buffer as long as they are buffered by distance. The wording is
27 consistent throughout and she would rather leave it the way it is.
28
29 Hoag questioned whether the staff has the ability to say the trees have to be
30 left. Goodwin stated that as long as someone planted suitable trees to replace
31 trees that are removed, they could remove the trees. As long as they meet the
32 screening requirements, the staff can't dictate which trees to leave.
33
34 Brenner questioned whether there was something about Point Roberts that
35 said they wouldn't be able to cut down all the trees if there are bigger trees.
36 Goodwin stated there is language in the Point Roberts Special District and character
37 plan, but it primarily applies to commercial projects, not individual single - family
38 lots. If they are concerned about tree - cutting in Point Roberts, a Point Roberts
39 tree - cutting ordinance would be a way to address it, not an RV ordinance.
40
41 Motion to amend failed 1 -6 with Hoag in favor.
42
43 Hoag stated that all zones in the ordinance include the language, "All
44 recreational vehicles shall be screened from neighboring properties not using RV's
45 and from public roads." She supported that language, but requiring that on
46 vehicles that are only there for a week is excessive regulation. She moved to insert
47 language in all zones in the ordinance, "All recreational vehicles located on the
48 property more than 14 days shall be screened..."
49
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 20
1 Motion to amend failed 1 -6 with Hoag in favor.
2
3 Motion to approve the amended substitute ordinance carried 5 -2 with Imhof
4 and Dawson opposed.
5
6 (Clerk's Note: The Council took a five - minute break at approximately 9:10
7 p. m.)
8
9 2. 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 Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, gave a staff report and stated the existing
15 subdivision rules for dividing land were adopted in 1985. There have been several
16 minor amendments since then, but no major updates. The Technical Advisory
17 Committee worked on the current proposal for three years. The Planning
18 Commission worked on it for six months. It has been at the Council's committee
19 level for five months.
20
21 There are five issues in the proposed rules, relating to sewer, water, gift
22 exemptions, gift short - plats, and surveyor requirements.
23
24 Regarding sewer, the Growth Management Act and the County's
25 Comprehensive Plan discouraged the extension of sewer outside of urban growth
26 areas. The proposed new regulations recognize these policies and incorporate them
27 into the text. The existing regulations were written before there were urban growth
28 areas, so it doesn't explicitly address this issue.
29
30 Regarding water, the existing regulations require a public water system for
31 all subdivisions, which are five lots or more, and a small percentage of short - plats,
32 which are four lots or less. The new proposal for Title 21 provides more flexibility
33 for long -plats and a little less flexibility for short - plats. The Council's Planning
34 Committee came up with a proposal to allow multiple public wells in a long -plat as
35 long as one doesn't go over the 5,000 gallons per day limit. The state Department
36 of Ecology believes that a water right permit is needed to go over that. There have
37 been court cases.
38
39 McShane stated the Planning Committee met in executive session during its
40 afternoon meeting that day. He would be proposing alternate language.
41
42 Aamot continued to state that the proposal allows a private water supply,
43 which is an individual well, to also be utilized in certain cases if the density is one
44 lot per five acres, is not in a groundwater contamination area, and if one can't get
45 water from a public purveyor.
46
47 Regarding gift exemptions, the current code allows a person to gift five -acre
48 parcels to close relatives without going through the normal short -plat or subdivision
49 process. This has been in the code since 1972. One of the issues associated with
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 21
1 gift exemptions is that they have been used from time to time to circumvent the
2 long -plat process, where every other parcel would be given as a gift, then create
3 remainder parcels that could be sold. The Technical Advisory Committee
4 recommended deleting gift exemptions altogether. The Planning Commission
5 restored them, and the Council's Planning Committee recommends retaining them,
6 but limiting them to four gift exemptions.
7
8 Regarding gift short - plats, they are for dividing lots into less than five acres.
9 This concept was deleted from the new regulations. The gift short -plat allows the
10 creation of small lots without any survey or road improvements. Before the family
11 member could sell the parcel, he or she has to go back through the regular process,
12 which includes a survey and road construction. That has created a lot of frustration
13 for people who are often not aware of the requirement. They think they have a lot
14 that is ready to sell, when they really don't. Additionally, lots have transferred
15 hands and the new owner would come in for a building permit, not knowing
16 anything about this. The Technical Advisory Committee deleted the exemption.
17 The Planning Commission did not restore it. It is not in the current proposal.
18
19 Regarding surveyor requirements, a surveyor would have to write a legal
20 description for certain five -acre exemptions under the new regulations. The
21 Technical Advisory Committee recommended that. Currently, anyone could write
22 the legal description, including an attorney, property owner, or title company. The
23 new regulations also require a survey for boundary line adjustments. That is a new
24 requirement.
25
26 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
27
28 Willard D. Purnell, 1392 Chuckanut Drive, Bellingham, urged the Council to
29 keep the six -pack rule in existence. The six -pack rule, which some people don't
30 understand, would allow three wells in an eighteen -lot subdivision, for example.
31 The wells wouldn't require a water rights permit for a use of up to 5,000 gallons per
32 day. One could also put in one well for each lot if the lots were big enough. This
33 was not used much prior to the time that the Department of Ecology eliminated
34 granting water rights. They have a ten -year backlog of water rights requests. They
35 are studying the groundwater withdraw and the instream flow on many of the
36 streams. They have a big job ahead of them. In the meantime, there are a lot of
37 questions. The effect on the citizens is that, by eliminating the six -pack law, there
38 is no way a person can get their lot well drilled without a water right.
39
40 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
41
42 Purnell continued to state that there have been court cases about this issue.
43 In fairness to the citizens, they need to keep in mind that those people are citizens
44 in the county that have that piece of land and want to develop it need to have
45 water. This is the only way they can get it presently. The recommendations of the
46 Republican Party is to send a letter to the Department of Ecology urging them to
47 finish what they are doing, send copies to the state legislators and incoming
48 legislative team to get this handled. The Republican Party will cooperate in any
49 way it can.
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 22
1
2 McShane questioned whether Mr. Purnell is saying that the Republican Party
3 endorses increasing funding for the Department of Ecology so they would process
4 water rights.
5
6 Purnell stated it would if it was done in the right manner.
7
8 McShane stated he wanted to hear any republican legislator tell him that. He
9 would feel much better. It is a very serious problem.
10
11 Purnell stated it is. It is a problem caused by what has been put on them.
12
13 Roger Almskaar, 1711 E. Illinois Street, Bellingham, stated he submitted a
14 letter requesting a change on an exemption regarding wetland mitigation sites.
15 First, he wanted to address certain points in the ordinance. He works on short -
16 plats for a living. He is working on three right now. On packet page three, section
17 20.01.040(1), he suggested a language change, "...County Auditor at least 5 yeaFs
18 prior to...." It isn't fair. It takes two or three years to get a long -plat approved
19 anyway.
20
21 A lot of people are concerned about the 20 -acre exemption on page nine,
22 section 21.03.020(3). A 20 -acre exemption shouldn't prohibit a person to use the
23 five -acre exemption.
24
25 At the top of packet page ten, section 21.03.020(4)(f), it talks about
26 applying for five -acre exemptions. One doesn't need a legal description of each
27 parcel at that point. One does need a good sketch to scale. The legal description
28 should be provided under WCC 21.03.030, Certificate of Exemption. A surveyor
29 should draw the legal. He's had a real estate license for twenty years. Drawing
30 legal descriptions is tricky. He didn't mind having them drawn by a surveyor, but
31 one shouldn't have to have a surveyor to start the process because it may be
32 turned down. He supported the comments made by Mr. Purnell and the Building
33 Industry Association (BIA) on the water issue. The plain fact is that, due to 25
34 years of bungling in the Department of Ecology, one can't get a water right no
35 matter how benign a project is. The most wonderful project in the world could
36 come into this county, and it could not get a water right.
37
38 Tim Reid, Building Industry of Association (BIA) of Whatcom County, stated
39 that the concern was regarding the exempt wells. Some of the proposed changes
40 to Title 21 show a conscientious effort by the Council to ensure that the County's
41 liability is reduced or completely negated. However, there are other proposed
42 changes to the ordinance that appear to have a negative effect. Their concern is
43 specifically with the changes in sections 21.05.080(1), 21.05.080(2)(a), and
44 21.07.080. These are on packet pages 472 and 484. These changes, if adopted,
45 would limit the use of exempt wells, commonly referred to as six - packs, and would
46 allow water and water rights to be used as a zoning tool. The proposed changes, if
47 adopted, would be contrary to existing Washington State law, RCW 90.44.050, that
48 has recently been challenged and upheld. In the last two months, the Washington
49 State Department of Ecology (DOE) has been ruled against in two exempt well
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 23
1 cases at the Superior Court level. In both cases, the DOE sought to restrict or
2 abolish the use of exempt wells as a water supply in small developments through
3 judicial interpretation rather than legislative action. The court ruled that the
4 opinions shared by the DOE and Washington State Attorney General regarding
5 exempt wells do not supercede state law. RCW 90.44.050 specifically grants rural
6 property owners the right to access groundwater supplies for domestic use with a
7 withdrawal rate limited to 5,000 gallons of water per day. The BIA general council
8 at the state level has been in contact with Whatcom County Senior Civil Deputy
9 Prosecutor David Grant to share information regarding the exempt well issue. In
10 one recent letter to Mr. Grant, Mr. Overstreet stated that Whatcom County would
11 be acting arbitrarily and in a capricious manner if it enacted an exempt well
12 limitation ordinance. There are economic implications on the taxpayers and
13 property owners. An economic impact assessment should be done to determine
14 how the proposed changes would affect the county's economic viability, the
15 availability of affordable housing in Whatcom County, and the property rights and
16 values of property owners.
17
18 Paul Isaacson, 204 Shallow Shore Road, Bellingham, stated he had attended
19 every Planning Commission meeting, every committee work session, and every
20 Council work session. He urged the Council not to change this ordinance. It has
21 had a substantial amount of public input along the way. There are wins and losses
22 on both sides. He has a fair amount of developable ground in Whatcom County.
23 He owns hundreds of acres. There have been losses and gains. The entire draft is
24 very good. It protects his interests, the interests of the public, and other property
25 owners. He urged the Council to pass it as it is now. Mr. Almskaar's suggestions
26 are good. The changes also have several ramifications.
27
28 Lesa Starkenburg- Kroontje,115 Front Street, Lynden, submitted a letter to
29 the Council on August 8. A number of her concerns still exist. A number of years
30 have gone into developing this. There are a number of changes made to the draft
31 created by the Technical Advisory Committee by the Planning Commission and
32 Planning Committee. It is wonderful that they are beginning to require stated
33 intentions for easements. Taking out the gift short plat is moving in the right
34 direction. It has always created confusion after the fact. There are some things
35 that need more consideration. As a full Council, they need to think carefully on the
36 impacts. She referenced page nine of the ordinance, packet page 453, section
37 21.03.020(3). This restriction regarding no further divisions forces people to think
38 long in advance and immediately divide everything as much as possible, or it
39 requires people to spend money in fees that serve no public purpose. She urged
40 the Council to reconsider that amendment and remove everything after the first
41 sentence.
42
43 The other issue with short plats is regarding the water supply section.
44 They've eliminated people's right to divide their R2 properties, by restricting them
45 to lots no smaller than five acres unless they want to put in their own public well,
46 which is costly, or unless they have a water association that can serve them. She
47 didn't understand what value that had to protect that property owner. A number of
48 the water associations are dealing with water quality issues, as are private well
49 owners. While a number of the councilmembers have worked hard through the
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 24
1 Comprehensive Planning process and the zoning process to protect people's rights
2 to their zoning, this will eliminate folks who have smaller zoning less than one
3 house per five acres unless they can access public water.
4
5 Another issue regards the water sections in general. In the regulation, one
6 should not exceed 5,000 gallons of water per day unless he or she has a water
7 right; if the person is in an aquifer where pending water rights applications have
8 been submitted but not yet granted. If a property owner down the road from her
9 who is attempting to put in a subdivision, and she doesn't like it for whatever
10 reason, she can have a pending application for $10. That shuts the door for the
11 developer to gain the water under the exemption the Council is seeking to create.
12 She urged the Council to go very slow. This is no time to hurry. She requested a
13 work session as a Committee of the Whole.
14
15 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
16
17 Brenner moved to refer to committee for two weeks. Some of the comments
18 she just heard are very interesting and she would like to go over them with other
19 councilmembers and the Council's legal advisor.
20
21 Dawson stated she would support that.
22
23 Motion to refer to committee for two weeks carried unanimously.
24
25 Hoag stated she appreciated Mr. Isaacson's comments, the fact that he's
26 attended through all of this, and the fact that he is willing to compromise. One of
27 the reasons they are putting it into committee was to look at certain questions the
28 Council had prior to this meeting. They will compare to how other jurisdictions
29 have handled some of those issues.
30
31
32 CONSENT AGENDA
33
34 Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
35 moved approval of items two through thirteen. Item nine comes forward with a
36 substitute contract.
37
38 Nelson withdrew items one and nine.
39
40 Brenner withdrew item three.
41
42 Motion to approve items two, four through eight, and ten through thirteen
43 carried unanimously.
44
45 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #00-
46 93 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, KENWORTH NW, TO
47 PURCHASE A REPLACEMENT TEN -YARD DUMP TRUCK FOR USE BY
48 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS ER &R IN THE AMOUNT OF
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 25
1 $109,930.68 (AB2000 -329)
2
3 Nelson stated this would be held in committee to discuss the truck's usage,
4 the hours it is needed, and partnering with the local community.
5
6 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #00-
7 96 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, DIEHL FORD, TO
8 PURCHASE A REPLACEMENT ONE -TON CAB AND CHASSIS TRUCK FOR
9 USE BY WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS ER &R IN THE AMOUNT
10 OF $35,250.93 (AB2000 -330)
11
12 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO
13 AMENDMENT NUMBER 4 TO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
14 WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM TO ESTABLISH
15 PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
16 AMENDMENTS WITHIN THE BELLINGHAM URBAN GROWTH AREA
17 (AB2000 -248A)
18
19 Brenner stated she didn't agree with changing the relationship from 60/40 to
20 50/50. The County ends up doing more of the work. She had a problem about not
21 requiring the hearings to be joint hearings. That puts additional burden on anyone
22 in the urban growth area who wants to do development because they can be held
23 up by the extra hearings. She moved to change the fee split to 60/40 after the
24 costs are subtracted.
25
26 Crawford stated the Planning Director explained that the 50/50 split is done
27 after the County removes the additional fees that the County was concerned about.
28 It is a fair split. It is equitable.
29
30 Motion failed 1 -6 with Brenner in favor.
31
32 Brenner moved to require joint Planning Commission hearings with the
33 Bellingham Planning Commission.
34
35 Imhof stated the County has no authority over the city's planning
36 commission. It steps over the County's bounds.
37
38 Hoag stated this comes up because the people in these areas want to do
39 something out of the ordinary schedule. If it means they have to go to extra
40 hearings, then so be it. The problem is trying to coordinate the schedules between
41 the city and the County, which is difficult on even simple matters. She supported
42 the philosophy behind it, but it isn't a good idea.
43
44 Brenner disagreed that, if the city signs the agreement, then that is what
45 they will do. The County has already had problems with the city treating certain
46 developers differently than other developers. They allow water to be conveyed to
47 certain properties and leave out other properties who were first on the list. There is
48 something the County has to do. The people in the urban growth area are County
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 26
1 constituents, but they are under the rules of the city. The county needs to work
2 out something that is fair for them.
3
4 Nelson stated the language says that there will be a joint County /City
5 Planning Commission hearing within six months of the application's submittal.
6
7 Brenner stated that the language also allows separate hearings if the two
8 jurisdictions do not allow a joint hearing.
9
10 Nelson stated that might occur. They can't force the City's Planning
11 Commission to hold hearings at a particular time. This language says that it may
12 happen within six months. The applicant may be able to get approval quicker by
13 going to a City Planning Commission hearing and then a County Planning
14 Commission hearing.
15
16 Brenner stated that is not forcing them. They would be willing to sign off on
17 it.
18
19 Motion to amend failed 1 -6 with Brenner in favor.
20
21 Nelson referred to the language on packet page 26 in paragraph A. That
22 section refers to two documents that never refers to the area as a water resource
23 protection area. It could create misunderstanding by the public. It references a
24 major drinking water reservoir. That is the language that should be in there. That
25 is the language that is referenced in these two documents. He moved to amend
26 the language on packet page 26 in paragraph A, "...within the Lake Whatcom
27 watershed recegnizing its status as a wateF reseurce pretectien a as a major
28 drinking water reservoir for the County." The two documents refer to the lake as a
29 drinking water reservoir, which it is. The documents are resolution 92 -73, and the
30 draft version the Council did in 1998 with the interlocal.
31
32 Imhof suggested a friendly amendment, "...within the Lake Whatcom
33 watershed Feeegnizing its status as a water Feseurce protection a "
34
35 McShane stated he agreed with the friendly amendment.
36
37 Nelson accepted the friendly amendment.
38
39 Hoag questioned staff's opinion on the amendment.
40
41 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated it is not a big issue in the
42 interlocal. Her only concern was that it has gone through the City Council already.
43 By changing it, it has to go back to the City Council. If the amendment is worth
44 doing, then it is possible.
45
46 Hoag questioned why items never come to the County Council first. Goodwin
47 stated it did. They had a joint hearing between the City Council and the County
48 Council. They all agreed to this language at that joint meeting. They were trying
49 to avoid this problem.
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 27
1
2 Brenner stated only four County councilmembers attended.
3
4 Goodwin stated she could take it back to the city if it's important.
5
6 Nelson stated it is important. It is going to be confusing to the public about
7 what exists out there.
8
9 Hoag stated she thought the water resource protection area was something
10 the County Council approved last year. Goodwin stated that Lake Whatcom has a
11 water resource protection area zoning overlay. There is also some language in the
12 Comprehensive Plan. The intent is to recognize the lake as an important area.
13
14 Hoag stated it isn't worth bringing back to the city to change.
15
16 Crawford agreed.
17
18 Nelson stated there isn't anything that refers to it in the 1998 resolution.
19
20 Motion to amend failed 2 -5 with Nelson and Brenner in favor.
21
22 Nelson moved approval.
23
24 Motion to approve carried unanimously.
25
26 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
27 CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
28 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND WEBBSTARR TECHNOLOGIES,
29 INC. TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR PURCHASING, INSTALLATION AND
30 SUPPORT OF A SOFTWARE SYSTEM THAT WILL ADDRESS AUDIT
31 FINDINGS RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS IN THE
32 AMOUNT OF $66,420 (AB2000 -331)
33
34 S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
35 AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY JUVENILE SERVICES
36 DEPARTMENT AND HOME PORT LEARNING CENTER TO PROVIDE
37 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES FOR COURT INVOLVED YOUTH, FUNDED
38 THROUGH STATE REVENUE SOURCES IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,000
39 (AB2000 -332)
40
41 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
42 CONTRACT AMENDMENT, BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY JUVENILE
43 SERVICES AND NORTHWEST CARE ADVOCATES TO PROVIDE
44 IMPORTANT EMERGENT - COUNSELING SERVICES TO DETENTION
45 CENTER YOUTH, IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,000 ($15,000 OF WHICH IS
46 INCLUDED IN SUPPLEMENT BUDGET #11 AND $3000 FROM EXISTING
47 JUVENILE COURT RESOURCES), FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
48 $33,000 (AB2000 -333)
49
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 28
1 7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
2 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
3 JUVENILE SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND JOHN DAVIS, M.A. TO
4 PROVIDE SEX OFFENDER EVALUATION AND TREATMENT FOR
5 CERTAIN ELIGIBLE OFFENDERS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000
6 (AB2000 -334)
7
8 8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
10 JUVENILE SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND RICK ACKERMAN, M.A. TO
11 PROVIDE SEX OFFENDER EVALUATION AND TREATMENT FOR
12 CERTAIN ELIGIBLE OFFENDERS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000
13 (AB2000 -335)
14
15 9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
16 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
17 AND WALKER & ASSOCIATES TO PERFORM AERIAL MAPPING OF LAKE
18 WHATCOM, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $69,965 (AB2000 -336)
19
20 Nelson moved approval of a substitute contract agreement. It outlines the
21 specific payment schedules. It deals with a percentage of completion for each
22 phase of the project, and a penalty on unpaid balances. It is common contract
23 language.
24
25 Hoag stated the substitute doesn't change the amount. It just changes some
26 billing procedures.
27
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29
30 10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
31 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
32 REICHHARDT AND EBE ENGINEERING, INC. TO INCREASE THE SCOPE
33 OF WORK FOR WATER- RELATED DESIGN ISSUES MANDATED BY ESA,
34 IN THE AMENDMENT AMOUNT OF $15,000 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED
35 CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $101,030 (AB2000 -337)
36
37 11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
38 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
39 AND NORTHWEST SURVEYING & GPS, TO PROVIDE ON -CALL
40 SURVEYING SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS RIVER AND FLOOD
41 SECTION PROJECTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 (AB2000 -338)
42
43 12. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
44 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
45 AND PACIFIC SURVEYING & ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC., TO
46 PROVIDE ON -CALL SURVEYING SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS RIVER
47 AND FLOOD SECTION PROJECTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000
48 (AB2000 -339)
49
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 29
1 13. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH
2 MICHAEL BOBBINK FOR HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES (AB2000-
3 327)
4
5
6 OTHER ITEMS (Council action may be taken)
7
8 1. ORDINANCE IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE
9 2.108, COMMISSION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (AB2000 -324)
10
11 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
12 moved approval.
13
14 Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
15
16 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING 2000 BUDGET, REQUEST #11 (AB2000 -325)
17
18 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
19 moved approval.
20
21 Motion carried unanimously.
22
23 3. RESOLUTION VACATING ALL OF THAT PORTION OF JAMES WAY
24 LYING WESTERLY OF BIRCH BAY DRIVE, FILED BY HANSEN (AB2000-
25 235)
26
27 Brenner reported for Public Works and Capital Projects Committee and stated
28 this item failed in committee. The County should not revisit this issue until they
29 look at it more.
30
31 Dawson stated she voted for the vacation. The plat map shows it as a lot of
32 record, with no easement. Because the public has been using it doesn't mean that
33 the County can give it over to the public. There is a situation of inverse
34 condemnation, but it doesn't apply to the public. They had an opportunity to quiet -
35 title adjoining property. If the County can resolve this by quiet - title, it would be
36 the best avenue. However, it sounds like there is a ten -foot easement. She
37 requested an update.
38
39 Jeff Monsen, Director of Public Works, explained that the issue is not very
40 clear. This type of matter is usually argued with a judge and land use attorneys
41 because of the debatable positions taken. The Public Works staff members
42 provided their best efforts in pulling together what they believe is accurate
43 information and direction, but he didn't want to minimize the arguments that were
44 brought to committee and the Council. There are matters that are not that clear.
45 He couldn't answer those questions tonight or prove the point. He couldn't do that
46 in this kind of a situation.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 30
1 Dawson moved to approval of the resolution. Even if there is a ten -foot
2 easement, the owner should be able to build on the rest of the property and the
3 County should be able to resolve this through a quiet - title.
4
5 Imhof stated the motion was appropriate, but spoke against the resolution.
6 There is too much uncertainty that it needs to be voted down. They can appeal it
7 to the courts and figure out the boundaries.
8
9 McShane stated that he's watched these vacations and they are very easy.
10 In this case, they have real public access concerns by the citizens. The County
11 would be giving away something when it doesn't have to give it away. If this
12 individual wants to do the swap, there is no reason to give it to him. He can
13 perhaps win in court and have a very buildable lot at the north end, more buildable
14 than he has now. He would end up better off than what he currently has, and the
15 County would not lose access, because there would still be the access thirty feet to
16 the north. The County would be giving away more than it gets.
17
18 Brenner stated it is also suspicious that the owner is willing to give away
19 what he claims he has, which would be a more buildable lot, for something that is
20 much less. It may be a clouded title, but with the use that has been on there, the
21 County may have a very good case on this. Road vacations should be saved for
22 pieces of property that the County doesn't want to have in the public use anymore.
23 The County would like to keep this in the public use for parking.
24
25 Dawson withdrew her motion to approve the resolution.
26
27 Imhof moved approval of the resolution. They have to vote in the positive,
28 and then vote it down.
29
30 Motion failed unanimously.
31
32 Brenner requested a parliamentary inquiry on whether the item would have
33 been dead if there had not been any vote on it.
34
35 Imhof stated the applicant deserves a decision.
36
37 Dawson agreed.
38
39 4. REPORT ON THE POSSIBILITY OF CHANGING THE FERRY SCHEDULE
40 IN 2001 (AB2000 -328)
41
42 Brenner reported for Public Works and Capital Projects Committee and stated
43 this item was not supposed to be scheduled. It was not discussed.
44
45 S. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1999/2000 OPEN
46 SPACE TIMBER APPLICATIONS (AB2000 -316)
47
48 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved
49 approval.
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 31
1
2 Motion carried unanimously.
3
4 6. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AGAINST CHANGES TO
5 THE WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, ADDING
6 REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION OF OPEN SPACE LAND OR
7 TIMBERLAND APPLICATIONS TO THE DUTIES OF THE HEARING
8 EXAMINER (AB2000 -340)
9
10 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated
11 this item was held in committee for two weeks.
12
13 7. RESOLUTION TO INITIATE AN EMERGENCY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
14 AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHING AN URBAN GROWTH
15 AREA AT SUDDEN VALLEY (AB2000 -315)
16
17 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated
18 this is held in committee.
19
20 8. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.92, TIME
21 LIMITS ON APPEALS OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS (AB2000-
22 305)
23
24 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and it was
25 recommended for approval as amended in committee on a 2 -1 vote. He moved the
26 amendments made in committee.
27
28 One amendment was on packet page 397, line 3 of Exhibit A "...county
29 council office within 10 business days of the final decision..."
30
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32
33 McShane stated that a second amendment made during committee was on
34 packet page 398, Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.92.470, "...not to exceed 15
35 business days...."
36
37 Motion carried unanimously.
38
39 McShane stated a third amendment made during committee was to the first
40 line on packet page 399, WCC 20.92.750, "...within 28 working 30 days..."
41
42 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side 8.)
43
44 Hoag stated she didn't support that amendment. They should change it to
45 business days. She didn't know why they asked for 28 working days. It talks
46 about the Council being responsible on getting their final written decision within
47 those days. The County Council is putting itself in a time crunch that they don't
48 need to be put in. She preferred to change "working" to "business." Make the
49 deadline 30 business days.
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 32
1
2 Imhof stated it stays consistent with WCC 20.92.630 on packet page 397,
3 which says "30 days."
4
5 Hoag stated that deadline is just for getting a transcript. It is not issuing a
6 final decision.
7
8 Brenner spoke against the motion. She wanted the deadline to be 30
9 business days. She would rather give the County Council more time, not less time.
10
11 Crawford stated it causes the public to wait longer for a decision.
12
13 Brenner stated the County Council tends to get hung up on things. She
14 wanted the public to know that the County Council is trying to be more realistic.
15
16 Motion to amend carried 5 -2 with Brenner and Hoag opposed.
17
18 Crawford moved to adopt the amended ordinance.
19
20 Motion to adopt the ordinance as amended carried unanimously.
21
22 9. APPOINTMENT TO THE LAKE SAMISH CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE
23 (AB2000 -176C)
24
25 Nelson moved to appoint Becky O'Brine- Willson.
26
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28
29 10. APPOINTMENTS TO THE UTILITIES PLANNING AND ADVISORY
30 COMMITTEE, DISTRICT 1 POSITIONS, AND CONFIRMATION OF
31 VARIOUS ENTITIES (AB2000 -177A)
32
33 Dawson stated that two people originally applied for the two positions
34 representing district one, but a third person has also applied.
35
36 Imhof voted for Dick Gilda and Peter Tassoni.
37
38 Hoag stated she attended a pipeline hearing at the Bellingham City Council.
39 Dick Gilda spoke there. She doesn't see eye -to -eye with him on this issue. He said
40 that they should just turn the pipeline back on. That was prior to any of the
41 recommendations that have since come through. She was concerned that he would
42 not adequately represent the concerns of the people on this committee. She
43 recommended Marian Beddill, who has been following the process from the very
44 beginning. She is very conscientious in that. She voted for Marian Beddill and
45 Peter Tassoni.
46
47 Nelson voted for Dick Gilda and Peter Tassoni.
48
49 McShane voted for Tassoni and Beddill.
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 33
1
2
Brenner voted for Tassoni and Gilda.
3
4
Crawford voted for Gilda and Beddill.
5
6
Dawson voted for Gilda and Tassoni.
7
8
Dick Gilda and Peter Tassoni were appointed.
9
10
Imhof moved to confirm by acclamation the slate of representatives of the
11
various
appointing agencies.
12
13
Motion carried unanimously.
14
15
11.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A NEW
16
LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR COCOANUT GROVE BAR AND
17
GRILL, 710 MARINE DRIVE, BELLINGHAM (AB2000 -341)
18
19
Imhof moved to approve.
20
21
Motion carried unanimously.
22
23
12.
APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER FOR DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 3
24
TO FILL VACANCY UNTIL THE NEXT SPECIAL DISTRICT GENERAL
25
ELECTION IN FEBRUARY 2002 FOR THE REMAINING FOUR YEARS OF
26
THE UNEXPIRED TERM (AB2000 -350)
27
28
Imhof moved to appoint Stephen Mach.
29
30
Motion carried unanimously.
31
32
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
33
34
Nelson moved to accept the Introduction Items.
35
36
Motion carried unanimously.
37
38
1.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
39
TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.40, AGRICULTURE DISTRICT (AB2000 -342)
40
41
2.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
42
ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, SECTION 20.80.220 TO ALLOW THE
43
LOCATION OF PROPANE TANKS WITHIN FRONT YARD SETBACKS
44
WITH PROVISIONS FOR AESTHETICS AND SAFETY AND
45
REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE (AB2000 -343)
46
47
3.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNINCORPORATED URBAN GROWTH
48
AREA AND SHORT TERM PLANNING AREA POLICIES OF THE
49
WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2000 -344)
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 34
1
2 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MAP 20, AND CLARIFYING THAT AREAS
4 DESIGNATED RURAL FORESTRY (RF) AND COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
5 (CF) ON MAP 20 ARE FOREST RESOURCE LANDS WHICH HAVE BEEN
6 DESIGNATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF LONG TERM COMMERCIAL
7 SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO RCW 36.70A.170 (AB2000 -345)
8
9 5. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY URBAN FRINGE
10 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP
11 TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 24 ACRES IN THE BELLINGHAM URBAN
12 FRINGE FROM UR4 TO LII ZONING (AB2000 -346)
13
14 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
15 PLAN'S SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, CAPITAL
16 FACILITIES CHAPTER AND TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER (AB2000-
17 347)
18
19 OTHER BUSINESS
20
21 There was no other business.
22
23 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
24
25 Hoag encouraged the Council to take to heart the concerns that were brought
26 forward. Tomorrow is the last hearing on the public record. It is the last chance
27 for the Council to take a formal position against it. She encouraged anyone on the
28 fence to look at the information presented and the information that has been
29 provided, and consider taking formal opposition.
30
31 (Clerk's Note: McShane left the room.)
32
33 Hoag continued to state that she urged the councilmembers to look at the
34 testimony and take their time to investigate the information, come to the meeting,
35 and express their opinion on the record. If this plant is approved without the
36 Council's opposition, they will be responsible for not protecting the people they are
37 sworn to protect. It is that important.
38
39 Crawford stated the Finance Committee received a report from the Economic
40 Development Council (EDC) during it's afternoon meeting. They are moving along
41 swimmingly. In the meantime, they are continuing to work within the Chamber of
42 Commerce to develop a definition of responsibilities. He was positive there would
43 be a positive outcome out of that.
44
45 (Clerk's Note: McShane returned to the meeting.)
46
47 McShane reported that on October 5 and 11 a Planning and Development
48 Committee work session would be held at noon.
49
Regular County Council Meeting, 9/26/2000, Page 35
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
McShane also reported that Senate Bill 1608 was passed in the Senate and is
now in the House. It has to do with forest de- coupling. There is movement to drop
a couple of items. One item is how these national forest land programs will be
decided upon at the county level. The environmental community is not happy with
one proposed change, which is that a consensus driven decision - making process
that may be removed, so that the environmentalists would not be part of the
consensus decision on Forest Service projects. The concern is that if that does not
happen and the environmental groups don't get what they want on that particular
issue, then it may fail so counties would not get payment in lieu of an increase in
taxes. That represents about $500,000 per year for Whatcom County. If it passes,
there is a high likelihood that it would be vetoed. He suggested that they call the
federal legislators.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:34 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, 9/26/2000, Page 36