HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council June 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL /BELLINGHAM CITY COUNCIL
Special Joint Meeting
June 26, 2000
The joint meeting was called to order at 8:50 p.m. by Whatcom County
Council Chair Marlene Dawson in the City of Bellingham Council Chambers, 210
Lottie Street, Bellingham, Washington.
The joint meeting was called to order at 8:50 p.m. by Bellingham City
Council Chair Louise Bjornson in the City of Bellingham Council Chambers, 210
Lottie Street, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Dan McShane,
County Council
Barbara Brenner,
County Council
Sam Crawford,
County Council
Marlene Dawson,
County Council
Bob Ryan,
City Council
Gene Knutson,
City Council
John Watts,
City Council
Leslie Richardson,
City Council
Terry Bornemann,
City Council
Barbara Ryan,
City Council
Absent:
L. Ward Nelson,
Connie Hoag,
Robert Imhof,
County Council
County Council
County Council
(Clerk's Note: This is a regularly scheduled meeting of the Bellingham City
Council. Minutes transcribed are only for the joint meeting portion of the agenda.
The joint portion of the meeting began at 8:50 p.m. Begin at the midpoint of tape
two, side B.)
1. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE JOINT CITY /COUNTY RESOLUTION
REGARDING THE INEZ HOYT AND S.P.I.E. OPEN SPACE
APPLICATIONS (AB2000 -088)
Elizabeth Olsen, Whatcom County Planner I, stated the two open space
applications require by law three council members each from both the City of
Bellingham and Whatcom County, even though they are in the City of Bellingham.
They are current use situations for assessment. Both of these applications are
excellent examples of open space /open space. The first application is from the
Society of Photo - Optical Instrumentation Engineers (S.P.I.E.), located on Knox and
20th streets. They have done both of these before. S.P.I.E. applied for open
Joint Whatcom County Council/ Bellingham City Council Meeting, 6/26/2000, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
space /open space to put 2.25 acres into open space /open space. The area being
designated is the front lawn of the building area and some of the woodland area.
The ratings are low because it is not connected with any other open space beltways
or trails. It does not preserve conservation or examples of farming. There are no
historic or archeological components. It is only a beautiful piece of land with a
magnificent view. The S.P.I.E. organization opened the area up to the public.
The Inez Hoyt property is a piece of land that is like a community garden on
32nd street. The area is just under an acre. It is a nominal acre. The requested
designation is open space /open space. It is part of a trail from 32nd street to the
Connelly Creek park. In this case, the application received a good point score. She
suggested approval for both applications.
Bjornson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
hearing.
Richardson moved approval for the City of Bellingham Council.
Watts seconded Richardson's motion.
Brenner moved approval for the Whatcom County Council.
The City's motion approved unanimously.
The County's motion approved unanimously.
2. PRESENTATION OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY THE BELLINGHAM - WHATCOM COUNTY
COMMISSION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (2000 -256)
Marty Snyder, Opportunity Council, thanked the councils for the opportunity
to speak. The Domestic Violence Commission was created to provide leadership
and reduce and prevent domestic violence. She introduced chair Manca Valum,
Karen Summers, and Fred Thompson. Dawn Sturwold is leaving the commission.
Joan Hoisington will join them.
They will present the plan and the process. One item in the ordinance was a
charge to create a comprehensive domestic violence plan. It is important to line
out the tasks that the commission must do to further prevent domestic violence in
the community. She would like the councilmembers to understand the breadth of
the commitment in the community. Commission member John Thompson will
present that information. In addition, commission staff member Sue Parrot is also
present.
John Thompson, publisher of the Bellingham Business Journal and a
commission member, discussed who created the plan, the process involved in its
creation, and how they got here tonight. From the spring of 1999, they where
created by both councils. One charge was to develop and implement a coordinated
Joint Whatcom County Council/ Bellingham City Council Meeting, 6/26/2000, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
comprehensive plan that is monitored, evaluated, and updated regularly. They
didn't know then how big that charge would be. To get the ball rolling, the charge
was given to its program committee. In October 1999, the commission held a
community planning meeting. Seventy -five people attended. The meeting gave
the commission a baseline of where the community stands on domestic violence.
They identified the strengths and weaknesses in the community. There are many
of both strengths and weaknesses. The community meeting provided a starting
point to the people who began the plan. The program committee and Domestic
Violence Task Force were pre- existing. The commission and task force broke into
six work groups. They begin to divide the plan into manageable sections. Each
work group worked on a section of the plan. Meetings included seven or eight
people doing problem solving. They got down to the plan they have today. The
people who were involved span a broad spectrum of the community. It does not
only include people involved in domestic violence or law enforcement as a
profession. A public hearing was held in March. They arrived here tonight with the
plan en toto. It represents a body of work that few other counties and regions can
boast.
Sue Parrot, Domestic Violence Commission staff, distributed a summary and
the full plan. The first thing is that, when the planning process unfolded, everyone
assumed they would begin from the current level of service and then add to that.
They also tried to make the plan reflect the outcome measures, which are a way to
know the difference they are making.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B.)
Parrott stated the planning committee set some long -term outcomes that
they would like to see changed in six different focus areas. The specific work
groups set the short -term outcomes of one to three year changes they hoped to
see. There are three themes from the planning process.
The first theme is that the community is interested in learning more about
the current state of affairs. They want to know more about the needs of the victims
and how the system works now for the victims. Another example is practice and
policies that agencies are now implementing regarding children and how the
children are impacted by domestic violence. Also, the community wants to know
what data exists in the County in the justice system. There is no way to track
cases.
The second theme is to research best practices and develop
recommendations. There are many efforts going on around the nation. They want
to look at models. They want to develop guidelines to improve courtroom
consistency in how staff and personnel work with the domestic violence process.
Many people work with families who have chosen to stay together. One issue is
how to work with those families so the staff is confident they are doing something
that works for that family.
Joint Whatcom County Council/ Bellingham City Council Meeting, 6/26/2000, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
The third theme is an increase in services, training and education. They
need increased recognition in the elderly and disabled populations, an increase in
how school districts respond to domestic violence and its impact on children.
There are examples of long- and short -term outcomes in the summary (on
file). Long -term outcomes regarding health care are to increase recognition and
prioritization of domestic violence as a health care issue. An example of one way to
get there in the short term is to increase domestic violence resources and
opportunities within Whatcom County. There is an active health care action group.
Much work has been done at St. Joseph's Hospital. They haven't taken that work
outside the hospital to other health care providers. That is one of the things they
would like to try and do.
In the area of community education and awareness, the long -term outcome
is to increase recognition of, and action to, end domestic violence. It is not just
about understanding the problem. It is about doing something about it also. That
planning group came up with a package project to target three population groups
and do a pre- survey focus group to find out the belief systems, do an intervention,
and then an assessment to determine how to change the belief system.
In the area of children and adolescents, the long -term outcome is to increase
safety and decrease the effects of trauma in the lives of children and adolescents
affected by domestic violence. One strategy for the first year is to target three
school districts and implement a domestic violence team. The school districts figure
out how to address this issue.
In the area of victim support, the long -term outcome is to increase safety
and support and decrease effects of trauma and re- victimization for
victims /survivors of domestic violence in their families. One strategy is improve
access to economic resources offered by Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
(TANF) and other State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) services
to assist victims in obtaining financial support. This community is one of ten pilot
programs in the state to get a liaison who works with individuals who come forward
who have been screened for domestic violence.
In the area of the civil legal system, the long -term outcome is to see that the
safety of adult and child victims is the first priority in the civil legal system. A
couple of things they will work on in the first year include a Superior Court
commissioner's manual and protocols for court personnel to increase the courtroom
consistency. Through law advocates and training, they will increase the
participation of the legal community in discussions on domestic violence.
In the last area of the criminal system, there is a two -part long -term
outcome to increase accountability by the system regarding both victim safety and
the implementation of effective sanctions for domestic violence offenders. The first
strategy they hope to work on is to set up training in the county for law
enforcement and prosecution, with the ultimate goal of reducing the need to use
the victim in the criminal process and to minimize the participation of victims.
Joint Whatcom County Council/ Bellingham City Council Meeting, 6/26/2000, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Another is to begin an assessment of the available data and begin to develop a plan
for what data is important and how to monitor and track domestic violence.
They are in the beginning phases of implementation. Community agencies
have agreed to take the lead. It is a big scope of work. There is more than they
can do in one year.
Snyder stated the list of participants provides an idea of all who contributed.
Two commission members wrote letters and couldn't attend this meeting. She read
their letters into the record (on file). The commission will present the councils with
a joint resolution of support for continued work of the commission and the
committee of agencies to carry out this plan.
Bjornson stated it is an impressive amount of work.
Dawson agreed that this is an important piece of work. Her concern is that
they need to coordinate and unite everyone, but a lot of people are working on
other fronts. She asked about having a part -time director as opposed to a full -time
director.
Snyder stated they need Parrott for time and a half. They also have a very
important grant before them with joint members of the federal government. Sue
Parrott has taken leadership on that grant, which takes her time in the next month.
They definitely need Ms. Parrott's expertise. She holds the knowledge in
coordinating and monitoring the plan. Each commission member has specific work
groups that he or she is a part of. The commission is willing to accept help from
the community in the implementation of the six steps. The commission does need
at least a full -time person.
Bornemann thanked the commission for all the hard work that has been
done. It is a good document. He works in the juvenile justice system and sees the
long -term and short -term affects of domestic violence on juveniles. The long -term
cost in their lives and to the jurisdictions is amazing. This work has been needed
for a long time. He was glad to see this come forward. He wholeheartedly
supported the work.
McShane stated his thanks. The work is important. He encouraged that the
screening activity continues at St. Joseph's Hospital. It is important that it be done
in a good way. He questioned the DSHS caseload in relation to their participation in
the area of victim support. Parrott stated the position doesn't take on cases. It is a
liaison to work with cases that are already in the system. The position will link the
individual with services and to support staff to understand what is happening in the
community.
McShane asked for clarification on that person's workload. DSHS has a
reputation of scrambling around. Snyder stated the position is going to be housed
at DSHS, but is not a DSHS employee. Part of the reason that the position is
Joint Whatcom County Council/ Bellingham City Council Meeting, 6/26/2000, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
important is because they need someone with neutrality in that position. Getting
funding for this position has been a gift this community received.
McShane asked if this position will be an advocate that would know the DSHS
system and who could help the victim. Snyder stated that is correct. A provider or
a client can call upon that advocate. They've improved the network a bit between
all agencies, as they've begun to work with DSHS and domestic violence victims.
They are doing joint training and education throughout the state.
McShane stated he liked the idea of the network.
Brenner thanked Snyder and all who contributed. On page three of the
summary in the packet, it defines domestic violence, which is that domestic
violence is what one intimate partner does to another. She questioned how they
define an intimate partner. She questioned whether an intimate partner is
considered a spouse or domestic partner. On page four, it talks about elderly
people. She questioned whether domestic violence doesn't include people abused
by their children. Parrott stated the focus is more on the adult partner. They will
talk about the scenario of the elderly and the child as they begin to work on that
issue. The dynamics can be similar.
Snyder stated that issue was brought before the commission at the public
hearing. The group that worked on this plan was very concerned about the
children. They felt they needed to have a specific work group to address the needs
of the children.
Brenner stated that has been done incredibly well. On page three, she
suggested a change in the definition, "...including physical, sexual, a-Rd or
psychological attacks...." It might be more appropriate because, too many times,
people feel that domestic violence is all about physical violence. Generally it is.
She has seen much of the other kind of abuse, such as control and threats. She
questioned what TANF means. Snyder stated it stands for Temporary Assistance to
Need Families. It is welfare.
Brenner noticed areas in the document, such as the vision statement on page
11 and on page 25, the language references women and children being the victims.
She would rather it say adults and children. The majority of victims are women,
but there can also be male victims. She was concerned about polarizing men and
women. Lastly, she would like the planning prevention pilot teams in all the school
districts. Snyder stated they would love it. They targeted some school districts.
They hope to prove the success of the pilot program, then move to all the districts.
Crawford stated his family had a relative who was a victim of domestic
violence last year. Fortunately, she had a support network of relatives. He
attended a hearing on this document and saw a number of women with small
children who came to testify. He was struck by the challenges the women face
when they don't have anyone to turn to. This isn't about buying a park or building
Joint Whatcom County Council/ Bellingham City Council Meeting, 6/26/2000, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
a library. This is basic support to victims in the community who have nowhere to
go. It is a fundamental public health issue. He supported it fully.
Brenner asked if there would be a way to glean a lot more information about
the profile of batterers and the kinds of things that the community can do besides
treatment. She suggested they do more in the way of prevention. They have to
get to the batterers ahead of time. Snyder stated that is part of the community
education and prevention component. They talked about ways to approach
prevention and to assess the needs in the community. The difficulty is that they
only have a part -time staff person. It is about working together and the
volunteers. Her executive director allows her to spend a lot of time on this. There
are a number of people in the community who work and also serve on the
commission. They need to maintain the efforts of Sue Parrott to harness the work
groups. They will report back to the councils. This is just the beginning. The
commission is required to report to the councils with updates.
Brenner stated she would like to see the assessment, profile, and prevention
of the batterers.
Thompson stated the longer amount of time the councilmembers spend with
the plan, the more they will realize the depth of the educational complements and
awareness components. Getting more people to realize what is going on will have a
big impact.
Richardson stated she believed the big test focus is toward children. That is
where a good majority of the batterers come from. She understood they are
targeting a big group of the future batterers. The work the past three months has
been quick, given the breadth of the issue.
Dawson stated she read in the Courthouse Journal about evaluations over
the years relating to juvenile delinquents. Much money has been thrown at
programs that do not work. What has worked are the parenting programs that
work directly with the victims. Some of the television and radio stations might
want to put together a film to be used in the educational program.
Snyder stated the Opportunity Council learned, when it opened Dorothy
Place, that there was a huge population of 11 to 16 years old. The greatest amount
of work they've had to do is with that population and parenting for these kids. The
learning curve has been great in this community. They need as much input as
possible.
Bjornson stated she has noticed change in people's expectation since they've
had so much discussion in the community the past few years. There has been a
change in people's expectation of what is okay behavior. She has seen a number of
adults change their behavior, realizing that what used to be okay is not okay
anymore.
Joint Whatcom County Council/ Bellingham City Council Meeting, 6/26/2000, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
3. AMENDMENT TO THE 1997 BELLINGHAM /WHATCOM COUNTY
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ON THE BELLINGHAM URBAN GROWTH
AREA TO ESTABLISH A COOPERATIVE REVIEW PROCESS FOR ZONING
AND BOUNDARY CHANGES IN THE BELLINGHAM UGA (AB2000 -248)
Sylvia Goodwin, Whatcom County Planning Manager, stated this is a joint
proposal from City and County planning staff, with input from the County
Prosecuting Attorney and City Attorney. It is an amendment to the interlocal
agreement adopted in 1997 to address processing rezones and Comprehensive Plan
amendments in the urban growth area (UGA). They have had problems in that
area. The last two were appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board.
They are now starting the third rezone and hope to do it so everyone is happy.
They also hope to come back and redo or resolve the two currently being appealed.
Key points of the agreement are that it is divided into two areas. One area is
rezones within the current urban growth area (UGA), which is in section B, and
expansions to the UGA boundary in Section C. They both follow the same process.
Rezones are done annually if within the UGA. An applicant would apply to both the
City and County jointly. There is now an application at the County, who is working
on the application with the City to see if the application can be amended to address
City concerns. A person pays a fee to both jurisdictions, but staff will look into that
further. There is no fee in the City at this time for processing a zoning amendment
outside the city limits. They hope to not charge an applicant double the fee
because that will discourage development in the UGA when they want to encourage
development in those areas. The County Executive said the County is willing to do a
reduced fee for processing UGA zoning amendments if the City is willing to also do
a reduced fee. The process, once the application is submitted, is explained in
Section B. There is a joint pre - application meeting between the City and County
staff, then a neighborhood meeting would be held by the applicant. That is not a
step the County normally does for a zoning amendment. She questioned if it is
necessary for smaller urban growth areas. They had a joint meeting on the one
they are processing now. It could be valuable for the bigger rezones. The third
step is a joint hearing between the City and County planning commissions when
possible, or separately if they can't schedule a joint meeting. They are trying to
limit the number of times the applicant has to come forward to deal with this issue.
The planning commissions would make recommendations. The item would go to
the City Council for recommendation. The item would then go to the County
Council for a final decision. In the event the County Council considers a decision
different than the City recommendation, both bodies would meet to discuss the
issue. If the County's decision still doesn't meet the City's satisfaction, then the
City can still appeal. This would be done annually.
The second item is the urban growth boundary changes, which were divided
into minor and major amendments. Minor amendments would be done every two
years. Minor amendments are less than 10 acres, have zoning that is comparable
to zoning in the adjacent part of the UGA, and utilities are available to areas
adjacent to the site.
Joint Whatcom County Council/ Bellingham City Council Meeting, 6/26/2000, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
A major amendment to UGA boundaries would be done every five years. A
major change is anything that is not a minor change.
The third category is an emergency if both the City Council and County
Council agree that its an emergency. The County has specific criteria that define an
emergency, but they didn't add that detail to the ordinance. If both bodies agree
the issue is an emergency, then it probably is an emergency.
This amendment doesn't require a public hearing, but the councils may want
to have one. The original interlocal agreement, when it was adopted, did not have
a public hearing. If this is adopted as interlocal, then they need to have a public
hearing on the County zoning code. Then, when done, they would run one rezone
through the test case. The public hearing for the test case is July 27. Once
through that process, they will test this out to see how it works. It is a Planning
Commission public hearing. If it works, they will docket an amendment to the
urban fringe plan to clarify. That will be processed as a Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
Patricia Decker, City of Bellingham Planning and Community Development
Director, stated the material is clear. This approach is intended to accomplish what
they wanted to accomplish in the urban fringe process, which is to coordinate
planning and information gathering. Under this proposal, the two staffs will talk
together with the applicant. The applicant will talk with the affected people in the
surrounding area. The applicant will find things in the proposal that can be made
acceptable to the people in the surrounding area. Then, the applicant can make
their case only once in front of both planning commissions. Both commissions
would hear the same thing and would have an opportunity to dialogue. The
commissions can deliberate separately. The City Council has the option for a public
hearing. The theory is that both commissions provide information to the City
Council and to the County Council. The City Council would provide a
recommendation to the County Council. There is a maximum exchange of dialogue.
In the prior case, they don't have a City staff person going to the County Council to
testify about what the City Council may think, without having a hearing. This will
be much better in terms of having full information for the decision to be made. The
last point is if the County Council goes in a different direction than what was
recommended by the City Council.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side A.)
Decker continued to state that a work session would provide a chance for the
councils to talk. The City Council ultimately has the decision of deciding whether
the difference of opinion is significant enough that it warrants an appeal. This
process provides as much opportunity for back - and -forth discussion as possible.
This will do a good job helping them as they move into the five -year review
process, beginning in 2002. They are hoping that the U.S. census data will help
that process.
Joint Whatcom County Council/ Bellingham City Council Meeting, 6/26/2000, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Brenner stated the County Council should have a hearing on this. She noted
a grammatical error on exhibit one, City Council packet page 240, section 6A.
Decker stated they accidentally left out the word 'area.' It is a grammatical error.
Richardson asked for clarification of the intent under section 6B(3) regarding
having the joint City /County planning commission public hearing whenever
possible. She questioned whether there is an allowable timeline to organize the
meetings. Decker stated they haven't worked out those details. Some of the
issues in front of the City Planning Commission have been regulatory reform issues
that are now processed through the Hearing Examiner. They expect to be able to
do joint meetings now. If both commissions at one time can hear an applicant, he
or she will prefer it. The alternative is having two meetings and two presentations,
then records have to be shared.
Watts stated it sounds as if this is an attempt to work through the problem at
both levels. Since he's heard there will be one test case, and because there might
be some differences brought up because of the new Hearing Examiner, there is
every reason to go ahead with this. The Mayor approved the amendment.
Barbara Ryan stated section 6C, the list of changes, is all underlined. Decker
stated previously there was no section B or section C. They are all new. The
previous section B dealt with rezones within the UGA only, and it did not deal with
Comprehensive Plan amendments that may or may not be rezones.
Barbara Ryan questioned the plan for changing the urban growth boundaries
before they included this section. Decker stated the City doesn't change the urban
growth boundary outside of the five -year review. The County will review them
annually. This is an attempt to compromise.
Barbara Ryan stated this is important when dealing with urban growth areas.
She would rather hear from the public. She supported having a hearing.
Brenner stated that whatever they end up doing, she didn't want to see it
cost an applicant more money. She suggested a language change to section 6B(3),
"A joint City /County Planning Commission public hearing whenever pessible." They
can make some kind of an exception if possible, but it should be very narrow. It
will cost the applicant more to do two hearings. Whatever they can do to combine
the hearings, they should do it in a way to not cost the applicant more than it would
cost to deal with one jurisdiction. She supported the Executive's idea. She wanted
to see that they don't double the cost and should instead keep the cost the same.
The City and County could take a loss if it has to.
Dawson concurred.
Bob Ryan stated time is also important. They should keep the process as
streamlined as possible so people can get through the process in short period of
time.
Joint Whatcom County Council/ Bellingham City Council Meeting, 6/26/2000, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
McShane stated he had four items to discuss. The first comment is that it is
too bad to have to do this, but he understood the reason. The second is a
suggestion that they schedule an annual meeting for planning commissions,
whether or not one of these comes up. They have a docket process. The third item
is a question. He has not looked at this in detail to determine if it complies with the
Growth Management Act (GMA). He questioned whether the proposal complies
without doing a population assessment. Decker stated that is a question that came
up at the settlement conference. The representative from the Central Puget Sound
Hearings Board said it will be in the interest of the county to not process them all
the time because the County has to justify them, and it will be in the interest of the
City because it has to look at the small things that make sense. The GMA is
permissive, but it requires justification for adjustments. That is the reason for
major vs. minor rezones. If there are small boundary changes that can be justified
based on new information or changed conditions, then they can be run through the
process to see where it goes. A balancing act will have to be done.
Goodwin stated the GMA allows annual amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan. The County has always done that. It is a matter of whether there is a
changed condition to justify making an amendment. Applicants have successfully
argued for changed conditions to the County.
McShane asked if the test scenario is the one at Dewey Valley. Goodwin
stated that is correct.
Richardson questioned how the City Council could determine when to hold a
public hearing. Decker stated the City Council could decide at the point when it
sees the results of the joint planning commission hearing results. Staff will do an
informational item to the City Council and recommend holding a hearing or not
holding a hearing. The City Council can simply say it will hold a hearing. That is
what it does now. At the moment, there are no rezones that aren't Comprehensive
Plan amendments.
Dawson moved to have a public hearing on this amendment at the County
Council chambers with both City Council and County Council.
Brenner stated the councils need to have separate hearings.
McShane agreed.
Brenner stated that if they hold a hearing together, the one of the two
councils will have to have an extra meeting.
Richardson stated all councilmembers have much to do. Scheduling an
additional meeting is difficult. She suggested exchanging testimony before making
a decision.
Barbara Ryan stated she wanted to have a public hearing.
Joint Whatcom County Council/ Bellingham City Council Meeting, 6/26/2000, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
McShane stated that if there are any amendments or changes now, they can
each meet separately and communicate what the changes would be. He is happy
with it the way it is, however.
Brenner stated she hoped the City Council agrees that the process doesn't
increase the cost. Other than that, she didn't have a problem with the proposal,
but wanted to hear testimony.
Goodwin stated the two issues she's heard are that there should always be a
joint planning commission hearing and that the fees not be more than what they
are now. She questioned whether the councils want to specify the fees in this
ordinance. Also, both councils talked about timeframes. The County has specific
timeframes in the County code. It is a period of six months between the application
and the time the recommendation goes to the County Council. That would not
change much. Those are the three issues that everyone mentioned.
Bjornson stated this moves ahead on the cooperation. She hoped they are
not delaying the cooperation the staff has shown.
Decker stated her assumption is to move ahead cooperatively with the joint
planning commission hearing on Dewey Valley, only because it seems to be
expedient and the applicant is willing to go through that process. They will
continue to do that. They will schedule separate public hearings and provide as
much information as possible to both councils. One council's hearing will precede
the other council's meeting.
Watts stated it is a good idea not to increase fees. Fees will be what fees will
be. There is a fee that is paid because of cost, and a fee due to a delay. They
should make sure the total fee includes the time a person has to wait for a decision.
Now, it is difficult to estimate the time an applicant must wait for a decision. The
time element is equally or more important than cost.
Bob Ryan asked staff to work up a fee schedule not more costly than what
existed in the past. He didn't know how to build the time element into that. He
recommended that they make the process as short as possible.
Richardson stated the process now is more chaotic and costs more.
Bornemann stated this would be a vastly improved process. He didn't see
anything he would object to now. As they go through their separate processes, he
hoped they try to stay as close to this language as possible. The more they deviate
from this language, the harder it will be to come to an agreement. He agreed that
time is money, but if this process can keep them from going through the appeal
process, it is time well spent.
Dawson stated each council would hold its own public hearing.
Joint Whatcom County Council/ Bellingham City Council Meeting, 6/26/2000, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ADJOURN
The joint meeting portion of the agenda ended at 10:15 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on August 8-, 2000.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Joint Whatcom County Council/ Bellingham City Council Meeting, 6/26/2000, Page 13