HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil August 10 1999I WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Regular County Council
3
4 August 10, 1999
5
6 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene
7 Dawson in the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham,
8 Washington.
9
10 Also Present: Absent:
11 Kathy Sutter Tom Brown
12 L. Ward Nelson
13 Connie Hoag
14 Barbara Brenner
15 Robert Imhof
16
17 ANNOUNCEMENTS
18
19 Dawson announced there was discussion during Committee of the Whole, in
20 executive session, regarding a Resolution approving a salary schedule and
21 policies for unrepresented Whatcom County employees for the year 1999
22 (AB98- 418A).
23
24 Dawson also announced there was discussion during Committee of the Whole
25 regarding a Resolution approving Whatcom County's Strategic Plan 2000
26 (AB99 -310) and an agreement with Pacific International Terminal. Those items
27 will be discussed later in the agenda.
28
29 Dawson also announced the Council gave direction to Randy Watts, Whatcom
30 County Prosecutor, regarding items discussed during Committee of the Whole
31 executive session.
32
33 SPECIAL PRESENTATION
34
35 JOHN COOPER, WHATCOM COUNTY VISITOR AND CONVENTION
36 BUREAU, TO UPDATE THE COUNCIL ON THE BUREAU'S WORK
37 PROGRAM (AB99 -284)
38
39 John Cooper, Whatcom County Visitor and Convention Bureau Executive
40 Director, stated $278 million dollars a year are spent in the County by visitors.
41 The County ranks fifth of the 39 counties in Washington in terms of visitor
42 spending. Since 1993, travel spending has increased by 4.7% annually. It is now
43 the fourth largest industry in the State of Washington. In Whatcom County,
44 tourism generates 4,080 jobs, and visitors to Whatcom County generate $20
45 million in local and state taxes. The Bureau is also involved in generating
46 convention business and bringing State and regional events to the County. They
47 are currently undertaking marketing projects to help increase visits to the County.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, 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
In cooperation with the Council of Governments, they've developed a Mt. Baker
marketing initiative. There is also a campaign to generate overnight stays during
the slower travel months. The Bureau has a base of nearly 400 member
businesses. He showed a video that highlighted the sights of Whatcom County.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, RE- APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
FROM THE MAY 20, 1997 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORK SESSION
(283 PAGE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE IN THE COUNCIL
OFFICE FOR REVIEW) AND THE MAY 20, 1997, COUNTY COUNCIL
MEETING.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS: MARCH 25,
1997, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORK SESSION; APRIL 8, 1997,
COUNTY COUNCIL; APRIL 8, 1997, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORK
SESSION; MAY 11, 1999, BOARD OF HEALTH; JUNE 29, 1999
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE; JUNE 29, 1999, COUNTY COUNCIL.
Imhof moved to approve.
Hoag moved to amend page 265, 'Brown moved to accept MRL designation
and to stay on the appropriate side of the pipeline, no closer than whin 125 ft. of
the pipeline."
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend page 267, "...buffer fFenq the pipeline easement."
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Motion to approve as amended carried unanimously.
OPEN SESSION
No one spoke
CONSENT AGENDA
Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through nine.
Motion to approve items 1 - 9 carried unanimously.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, 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
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #99-
83 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, HENIFIN CONSTRUCTION,
TO DEMOLISH THE OLD JAIL BUILDING AT THE NORTHWEST ANNEX,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $78,837.37 (AB99 -300)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #99-
85 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, SAN JUAN ISLAND
SHUTTLE EXPRESS, FOR A FERRY CHARTER SERVICE TO BE USED
DURING THE ANNUAL DRY DOCK OF THE WHATCOM CHIEF, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $24,375 (AB99 -301)
3. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON
SALE OF COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST NO. 99 -1 (AB99 -302)
4. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON
SALE OF COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST NO. 99 -2 (AB99 -303)
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND LINSLEY,
KRAEGER ASSOCIATES, LTD. FOR LOWER NOOKSACK RIVER
UNSTEADY FLOW MODEL DEVELOPMENT - PHASE 2, INCLUDING
COMPLETION OF THE MODEL DEVELOPMENT, CALIBRATION,
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSES FOR THE EVERSON -SUMAS OVERFLOW
CORRIDOR AND DOCUMENTATION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $233,800
WITH WHATCOM COUNTY'S SHARE IN THE AMOUNT OF $83,000
(AB99 -304)
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
FLOOD CONTROL ACCOUNT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (FCAAP) GRANT
AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, AMENDING
CONSULTANT CONTRACT WITH LINSLEY, KRAEGER ASSOCIATED
LTD., TO COMPLETE PHASE 2 OF THE LOWER NOOKSACK RIVER
UNSTEADY FLOW MODEL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, IN THE MAXIMUM
REVENUE AMOUNT OF $150,000 (AB99 -305)
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE
COMMISSION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$26,000 (AB99 -306)
8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, 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
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM COUNTY
CRISIS SERVICES, TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE COMMISSION
AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, IN THE AMOUNT OF 47,100, WITH
FUNDING FROM THE COUNTY AT $23,550 (AB99 -307)
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERAGENCY WORK ORDER FOR COUNTY SERVICES CONTRACT
BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
AND HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION OF DEVELOPMENTAL
DISABILITIES TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES FOR
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES PROGRAM IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN
THE MAXIMUM REVENUE AMOUNT OF $2,842,121 (AB99 -308)
PUBLIC HEARING
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 98 -063, ACME /VANZANDT SUB -
FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT; ORDINANCE 98 -064
LYNDEN /EVERSON SUB -FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT, AND
ORDINANCE 98 -065 SUMAS /NOOKSACK /EVERSON SUB -FLOOD
CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT (AB99 -276)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works, gave a staff report. This ordinance is to make
corrections to the assessment roll. The primary issue was a misinterpretation of
the flood plain boundary. For those outside of the boundaries who were assessed,
they will receive a refund.
Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
hearing.
Imhof moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 98 -080, THE 1999 WHATCOM
COUNTY UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE, TO INCLUDE APPEALS TO THE
HEARING EXAMINER FOR CODE VIOLATION AND OTHER
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (AB99 -279)
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, gave a staff
report. He explained this is to give citizens a lesser fee for administrative appeals.
They want to keep the fee for Code violations at $360. They recommended
approval.
Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
hearing.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, 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
Imhof moved approval.
Sutter asked for explanation on the strike out in Exhibit A. Knapp stated it is
just a name change. They want to call it "Hearing Examiner /Administrative Appeal
- Code Violation." The strike out should have gone all the way across the line.
Hoag moved to amend the ordinance to include "If the appeal is successful
the fee will be refunded."
Dawson stated she was comfortable with that proposed amendment.
Knapp explained that Planning would also support that amendment. It would
only be for administrative decisions.
Nelson stated the fee should be refunded if the Hearing Examiner determines
the County made an error in interpreting the Code.
Imhof asked the administration to bring this back to Council at the next
meeting. It might have some revenue impacts, and needed to be reviewed.
Brenner offered a friendly amendment that they return all fees if the
appellant prevails. If they are worried about the revenue, they should be worried
about it before the County declares something a violation. If someone prevails,
then there wasn't a violation.
Hoag stated she talked with the Planning Director and the Executive to
determine what would be fair for the public and in terms of the price. They came
up with this recommendation. Somewhere, the part about the refund was lost.
Hoag accepted Brenner's friendly amendment.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Amended ordinance carried unanimously.
3. REQUEST FOR A ONE -YEAR EXTENSION OF LONG PLAT APPROVAL
FILED BY BEK PURNELL ENGINEERING FOR RICHALOU ESTATES
(AB99 -282)
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, gave a staff
report and stated this occurred initially in the 1980's. There are financial reasons
for the request. Administration recommended approval, but with conditions. It is a
vested plat in the watershed. With the one -year extension, they are capable of
adding conditions, as specified on page 365 of the Council packet. It is appropriate,
especially in the watershed, to adhere to present standards.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, 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
Brenner questioned whether Knapp was comfortable with the current
conditions. Knapp state the Code, Title 21, outlines what they can and can't do
relative to that. They have conditioned the approval based on current Code
standards.
Sutter questioned whether the amendment on packet page 361 was
approved. Knapp stated it was approved.
Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Tom Bennett, BEK Engineering, questioned whether the long plat was subject
to the Critical Areas Ordinance. Knapp stated the original long plat was not subject
to the Critical Areas Ordinance. However, they are asking for an extension. With
that request, the County is capable of requiring compliance with current
regulations.
Bennett stated the letter on packet page 365, from Marilyn Bentley to the
County's Hearing Examiner, makes no mention of applying the Critical Areas
Ordinance to the current plat. It is inconsistent with the opinion being expressed
by Michael Knapp. Knapp stated he, as Planning and Development Services
Director, has the option to make recommendations. Those are his
recommendations. The County's Critical Areas Specialist had made the
recommendation that it either be denied or follow current regulations. The
watershed is important to protect.
Bennett explained this would require significant design changes. This would
be a dramatic change in this project, and had this project been brought forward
today it would have been presented differently. However, this project has been in
the works for the last 15 years. They delay hadn't been because they've put it off.
One issue was that they have been unable to get a developer's agreement from the
water district, despite five years worth of attempts to do so. They will be getting a
conditional approval of the developer's agreement, as long as adjacent property
owners consent to the agreement. The issue all along has been trying to get others
to join in on the project. They finally have two developers that want to move
ahead, and it is now financially feasible to do so. They would have to start all over
again with the design.
Dawson questioned whether there was another issue, besides the water
agreement, that was beyond their control. Bennett stated an original property
owner went through several foreclosure hearings during the five -year period.
During the fall of 1998, the issue was resolved and the current owner became
involved. In addition, the project requires the developers build an entire water
system.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, 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
Sutter asked the date of the preliminary plat approval. Bennett stated it was
September 26, 1994.
Nelson questioned the mailings that went out the neighborhood regarding
water wells. Bennett stated they sent out the mailings. As part of the developer's
agreement with the district, they've undertaken a wellhead protection plan for the
well that is to be used by the North Shore water users group. It is a 10 -inch well
with a high yield aquifer that will serve this area and a much larger area in the
North Shore. Ultimately, the plan is to serve up to 700 service connections off the
well. Associated with that, the State requires a completed wellhead protection
plan, which identifies land uses and property owners and potential contamination
sources. The mailing asked what the property owners do on their property. It was
a requirement of the State process.
Hoag stated she wanted clarification on page 361 and 362 regarding
compliance with any Whatcom County rules and regulations as a condition of
extension.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Hoag questioned whether the County is required to have them meet the
current laws if they were to be granted the extension.
Sutter stated the plat extension provisions shall apply retroactively to any
preliminary plats approved on or after August 1, 1989. It would be required to
comply with the Critical Areas Ordinance.
Pat Jones, 153 Soundview Road, Bellingham, spoke as a citizen. The
ordinance changing the approval process was brought forward to the Council by
him on behalf of the owners of Northern Heights. After that date, extensions
would be required to comply with the current development standards. He
supported the recommendations of the Planning Director, not only because it is in
the watershed, but also because it is extremely unfair to have a subdivision working
on 15 -year old development standards compete with other developers who must
work on current development standards. As a matter of economic parity in the
marketplace, the staff recommendation is appropriate.
Sutter stated the same ordinance says the request for application for
extension has to be filed three years after the date of the preliminary plat approval.
Knapp stated that part had been amended.
Bennett stated he was not made aware Mr. Knapp changed the position of
the County. They weren't prepared to address this issue. He wished for
consistency between the opinions.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, 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
Marion Beddill, 3600 Seeley St., Bellingham, spoke against the request for
extension, based on the protection of the Lake Whatcom watershed and the water
quality. She strongly supported the staff recommendations, if the extension were
to be approved.
Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
Nelson moved approval with recommendations from staff, including
compliance with the Critical Areas Ordinance, recommendations of the Technical
Advisory Committee, and all other regulations. He understood the concern about
development in the watershed. This is land that is in the watershed and is zoned
for development. He would rather be able to condition the long -plat, which reduces
the amount of impacts to critical areas and help with infrastructure, than to open
the land up for single family residential development.
Dawson stated she was sympathetic with the owner. She'd seen these
situations before. She agreed that the law is the law.
Brenner stated they've been through this type of problem for many years.
She is sympathetic when something happens and someone doesn't get what they
had the right to have. People deserve predictability. This doesn't fall into that.
Someone is here asking for an extension. The County had a contractual
agreement, but privately they couldn't meet the deadline. In this case, she didn't
hold the County at fault. She was glad to see the County doing this. While she felt
sympathetic, they changed the standards because they know more about how to
protect the watershed. Because it is a request for an extension, the County did not
have to grant the extension. They have to go by the letter of the law.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated they need to see how
the law reads currently. It may be possible the first year extension may not require
the same compliance with current regulations as subsequent extensions do
afterwards. She was unsure the Council had the authority to condition the
extension. She requested the current version of Title 21.
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, suggested Council continue to the
next public hearing while she finds the ordinance, which the Council passed
regarding the issue of time extensions.
Dawson agreed.
4. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
TITLE 20 ZONING TO ADD CHAPTER 20.71, WATER RESOURCES
PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONE AND AMEND OTHER SECTIONS
PERTAINING TO LAND CLEARING AND STORMWATER REGULATIONS
(AB99 -286)
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, 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
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager gave a staff report and stated the
main section is to create a new water resources protection overlay zone, which
would apply to the entire Lake Whatcom watershed outside of the Bellingham City
limits. There are also accompanying changes to the stormwater regulations and
land clearing regulations in Title 20. The Planning Commission held a public
hearing, which received a considerable amount of public testimony. The Planning
and Development Committee recommended additional changes. She addressed
Exhibit 2 to the ordinance, beginning on Council packet page 398. The double -
underlined areas are areas of additional wording changes recommended by the
Planning and Development Committee. The entire first section, Title 20.20.071, is
a new overlay zone. She reviewed the major points of the ordinance. She
suggested an amendment to section 20.71.021(1), "...Lake Whatcom watershed
outside of the Bellingham City limits." It is a scrivener's change needed for
clarity.
The Planning and Development Committee recommended additional language
to section 20.71.021(2) and (3) that the district be expanded to other areas,
through the annual zoning amendment process. They added clarification that it is
also a special district under stormwater, to avoid confusion. Currently in the Code,
there are special districts and special management areas. It gets very confusing
with a lot of overlays and districts in the Code. This is the intent to clarify and
cross - reference.
Hoag pointed out that there are sections missing from the draft ordinance in
the Council packet. Goodwin stated they should then continue the public hearing
and get a better draft. This is the draft sent forward from Planning and
Development Committee. If there are items missing, then it should be continued.
The Council concurred to hold their decision to the next meeting.
Nelson asked that the public be able to have access to the sections of the
ordinance that are not included.
Imhof stated they need to continue the hearing at the next meeting. The
Council concurred.
Sutter stated they could go ahead and take testimony from the public that
are present. The Council concurred.
Goodwin continued with the staff report and stated the permitted uses are in
the sections that are missing. The conditional uses that were changed include:
• Golf courses and cemeteries. They were recommended by the Planning
Commission to be conditional uses. The Planning and Development
Committee recommended they be prohibited.
• Commercial plant nurseries and greenhouses. The Planning Commission
recommended they be prohibited. The Planning and Development
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, 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
Committee recommended they be allowed conditionally, provided no
chemical pesticides or herbicides are used, no organic or inorganic
fertilizer is used, and limited the size to 8,000 square feet and a distance
of 250 feet from the Lake or 200 feet from fish - bearing streams.
The prohibited uses that were included are:
• Wholesale plant nurseries. Commercial plant nurseries are not prohibited.
• Golf courses, cemeteries, and cottage industries that would require on-
site hazardous waste facilities.
In section 20.71.300, "impervious surfaces" was added and it was split into
two different sections. The way it was written was confusing to combine the
concepts of Open Space (free of buildings) and impervious surfaces (free of
pavement). Section .301 deals with Open Space and deals with the two
commercial zones. In those areas, the open space has to be maintained in natural
vegetation or landscaped. The new section, .302, is added and deals with
impervious surfaces. That was previously in the draft recommended by the
Planning Commission, but is now modified slightly, as recommended by the
Planning and Development Committee. The main change is the addition of an
increase to 60% of impervious surfaces for lots larger than 10,000 square feet.
The next section addresses the pervious areas. Other wording changes
clarified the intent of the ordinance. The Planning Commission recommendation for
section 20.71.603 regarding alternative surfacing methods was that they be
encouraged. The Planning and Development Committee made them required. The
County Public Works Department was concerned about private roads and fire lanes
requiring gravel. After this discussion, she recommended they retain the word
"encourage" and not require the use.
Hoag stated the Planning and Development Committee attempted to
separate the items to be required from the items to be encouraged. They could
simply move the private roads and fire lanes to the items that are to be
encouraged.
Goodwin stated the changes made to sections 20.80.632 and 20.80.635(6)
regarding erosion and sedimentation controls give an extra layer of review and
regulation for the watershed. In the rest of the County, individual detached single
family residences, duplexes, and anything less than 5,000 square feet of
impervious surface is not reviewed or required to obtain a permit. Now, by adding
the language underlined in that section, single - family houses in the watershed do
need to be reviewed.
The last change the Planning and Development Committee recommended
was in the section regarding Water Resource Special Management Area
Requirements, for clarification. In this section, the Planning Commission
recommended that anything 5,000 square feet or greater, and not associated with
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, 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
a building permit, be required to get County review and approval. The Planning
and Development Committee changed that to 2,000 square feet in areas that
exceed 10% slope and are within 100 feet of the lake, 20% slope and are within
200 feet of the lake, or 30% slope and are within 300 feet of the lake. Determining
the distance from the lake and the slope of each lot will make it very cumbersome
to administer. She recommended that they choose either 5,000 square feet or
2,000 square feet for everything. All they are doing is deciding whether the County
is going to require a permit. It is not setting an additional standard.
The remaining changes add control on clearing activity in the watershed and
add definitions at the end.
Hoag asked about Committee changes that were not included.
• On page 404, section 20.80.633, the Committee recommended to add
language after the second sentence, "...neighboring property, and water
quality." Goodwin stated they would add this to the ordinance.
• On page 401, section 20.71.402, the Committee did not want this to
apply to decks. Staff was to come up with appropriate language. They
were concerned about the impervious roof surface and overhanging
features, and didn't want to project that more than 18 inches back.
• On page 405, section 20.80.635(2), the Committee noted that the
stormwater committee would look at this. Goodwin stated that would be
later. The stormwater committee is working on Lake Whatcom
regulations now, and they are not done yet. This section on stormwater
is being actively worked on. There is a consultant. Rather than make a
lot of modifications on stormwater now, the Planning Commission decision
and staff recommendation was to wait and deal with this when the
committee and consultant are done with their work.
Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Pat Jones, 153 Soundview Road, Bellingham, spoke for the Building Industry
Association (BIA), as a member of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and as
a professional engineer. He separated his remarks. First, the BIA commends the
Council for moving this forward. This ordinance does not go nearly far enough in
protecting the watershed, particularly with respect to exemptions. They are
exempting about 80% of the problem. He referred to the existing single - family
homes in the watershed. The problem there today is a result of those already in
the watershed. Those already in the watershed need to live up to the same
requirements as everyone else. The technology is available, and should not exempt
80% of the problem. BIA is concerned that it doesn't go far enough and deal
effectively with exemptions.
As a member of the TAC, this proposal has not had the benefit of review by
the TAC, particularly on items such as clearing, grading, and surface water
management. In review of this proposed ordinance, he concluded that the
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 11
I watershed will have a surface water management policy which is inferior to that of
2 the rest of the County. It isn't even up to snuff with chapter two of the
3 development standards. His recommendation was that it goes before the TAC for
4 review and recommendations before coming back before the Council.
5
6 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
7
8 Jones continued to state that issues such as safety, technical feasibility, and
9 County liability have not had technical analysis. Those things should be done
10 before they pass the ordinance. On page 4 of the ordinance, under #4 of the
11 Clearing Code Revisions section, it discusses phosphorus. Phosphorus encourages
12 the growth of lower life forms, such as algae. Item #7 should say "may" instead of
13 "can." On page 6, section 20.71.021(2), the language should be "...other
14 watershed areas...." They ought to include Lake Padden and Lake Samish, Drayton
15 Harbor, and others. In section 20.71.021(4), the language "most restrictive" is a
16 qualitative statement in the eyes of the beholder. Regarding the restriction of golf
17 courses, they can be a benign use if properly restricted. In areas where they
18 encourage low density and cluster development, one of the best incentives is
19 including a golf course.
20
21 Brenner questioned whether there is such a thing as a chemical and
22 pesticide -free golf course. Jones replied there could be. There isn't any supporting
23 science for the amounts of impervious surfaces. Conceptually, he agreed. The
24 numbers aren't necessarily based on technical information.
25
26 Dawson suggested forwarding this to the TAC.
27
28 Jones referred to page 18, section 20.80.730(13)(C)(4), regarding violation
29 fines. A 150% fine is not enough. It should be three times the damages.
30
31 Anthony Raab, 2834 North Shore Road, Bellingham, suggested changes. In
32 section 20.71.153, they should allow mutual agreements between neighbors, if the
33 intent is to minimize the impacts to neighbors. He suggested, "No building shall be
34 located without express written agreement from the neighboring land owner. The
35 conditioned uses in section 20.71.154 regarding retail plant nurseries and
36 greenhouses make it difficult for those uses to exist. If they are not trying to
37 prohibit retail plant nurseries altogether, he recommended conditions 1 and 2 be
38 removed. Prohibiting wholesale commercial plant propagation operations is
39 shortsighted. There will be more traffic and pollution with a retail operation than a
40 wholesale operation. The wholesale plant nurseries should become a conditional
41 use. Because of section 20.71.205, private fishponds are going to become illegal.
42
43 Sutter stated the definition of aquaculture is a commercial use. Raab
44 suggested they add language to that section, "...and private, non commercial fish
45 ponds approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife."
46
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 12
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
Hoag clarified retail and wholesale plant nurseries had initially all been
prohibited in the version that came from the Planning Commission. The Planning
and Development Committee said someone who wants to sell plants can do that
and will not hurt the watershed. That is why it has the different restrictions. They
didn't want to worry about runoff from herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. That
is why it has a list of restrictions. They just want to allow the sale of plants, and
that's it.
Dan Warner, 3854 Squalicum Lake Road, Bellingham, thanked the Council
and Committee for all the work they've done on this. There is a resource that
needs to be protected, and the theory ought to be that they tread lightly in the
watershed. One of his concerns while on the Council was with powerboats on the
lake.
Richard Gilda, Jensen Road, Bellingham, agreed with Raab's comments
regarding plant nurseries. In addition, anyone trying to sell six or more puppies
would be classified as a commercial kennel. Commercial aquaculture should be
specified. Also, he didn't know of any cottage industry that does not produce or
use a hazardous waste.
Hoag clarified that they were prohibiting a hazardous waste storage facility.
There is a definition of a hazardous waste storage facility.
Gilda stated that parking is limited and needs to be clarified. Covering land
clearing in 2 -5 days is not enough time.
Nelson asked about sending it to the Technical Advisory Committee.
Goodwin stated it had already been to the TAC. It could go to them again. All of
the changes that affected the Development Regulations have been to the TAC.
Jones wasn't on the committee at that time. She recommended, if the Council
sends it back to the TAC, they be given a tight timeline.
Gilda reiterated aquaculture and confinement feeding need another look.
Kennels and stables also need another look.
Terry Unger, citizen, stated his concern about prohibiting golf courses and
cemeteries. Also, the existing houses and their impact by using fertilizers is
significant. An average sack of fertilizer has 21% nitrogen, 7% phosphorus, and
14% potassium. The average 10,000 square foot parcel puts on 100 pounds of
fertilizer. It goes right into the lake. The Council is not even looking at that. They
are just looking at new development. The people doing it right now are not even
being addressed. On page 9 of the ordinance, regarding impervious surfaces, he
questioned lots that are currently of record. He agreed with Goodwin's
recommendation to specify one standard in the section regarding land clearing. It
should be either 5,000 square feet or 2,000 square feet, not a percentage
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 13
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
dependent upon slope and distance from the lake. As an engineer, that would be
too difficult.
Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
Dawson stated she would like the issue of retrofitting addressed.
Hoag stated she would also like to address the application of fertilizer by
existing homes.
Brenner stated the issue was brought up, but staff determined it would be
impossible to regulate and enforce. Goodwin stated she sent a sample ordinance to
the Council that was drafted by the Toxics Coalition. She asked for further direction
and whether the Council wanted staff to draft a similar ordinance.
Imhof questioned whether that would be appropriate under Title 20.
Goodwin stated it was a Health Department issue.
Sutter stated she would like to have a Council of the Whole workshop.
Dawson requested written comments from Pat Jones, specifically language
that deals with retrofitting.
Council scheduled a workshop on September 14th from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00
p.m. The public could provide written comments.
The Council suggested the definition of aquaculture be included in the
pertinent section.
Imhof moved that this go into the Committee of the Whole and the public
hearing be continued.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated the reason the cemeteries and golf courses were excluded was
because they use a high amount of nutrients. This is a drinking water lake they are
trying to protect. The issue with making them a conditional use is enforcement and
monitoring.
3. REQUEST FOR A ONE -YEAR EXTENSION OF LONG PLAT APPROVAL
FILED BY BEK PURNELL ENGINEERING FOR RICHALOU ESTATES
(AB99 -282)
(Continued from above.)
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 14
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
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that the
ordinance had not been codified. It does refer to a 5 -year process instead of a 3-
year process. The County shall grant an extension, provided they agree that the
proponent has proceeded in good faith. They were granted the approval in 1994
for five years.
Brenner questioned whether the Council can require them to meet current
standards.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated they can require
conditions after the first extension. For the first extension, they can't condition the
approval to current standards.
Knapp stated the applicant plans to follow many of the current drainage
standards. The Council cannot require it in the first year extension, however.
Imhof moved approval of the request.
Hoag stated the threshold is that they must show they have attempted in
good faith to complete the requirements necessary for submittal of the plat within
the five years of the date of the plat approval. She questioned whether Knapp felt
they have shown good faith attempts. Knapp stated that, because of the multitude
of financial problems, they would be qualified to have made a good faith effort.
Hoag questioned whether going through several foreclosures is a personal
problem or a good faith attempt to complete the requirement. Knapp stated that
was the Council's decision.
Dawson stated it is difficult to progress forward when they are trying to get
the basic services and can't get them.
Knapp stated he believed they would qualify as having made a good faith
attempt. Interests rates can change. There are many things that can happen to a
development that is going through the process that may hurt it and extend its
timeframe. There should be a requirement for meeting the current laws on the
books, even for a first time extension.
Motion carried 4 -2 with Brenner and Hoag opposed.
S. ORDINANCE TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OF A NON - EXCLUSIVE
FRANCHISE FROM CABLE PLUS COMPANY, L.P. TO NEWCO, L.L.C. AND
FURTHER TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP FROM NEWCO, L.L.C. TO
MILLENNIUM DIGITAL MEDIA SYSTEMS, L.L.C. (AB99 -278)
Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 15
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
Nancy Irvin, Summit Communications Cable Operations Vice - President,
stated she was available for any questions and was requesting the transfer.
Summit Communications is the Northwest office of Millennium Digital Media.
Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
Nelson moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE (EMERGENCY) AMENDING THE 1999 BUDGET, REQUEST
NO. 6 (AB99 -309)
Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services and stated the
committee recommended approval of funding for the jail renovation costs and for
one additional correction officer.
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, explained a finding from the law and
justice (handout on file) shows the County jail is crowded, despite efforts to lower
jail use. The jail has shown utilization rates as high as 151% of double- bunked
capacity, between 1988 and 1997. The average daily population has increased by
78 %. The jail is understaffed and not being operated according to the philosophy
that governed its design and construction, which will result in a shortened lifespan
for the facility. Crowding has occurred. The ratio of jail beds to staff is 4.5. In
similar size jails in the State, the ratio is from between 2 and 3.4. Nationally, the
number of inmates per jail corrections officer in 1993 was 3.9. In the west, the
number of inmates per correctional officer is 5.3. The ratio of jail inmate to any jail
employee is 2.8 in the United States and 3.4 in the western U.S. Bookings into the
jail have come down since 1993 because the jail population consists of 70% to 75%
pre -trial felons. Those people stay in jail longer, rather than cycling through the
system. He also explained it takes 4.9 officers to staff a shift.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Wareing explained the current projection was for an increase in the revenue
from the City of Bellingham in the amount of $110,000. That could be moderated
by the City to reduce that by the type of inmate that is being held in the jail. As
the jail continues to house pre -trial felony offenders, those costs are borne entirely
by the County. If cities, such as Ferndale, worked to reduce the number of people
who go to the County jail, then there would potentially be a reduction of
admissions. If there were more jail beds, they would put more people in them.
There are plenty of warrants and arrests that are being turned away. Based on
revenue projections for the jail this year, which were projected at $836,919, there
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 16
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
is a projected increase so far of approximately $60,000. If they add the $130,000
from the border impact, the revenue stream potential is projected at $188,520,
which would fund four positions for the remainder of this year or a funding stream
for the year 2000. This year, if they reduce the number of positions to four, then
the cost would be reduced to $19,000 per position, plus the $66,000 for the
physical upgrades to the jail facility.
Imhof explained the drastic impact on the criminal justice funding due to
Initiative 695. The impact would be $850,000 to $1 million less than what the
County has this year. A like amount would be reduced from the Health
Department. There will also be impacts on the cities. If they funded the positions
for the remainder of 1999, they would only be four month positions. The Council is
in the midst of the budget. It was his motion to add one additional officer and allow
the upgrades to the facility. He did not hear anything to change his mind. It is
irresponsible, with the public vote on I -695 coming up, to add any additional people
on for the remainder of the year, at least until they find out what happens
November 2.
Hoag asked for clarification of the reference on page 16 of the report
regarding number of inmates and jail beds per officer. Waring stated they are
saying there are fewer officers per beds in the jail. The County is dealing with 243
beds that are filled in this jail. On an average, the daily population is 220 - 225
inmates, and a correction staff of approximately 30 that actually provide services to
those inmates.
Hoag stated the comparison nationally is regarding the number of inmates,
but the local survey includes empty beds. Wareing stated there are three capacity
levels: design, operational, and physical. The maximum operational capacity for
staffing the jail is 180 inmates.
Sutter stated the significant statistic is the number of inmates.
Nelson explained the staff to inmate ratio depends upon the design layout of
the facility. The County has three floors that all require individual monitoring. He
read from the study resulting from the fire drill, which indicated that the staffing
level, at it's best, has significant issues. They need to look at whether the County
is adequately able to deal with a crisis or emergency, which leaves the County
liable.
Sutter stated she shared Imhof's concerns regarding the revenue decreases.
However, their first responsibility is to the public safety and health. Criminal justice
is a mandated service they must provide. If they provide for it now, and State law
cuts the revenue significantly, they will have to look more carefully at the spending
priorities. Non - essential or non - mandated services will perhaps need to be
reduced.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 17
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
Hoag recommended additional staffing last year because she was concerned
about the amount of overtime being generated in the jail. It was not approved by
the Council or supported by administration. It is important to have the necessary
staffing to have an appropriate evacuation. She needed to look at proper staffing
plans, supported having one additional officer at this time, and requested to look at
further plans during the budget process.
Brenner supported the one extra staff member. She requested to see the
diagram of the program and look at staffing during the budget process.
Nelson stated last year he did not want to move forward until they'd had the
information from the criminal justice task force to see how everything ties together.
They now have a portion of that study that finds the jail is understaffed. Regarding
the staffing level, a 24 -hour shift would require 4.2 officers to staff for one year,
not including any time off allowed. He moved to amend the motion to add two
additional officers, for a total of three.
Hoag stated the overtime that is generated in the jail does warrant an
additional officer. The debriefing points don't say they need seven officers. The
report only says there should be sufficient staff on -shift to allow for an orderly
evacuation of the jail, while maintaining inmates in a safe and control manner. It
doesn't say there should be additional staffing. They have not determined what
additional staffing is needed. She wanted to see a plan for orderly evacuation of
the jail. She would not support the amendment.
Brenner stated she would not support the amendment until they receive the
full recommendation from the Task Force.
Imhof agreed with Brenner.
Nelson stated he shared everyone's concerns regarding the budget process
and I -695. However, if this had been an actual emergency instead of a drill, and
someone could not be evacuated and died, then the County would be spending far
more than what they are spending now.
Wareing stated the administration had provided the information and the
different options. The County assumes, through the Council's actions, an
assumption of risk.
Motion to approve three officers and the capital improvements failed 2 -4 with
Nelson and Sutter in favor.
Hoag questioned whether the County is taking action on all of the
recommendations proposed in the debriefing points. Wareing stated they are.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 18
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
Hoag stated the Council supports sufficient staffing to allow for an orderly
evacuation, and nothing short of that. However, that hasn't yet been determined.
Dawson restated the motion to amend to approve one officer along with
facilities improvements, not to exceed $91,000.
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion to approve the request as amended carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: Council took a five - minute break.)
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
TITLE 20, ZONING TEXT (AB99 -184)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Services and stated they are
still working on this in Committee.
3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN FRINGE
SUBAREA PLAN REGARDING THE GATEWAY INDUSTRIAL AREAS OF
MAP 6 AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE
CHAPTER 20.65, GATEWAY INDUSTRIAL ZONING (AB99 -268)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Services and recommended
approval with amendments. The amendments come forward on a 2 -1 vote for
approval. The committee brought forward the following amendments:
Page 104: The language would read: "In order to foster the economic
vitality of the area, commercial uses are also allowed where the transportation
system makes them appropriate;..." The proposed amendments from Planning
Commission and Planning staff were to add clarity to some areas that were not
clear or were too subject to interpretation. This gives more specificity to where
those uses can be located.
Hoag stated the change is one of intent, not clarity. The Urban Fringe plan
called for industrial uses to be preferred, unless the transportation system clearly
made commercial uses more appropriate. There are letters from Patricia Decker,
City of Bellingham Planning Director, Bellingham City Council, and the
neighborhood association. They all say that the 1/4 mile area is too broad. She
read from the City's letter regarding budgeting for upgrades, congestion in the
area, the zone's location to the interchange, and adjacent zoning. The City's
opinion was that additional commercial development was not appropriate for the
transportation system. Decker's opinion was that the area would develop into
hotels and gas stations.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 19
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
Sutter stated specifying within 1/4 mile of the freeway interchange specifies
where the development is appropriate.
Hoag stated the original plan for the area said, "at the interchange."
Sutter stated that was not specific.
Hoag stated the language agreed on by the stakeholders during the process,
including the neighborhood association, developer, City of Bellingham, and
Whatcom County, was "where the transportation system makes it more
appropriate, commercial uses would be allowed." That's it. That was the language
agreed to through all the years of public process. She questioned how they could
ignore all that testimony.
Nelson stated he appreciated the concerns of the neighborhood.
Transportation concerns are an important issue, but they have to definitively decide
where this is appropriate, otherwise transportation concerns will not be addressed.
Brenner stated this is no longer a Gateway Industrial zoning. There is
nothing in there that insures they will have any light industrial development. It
could become nothing but commercial. There were safeguards that have been
removed. It will not accomplish what the title of the zoning claims is the intent.
Sutter restated the motion: "In order to foster the economic vitality of the
area, commercial uses are also allowed where the transportation system makes
them appropriate;..." The motion is to keep the original language and not make the
proposed change in the packet.
Hoag stated the change in the packet is actually one of intent.
Motion failed 2 -4 with Hoag and Brenner in favor.
Page 104: The language would read "...; however, the design standards and
buffering requirements included in the Gateway Industrial zoning text are intended
to discourage commercial uses..."
(Clerk's Note: The motion was to not make the language change suggested
in the packet.)
Hoag stated the language in the subarea plan is the language that all of the
parties agreed on. They are now going back and changing it, and it clearly changes
the intent. If they are changing it from "discouraging" to "limiting," then it is a
clear change in intent.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 20
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
Brenner stated this does not discourage or even limit commercial uses. It is
allowing a certain kind of commercial use, to any extent. The word "limit" is
deceiving.
Sutter included the second portion of the sentence and restated the entire
language of her motion. "...; however, the design standards and buffering
requirements included in the Gateway Industrial zoning text are intended to
discourage commercial uses except where they are clearly more appropriate than
light industrial park uses."
Hoag stated this was the language that was originally in the plan. In the
letter from the City, they specified there was a citywide petition asking that the
area be developed as its name implies - industrial. Everything the Council is doing
flies in the face of what everyone wants.
Sutter called for the question.
Motion failed 2 -4 with Brenner and Hoag in favor.
Page 107: Title 20.67.550. Sutter stated Council Member Hoag was to
bring forward language for that section.
Hoag moved to add "for commercial or industrial projects less than 5,000
square feet, a 25 -foot full- screening vegetative buffer is required to adjoin
residential development." The current language doesn't address projects of less
than 5,000 square feet. They don't need a 100 foot buffer, but they need more
than just a setback.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side 8)
Sutter questioned whether the design standards require landscaping for
commercial and residential, or industrial and residential, of less than 5,000 square
feet. Goodwin stated they require a buffer between incompatible uses. Between
commercial and residential a solid screen 25 -foot landscape buffer is already
required.
Hoag stated the language only requires that buffer if there is a demonstrable
conflict in use. On each project, they would have to prove that the use adjacent
was demonstrably in conflict. They want to be able to protect the residential
neighborhood from commercial or industrial uses. She didn't want it subject to
demonstration of a conflict in use. Goodwin stated it wouldn't have to be
something the resident would have to prove. A residence next to a commercial use
is incompatible.
Sutter stated the language requires buffers when the use is adjacent to
residential or rural zone or another use of substantially different character and can
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 21
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
be a demonstrated conflict in use. It is still required when adjacent to residential or
rural zoning.
Goodwin stated section 20.80 of the Code applies to all zones. It doesn't
have to be written again in this zone.
Brenner stated a setback is not a buffer. It should say buffer.
Hoag questioned whether Goodwin's interpretation of 20.80.345 call for a
fully screened buffer in a 25 -foot requirement. Goodwin stated it does. The
regulation says that 25 -foot buffer planning shall, at a minimum, consist of two off-
set rows of predominantly conifer trees in an average spacing of 15 feet
triangulated on center, or an equivalent effect. That is the definition of a buffer. If
a buffer is required, and that's the definition, then it would be 25 feet of conifers or
an equivalent.
Hoag asked if that satisfied the fully screened requirement.
Sutter stated the language requires deciduous to be included, and shrubs can
be included. She read from the definition.
Hoag withdrew her amendment.
Goodwin stated she had the answer to another question that was brought up
during committee. The 75 feet was adopted on packet page 106 at the bottom.
The change from 45 to 75 feet was adopted at the last Council meeting. That 45
feet should be underlined, and the 75 feet should not. They want to add back the
45 feet, and strike the 75 feet.
Council concurred it was a scrivener's correction.
Brenner moved to amend page 107, section 20.65.550. She wanted to see
the wording "setbacks" changed to "buffers."
Sutter stated they don't have a 25 -foot setback. It'll have a setback of less
than 25 feet, and a 25 -foot buffer.
Brenner stated the buffer will be increased to 25 feet, and the setback will be
increased beyond that, unless it's a parking lot.
Sutter questioned the current setbacks. Goodwin stated it is currently either
five or ten feet.
Sutter stated they could have a five foot setback and a 25 -foot buffer.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 22
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
Brenner amended her amendment, "buffers shall be increased to 25 feet, and
setbacks will be increased beyond that."
Hoag made a friendly amendment, "setback shall be increased to at least 25
feet and shall include a 25 foot buffer."
Brenner accepted Hoag's friendly amendment.
Motion failed 2 -4 with Brenner and Hoag in favor.
Motion for ordinance carried 4 -2 with Hoag and Brenner opposed.
ADDENDUM:
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON
APPLICATIONS FOR LAND USE PERMITS FOR WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES (AB99 -317)
Sutter stated that the Planning and Development Committee proposed one of
two ordinances.
Sutter stated she was not in favor of the ordinance as it stands. They need
to amend it. She moved to amend page two of the ordinance, section 1, "A. A
moratorium is imposed on filing and processing of applications for land use permits
for wireless communications facilities in residential zoning and within 1,000 feet of
a residence in all other zoning, unless the applications were completed..." This is a
60 day emergency ordinance imposing a moratorium.
Dawson said the argument was they need a more comprehensive view,
instead of looking strictly at residential.
Sutter stated there are not siting criteria.
Imhof stated he found it hard to make it an emergency.
Brenner stated she supported the amended version, with a finding that it
does protect the public peace to be able to develop the criteria before these things
are sited, because of the obvious potential for problems and for the emotional well-
being to the community. This will create more offense to the public than an adult
bookstore, in the long run.
Hoag stated she would support either version, but preferred the first version.
She proposed findings to support the emergency. The Charter allows for
emergencies to preserve public health, peace, or safety, or to support the
government and its existing institutions. The findings she offered were:
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 23
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
• Cell towers have obtrusive features, which can negatively impact
neighbors if not properly sited or conditioned.
• There currently exists a lack of siting criteria for a conditional use permit.
• There is a question of possible health effects that needs to be addressed.
• Because other jurisdictions have siting criteria regarding cell towers,
Whatcom County has been inundated with a tremendous number of
applications.
Hoag moved an approval of the original ordinance, with her additional
findings.
Motion failed 3 -3 with Sutter, Nelson, and Imhof opposed.
Sutter restated her motion to adopt the original ordinance with her
amendment "A. A moratorium is imposed on filing and processing of applications for
land use permits for wireless communications facilities in residential zoning and
within 1,000 feet of a residence in all other zoning, unless the applications were
completed..."
Imhof stated this waters down the intent of an emergency. Lack of siting
regulations do not constitute an emergency. The fact that other counties have the
criteria also does not create an emergency. He had a hard time supporting either
option.
Brenner stated the emergency is the run on the County of these towers
coming in because there are no criteria. Other counties have been smart enough to
develop criteria.
Hoag stated they are not ruling out cell towers, they are just taking a 60 -day
time out to find out which recommendations staff would bring forward to properly
site the towers.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that she did not know if
there was evidence of possible health risks. That is the one thing the Council
mentioned that, if true, would qualify it as an emergency. The reference in the
County charter about supporting governments existing institutions is more about
needing money. They didn't expand on the public peace issue. That needed to be
done to justify the emergency.
Nelson stated he would support it in regards to public health. He had not
seen any evidence to indicate there is a public health danger, perceived or
otherwise. His concern regarding public peace would be that there are a significant
amount being located in residential areas. Like electrical towers, everyone needs
the technology. However, they do impact property owners. It is significant, with
these many being located quickly, to provide an opportunity to protect surrounding
property owners. The visual impact has significant impact on property owners.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 24
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
That is how they are addressing the public peace. They want to assure the public
they are protecting the right to put up a tower and also protecting the property
owners adjacent to the tower.
Sutter questioned the number of applications that have come into the County
that have been in residential areas.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated he did
not have that information at hand. There are several in rural areas. There aren't
as many in a neighborhood. They need time to put the regulations together before
many more applications are submitted.
Hoag proposed an additional finding:
• Whatcom County does not have any standards to address problems
created by earthquakes, and the potential problem due to the height of
the towers.
Motion to adopt with amended language carried 5 -1 with Imhof opposed.
Sutter stated Planning Committee held a Discussion of letter regarding
conversion of fee lands to federal trust as it concerns amendments to the
"'Lands Into Trust" regulations (AB99 -298) and recommended a substitute
letter be approved. It has been streamlined from the yellow- marked copy, and two
other points have been added. The remaining is the same as the one in the packet.
Hoag moved approval of the substitute.
Brenner stated that did not come out of committee. Committee
recommended the language, "The position of members of this Council is that no
public good is being satisfied by conversion of fee lands to federal trust.
disruptive te leeal, nen Indian gever-nments and theusands ef citizens because it
. Putting land in
trust will eliminate local government control. It will cause inconsistencies in uses,
which can be extremely harmful to public health and safety. It will reduce public
confidence and orderly planning and development. If it is to continue, the following
criteria should be addressed: "
Hoag stated the committee did recommend adopting Brenner's changed
language in the first paragraph. In committee, Council Member Brenner said she
approved of the shortened version, provided they added these two points. The only
objection she heard was to the yellow items brought forward by Dawson.
Brenner moved to delete number 1.
Motion failed 1 -5 with Brenner in favor.
Brenner moved to reinsert her language into the introduction.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 25
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
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Motion to send the substitute letter as amended carried unanimously.
4. RESOLUTION APPROVING A SALARY SCHEDULE AND POLICIES FOR
UNREPRESENTED WHATCOM COUNTY EMPLOYEES FOR THE YEAR
1999 (AB98 -418A)
Imhof moved approval. Imhof moved to amend on page 154, 3rd and 4tn
line, "88.7S% 80 %" and "81.25416 80 %"
Hoag stated the language in the original was 80% of the State judges salary.
They also need to strike the language regarding Superior Court.
Imhof stated they are all set by the State. They only need to change the
percentages.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend page five of handout regarding performance pay to
change the performance rating from "3.0" to "3.5." The intent was to pay someone
extra for doing extra on their job. They want to reward employees that are putting
out extra effort on their jobs. The current structure doesn't allow for merit
increases for those on the top step. This would allow that. A rating of 3.0 only
means they are doing their job. A rating of 3.5 means they are doing their job well,
and should be getting a performance increase.
Motion failed 3 -3 with Nelson, Sutter, and Dawson opposed
Motion to approve as amended carried unanimously.
5. RESOLUTION APPROVING WHATCOM COUNTY'S STRATEGIC PLAN
2000 (AB99 -310)
Brenner moved to amend to have all offices open during the lunch hour.
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that goal, as referenced in Goal
1 -B, objective 4(c) addresses expanded hours. The budget instruction from the
Council is that the noon hour operation is a requirement. He suggested a new
subsection 4(c)(1). They administration has already made that a requirement.
Brenner accepted Wareing's suggestion. The goals should be up -to -date.
Since the administration has already implemented the objective, the plan should
reflect that. She restated her motion to add 4(c)(1) "All departments shall remain
open during the lunch hour."
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 26
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
Motion carried 4 -2 with Imhof and Sutter opposed.
Motion for the resolution carried unanimously.
Hoag questioned whether the 1 -800 number was still needed since the
County is toll -free.
Nelson stated Pt. Roberts would still need the access.
Dawson announced that the Pacific International Agreement was
discussed during Committee of the Whole.
Imhof moved approval of the agreement.
Brenner stated she supported this because the five environmental groups
have come to an agreement.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE
CHAPTER 16.04 REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS (AB99-
287)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated this is a change that was part of the 1998 zoning docket. Planning
Commission recommended approval. The Planning and Development Committee
recommended approval without any further amendments. All the goals were either
duplicated in the Comprehensive Plan, are in the subarea plans, or are no longer
necessary.
Sutter stated it was a code scrub.
Nelson moved approval.
Hoag stated she was not sure that everything has been transferred over.
She was concerned about some of the goals being dropped.
Motion carried 5 -1 with Hoag opposed.
7. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 20.64
ZONING TEXT (RESORT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) (AB99 -288)
Sutter moved approval.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated this was a revision to the Open Space requirements in the Resort
Commercial zone. It would allow a portion of the Open Space to be provided by
improving off -site public land or providing off -site amenities, rather than requiring it
all to be provided on -site. It will give more flexibility for development in the Resort
Commercial area. Planning Commission recommended approval. Planning and
Development Committee recommended approval with one minor wording change,
as reflected on packet page 431. It didn't change the intent and was considered a
scrivener's error, so no public hearing would be required.
Motion carried unanimously.
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 20.72
ZONING TEXT (POINT ROBERTS) (AB99 -289)
Imhof moved approval.
Dawson moved to delete the second sentence on Council packet page 440,
section 20.72.652 (1). "The Geunty shall FequiFe site plan alteFatiens te aehieve
Brenner proposed a friendly amendment to leave the language in and insert
the words "where practical."
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side A.)
Sutter suggested a friendly amendment that they change the focus to
minimizing tree removal instead of maximum tree retention.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated these amendments would be substantive changes and would require a public
hearing.
Imhof explained this provision does not apply to a single family home on an
individual lot.
Brenner withdrew her friendly amendment.
Dawson withdrew her motion.
Hoag pointed out a typo on page 149, section 20.72.350. In the phrase "for
visual of aesthetic purposes." "Of" should be "or."
Motion to approve carried unanimously.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
9. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20, ZONING,
AND TITLE 21, SUBDIVISIONS (AB99 -290)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated this was part of the ongoing work by the Technical Advisory Committee. It is
primarily moving text from one section of the Code to another. The Planning
Commission recommended approval. The Planning and Development Committee
recommended approval. It deletes text from Title 21 and inserts the text into Title
20. In some instances, there was a slight modification of the text that was moved.
The Technical Advisory Committee spent months going through the wording and it
is improved.
Imhof moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
10. APPOINTMENT TO THE DRAYTON HARBOR SHELLFISH PROTECTION
DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB99 -224)
Imhof moved to approve the applicant, Bjorn Frederick Hrutfiord.
Motion carried unanimously.
11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO REAPPOINT RON
ADAMS TO HIS SECOND, THREE -YEAR TERM ON THE NORTHWEST
SENIOR SERVICES BOARD, TO RUN THROUGH JUNE 30, 2002 (AB99 -
311)
Imhof moved to approve.
Motion carried unanimously.
12. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPOINT PHILIP
SUN, WITH TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2001, AND BEN DENSON,
WITH TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1999, FOR PARTIAL TERMS TO
FILL CURRENT VACANCIES ON THE WHATCOM COUNTY SUBSTANCE
ABUSE ADVISORY BOARD (AB99 -312)
Imhof moved to approve.
Motion carried unanimously.
13. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPOINT
ROBERT ANDERSEN, JOHN ASMUNDSON, RANDY BARTELT, BRUCE
BARBOUR, BRANDI BESSIRE, CLARE FOGELSONG, ABBY GORHAM,
RICHARD HAARD, JAMES HANSEN, MARK HENDERSON, HUGH LEWIS,
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 29
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
LISA MCSHANE, ROGER NICHOLS, PATRICK SMITH, ALAN SOICHER,
WENDY SCHERRER, RON THORNEYCROFT, PAUL VAN LUVEN, CURTIS
WAMBACH, AND BERT WEBBER TO THE CITIZEN'S ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR SALMON RESTORATION PROJECTS. ALL TERMS
SHALL BE FOR FOUR YEARS EXCEPT FOR THE STAGGERING OF 10
MEMBER'S TERMS, DECIDED AT RANDOM, TO THREE YEARS FOR THE
INITIAL APPOINTMENTS TO ENSURE CONTINUITY DURING THE
REAPPOINTMENT PROCESS (AB99 -313)
Imhof moved to approve.
Hoag explained she would like to see more commercial fishermen on the
committee.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, explained no one came forward as a
commercial fisherman. He agreed it would be great to have a few more people
from the commercial fishing community, but this is a good group to work with, and
recommended Council approval.
Hoag stated the committee also is missing representation of farmers. She
questioned how they could address the issue.
Kremen stated there is at least one farmer that would be a committee
member. He would be willing to enhance the representation on the committee, and
agreed that a broader spectrum of people should be represented.
Brenner suggested sending a letter to the Ag Preservation Committee and
the local commercial fishers association to solicit applications.
Hoag stated the people nominated are good, qualified people.
Hoag moved to approve the appointments with the stipulation that they
contact farming and commercial fishing groups to encourage participation and add
those representations at a later date.
Motion carried unanimously.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Sutter moved to accept the Introduction Items, with the addition of two
items regarding the Recreational Open Space zoning text and the proposed 1999
zoning docket rating.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated the 1999 zoning docket rating does not need to be adopted or approved.
The staff only needs to receive the Council's or Committee's input on priorities.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 30
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
Dawson stated they also need to add to Introduction Items the ordinance
regarding the Black Rock Cable franchise.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #99 -1 (AB99 -302A)
2. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #99 -2 (AB99 -303A)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 1.10,
PROCEDURES FOR MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSITION OF COUNTY -
OWNED PERSONAL AND REAL PROPERTY (AB99 -314)
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1999 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 7 (AB99 -
315)
S. ORDINANCE GRANTING FRANCHISE TO BLACK ROCK CABLE, INC.
FOR OPEN VIDEO SYSTEM. (AB 99 -319)
6. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
ZONING TEXT CHAPTERS 20.44 RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE. (AB 99-
297)
OTHER BUSINESS
Hoag stated the Natural Resources Committee also held a Discussion of a
letter to the Pipeline Safety Commission (AB99 -294) and recommend
approval of the substitute letter that was distributed to the Council earlier in the
day.
Sutter moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated there was also a resolution on pipeline safety (AB99 -299).
Sutter stated she had an amended copy, which was approved by the author
of the original resolution. She read the resolution into the record.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag requested the contents of the letter be included in the minutes
(attached) .
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 31
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
Hoag stated the Natural Resources Committee held a Presentation by
Canadian and American citizens regarding the Mining of Judson Lake
(AB99 -295) and recommended sending a letter to the Abbotsford City Council,
which she and Council Member Dawson will deliver during an Abbotsford City
Council meeting. The main concern is that the activity could drain the U.S. portion
of the lake, which is approximately 82 acres. Senator Metcalf's office and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife wrote letters opposing the project. The State Department of Ecology is
also writing a letter.
Dawson stated this activity may violate an international treaty.
Imhof stated he would abstain because there is a lot of hearsay.
Hoag stated there is no hearsay. There are hydrologist reports supporting
the information.
Motion carried 5 -0 with Imhof abstaining.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, announced that Dave Wareing, Deputy
Administrator, will be leaving Whatcom County at the end of August. Mr. Dewey
Dessler will be the new Deputy Administrator.
Kremen asked the Council to vote on the confirmation of Mr. Dessler as
Director of Administrative Services.
Imhof moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Wareing stated he appreciated being able to serve the citizens of Whatcom
County before the County Council. There have been challenges and successes. He
appreciated the Council's trust and confidence.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Dawson announced several meetings that are coming up, including Forestry
Forum, Health Board, and a Joint Lake Management Committee meeting.
Sutter suggested the work session regarding the water resources protection
overlay zone be scheduled on September 14, from 9:00 - 12:00.
Sutter stated she and Michael Knapp would be going to Olympia to discuss
Shoreline guidelines. On August 25, she would be going to Olympia to discuss
salmon issues with the Natural Resource Council. On September 9 and September
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 32
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
10 she would be attending the Connections of the Salmon; Sustaining your
Economy and Culture seminar in Seattle.
Nelson stated there have been several Health Advisory Board meetings in
preparation for the Health Board meeting. Upcoming is a budget meeting at St.
Luke's Education Center. He is also still working on the Interlocals with the
Regional Support Network. He announced that he will be gone from the 12th _ 26th
of September for reserve training. Lastly, he put his name in for the Western
Washington Cascade Provincial Advisory Committee on Forest Practices. He
received a confirmation letter for that committee.
Hoag stated she would also be attending many meetings.
Brenner announced the Public Works Committee had a presentation by Dick
Prieve, Public Works Maintenance & Operations, and a discussion regarding
1,000 ft. of Van Wyck Road not scheduled for improvements in the Six Year
Road Program (AB99 -316). When they did the Van Wyck project, they
inadvertently left out the first 1,000 feet of the project. Administration had been
out and looked at the area. They agree that they need to go ahead and do that.
The Council needs to vote to approve chip sealing the first 1,000 feet of Van Wyck
to make it compatible with the rest of the project. She so moved.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner announced the Committee also had a presentation regarding
televising County Council meetings. The administration requested direction. The
City of Bellingham is working on purchasing their equipment. The County has the
opportunity to purchase its equipment, at a cost of approximately $19,000. It
could also be used to record anything the County Council does. Eventually, they
will be having live programming. She suggested they recommend the
administration go ahead with the purchase.
Hoag would like to see the item placed in Finance Committee.
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that, pursuant to strategic
planning, they talked with TCI to find out what it would take to put more cameras
in the County Council Chambers. They came back with a list of equipment it would
take to do this at an adequate level. The Council has two options. There is
$375,000 that is budgeted through TCI to provide for this public access. What they
do, however, is bill through to the end user at a cost of $.04 per user per month,
until paid off. The administration would bring forward a supplemental budget
request to bring the financing forward. There are adequate funds available. The
other option is to have TCI pay for it through their budget. If the Council
authorizes the administration to proceed, then the administration will order the
equipment. In the meantime, they will ready a financial package to approve the
money.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Brenner moved to have the County purchase the equipment.
Wareing state they could amend the supplemental that was introduced during
this meeting to include the request.
Sutter stated it would then go through the Finance Committee.
Motion to proceed with the request carried unanimously.
Brenner stated there is an education program for families with relatives who
have brain disorders in September and October. She provided the phone number
to call for more information.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on November 9 , 1999.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/10/99, Page 34