HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil July 27 19991
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
July 27, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the County Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham,
Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Kathy Sutter None
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Tom Brown
Robert Imhof
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Dawson reported for Committee of the Whole and announced there was
executive session discussion regarding labor negotiations (AB99 -211) and
proposed amendments to the salary schedule for unrepresented employees
(AB98 -418A)
Dawson also announced there was an update from Whatcom County Water
Resource Planner Sue Blake on Lake Whatcom management and discussion of
the resolution adopting the 1999 Lake Whatcom Management Program (AB99 -
056A).
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETE KREMEN TO
THE VOLUNTEERS OF THE CHUCKANUT DISTRICT OF GARDEN CLUBS
(AB99 -017)
Roger DeSpain, Parks and Recreation Director, stated the County and the
District of Garden Club members helped to design the fragrance garden at Tennant
Lake to benefit the visually impaired. The idea was to touch, smell, and read about
the plants. In 1983, the garden clubs put up $10,000, and the County put a similar
amount from a previous bond issue. There are agreements for maintenance and
operations. Plant sales are held every year. The proceeds go to maintenance and
operations of the plant beds. This garden has received two awards for its design
and public support. It has also been featured in magazines. There are dedicated
volunteers that work at this garden. County Executive Pete Kremen is honoring
three of these volunteers for their time.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, Page 1
2 Pete Kremen, County Executive, presented awards of appreciation to
3 Margaret Anderson, Cora Zobrest, and Elizabeth Timmer. Kremen also presented a
4 certificate of recognition to the Chuckanut District of Garden Clubs for their work at
5 Fragrance Garden.
6
7 Dawson stated that she and Council Member Hoag had the privilege of
8 serving on the Whatcom County in Bloom committee, and they know it is the
9 garden club members that support that program.
10
11 SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY NEIL CLEMENT, EMERGENCY
12 MANAGEMENT, ON THE WHATCOM CREEK /OLYMPIC PIPELINE
13 INCIDENT (AB99 -017)
14
15 Neil Clement, Emergency Management Deputy Director, took time to
16 recognize the people who contributed to the Whatcom Creek event. He reviewed
17 the timeline of events, from an odor complaint to the actual event. There were
18 responders already on the scene. Emergency Management became involved when
19 it became an emergency level 2 hazardous materials incident. The emergency
20 operations center (EOC) opened immediately. He had no idea how large the event
21 was. The only indications he had were the power surges going through the
22 Courthouse. The EOC was opened for 21 days. About 28 people throughout the
23 County immediately joined them. Among those were the Community Emergency
24 Response Team (CERT) members who were trained during a series of classes on
25 first response. In this instance, their best use was in the EOC. They were assisting
26 in every way. The County staff support included Michael Healy from Public Works;
27 Dan Hanks and Larry Fright from Facilities Management; Roland Middleton and
28 Michael Knapp from Planning and Development Services, including Middleton's
29 daughter Nicole Foster - Middleton; Shirley Smith from the Health Department; and
30 Sheriff Dale Brandland. He then listed the agencies that were involved. All
31 agencies were located in the Courthouse basement. They signed in 3,000 people
32 throughout the time of the EOC. Identity badges were issued by the County and
33 are still being used. County employees from almost all departments helped the
34 effort. Ron Peterson, Sheriff's office, was on the scene immediately to provide
35 assistance from the Sheriff's office in the form of search and rescue. The
36 Information Services Division was critical in this effort, as was Facilities
37 Management and Finance. There were a total of 76 volunteers that handled the
38 phone and office management. N.F. Jackson, Superior Court Clerk, has a
39 tremendous organizational skill and his military background was invaluable in the
40 EOC. He ran the organizations that needed to be run. Kalyn Gabriel, the County's
41 webmaster, was there at every turn. The County's website has been acclaimed
42 across the nation. The media pressure was greatly relieved by having another
43 source of information. George Reid, Information Services Manager, provided
44 phones and computers. Many others contributed to the effort. This is an event
45 that is being watched around the world. The federal on -scene coordinator, Thor
46 Cutler, said the County has set a new standard in the United States for response.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
It is a source of great pride. It was a Bellingham event, but required all the assets
of the community and the County.
Dawson stated she heard the federal and state emergency personal said that
if there was any place someone should be in an emergency, it would be in Whatcom
County. It was done so efficiently that they just sat back and observed. She read a
statement from one of the volunteers.
Sheriff Dale Brandland presented recognition plaques to volunteers and
County staff, including N.F. Jackson, Dianne Middleton, Don Boyd, and Neil
Clement, and the County departments of Information Services, Facilities
Management, County Executive's office, and Division of Emergency Management.
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Rita Foley, South Lake Whatcom, stated she was disappointed with the
Council regarding the Comprehensive Plan inaccuracies. There are many issues
that need to be addressed now. There need to be more sheriffs and there are
problems in the Lake Whatcom watershed. Her area is rural and it should be kept
rural. Buses need to slow down because they are speeders. She questioned why
they have to widen and straighten Park road. People need to slow down their
driving. They are opening up the south end of Lake Whatcom by improving the
roads. In addition, they should work together to make things better that need
improving now. Former Council member Alvin Starkenburg was a wonderful
Council member who was honest and he owned gravel.
Sutter assured Foley her Comprehensive Plan review was not detracting from
other issues, and they were not related to Alvin Starkenburg. They only want to
ensure the Comprehensive Plan they adopted was the one they intended to adopt.
law.
Foley stated she was also concerned about the attempt to change the trailer
Brenner stated they would not change it on small, rural lots.
Muriel Terry, 5199 Drayton Harbor Road, spokesperson for the Drayton
Harbor Resident's Association. There are 59 houses in that area and some large
parcels of acreage. Four of them have been purchased in the last two weeks by
Trillium. Because her area is adjacent to Semiahmoo, they pay high taxes for their
land. The residents have been there many years. Laws were passed that did not
allow them to use their UR -4 zoning. Many people have failing septic tanks. Those
people need to be put into a short -term planning area or need a State grant to
install a sewer. They also need to be in a permanent planning area to be able to
profit from their land.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
Sutter stated the recommendation from the Planning Committee to the
Council is to remand this back to the Planning Commission for them to develop
specific development standards for that area. Specific development standards will
address all of the issues out there, including the need for sewer and the protection
of the Drayton Harbor watershed and wetlands in the area, so that people will be
able to divide their property and develop their property in such a way that it would
not have a negative impact on the environment in the area.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one - partial tape.)
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley, spoke on the contract with the USGS for data
evaluation. At previous meetings, she presented her concerns regarding this issue.
All of her concerns have been satisfied. She recommended the Council go forward
with this activity.
John Burke, 48 Sudden Valley Drive East, spoke regarding Mrs. Terry's
statement. This area under consideration is from Lincoln Road north, between
Shintaffer and Harborview. As a representative of a major landowner in the area,
he was opposed to any change. They do not believe there is an emergency
situation. They asked that sufficient time be granted for all in the area to figure out
what is going on. He checked with all the owners, who have not received any
notification by Whatcom County regarding this proposed change. This proposed
change would put a total encumbrance of $1.5 million on their property.
Hoag asked if the $1.5 million referred to the sewer fee. Burke stated they
have N mile frontage.
Brown stated the amount Burke mentioned was for the fee.
Drew Saunders, P.O. Box 6040, Bellingham, stated that there should be
more rapid government response to remove biohazardous substances that exist in
the County, specifically the mercury deposits in the Bay. Many polls have said the
American population wants more direct action. They should quit allowing stores to
sell hazardous chemicals, such as Roundup and Garlon. The County government
needs to be moving in the direction the population wants to go. They shouldn't
wait until many people contract cancer. They should offer alternatives.
Hoag stated they recently had this conversation with the County's Public
Works Department and requested Saunders provide specific materials.
Jan Rutford, 1043 Peace Portal, Blaine, stated her family had land in the area
for 90 years. They do not want it developed. If sewer goes through, they will have
to sell it to pay the sewer costs. They have paid over $40,000 in the last year for
septic mounds and sewer hookups.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
Dennis Beaman, 3441 Salt Spring Drive, Ferndale, stated the federal Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA) set September 12 as the deadline for comments regarding
amendments they propose to regulate governing conversion of fee land to trust
land. It is the Interior Department's goal to make transfer either on or off the
reservation easier for tribes. It is the Sandy Point Improvement Company's hope
that the County will support a letter, which he read into the record.
Dawson stated they would discuss the letter later in the meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through three.
Hoag questioned whether they received clarification on item #2.
Nelson stated the amount of $196,150 is for the Council's approval. The
remainder is included as required by law as a clarification of the engineering costs
incurred by the County, which is in the budget. They are only approving the
$196,150.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE NORTH SOUND
REGIONAL SUPPORT NETWORK, TO PROVIDE FOR MENTAL HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION PLANNING AND COORDINATION, AND FOR
COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR RESIDENTS OF WHATCOM COUNTY, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $223,902 (AB99 -273)
2. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY ROAD PROJECT
NOS. 999017 AND 999018 AND THE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO THE
LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, WHATCOM BUILDER CONSTRUCTION
CO., FOR THE GRANDVIEW ROAD STRUCTURAL OVERLAY FROM I -5
TO ENTERPRISE ROAD, AND THE MAINTENANCE OVERLAY OF
HANNEGAN ROAD, BEARD ROAD VICINITY, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$196,150 (AB99 -274)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE WASHINGTON
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION, TO PROVIDE TRAFFIC AND BICYCLE
SAFETY EDUCATION; MOCK DUI CRASHES; SEATBELT COMPLIANCE
CHECKS; AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH TO ATTEND DRUG AND
ALCOHOL PREVENTION CONFERENCES TO HELP REDUCE THE
NUMBER OF PREVENTABLE TRAFFIC INJURIES AND DEATHS IN
WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE STATE REVENUE FUNDING SOURCES
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
AMOUNT OF $28,000 (AB99 -275)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE SIX YEAR ROAD PROGRAM FOR THE YEARS 2000
THROUGH 2005 (AB99 -248)
Bruce Mills, Public Works Engineering Division, made himself available for
questions.
Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Bruno Morris, Pt. Roberts, President of the Voter's Association, addressed
priority item #21, regarding Tyee Drive at Point Roberts and the widening and
covering of the ditches, straightening of the road, and other work on a section of
road from Roosevelt at the U.S. Border to Benson. They would like to see this
project advanced by a minimum of one year. Previous five -year plans have listed
the project to be completed in 1999, then in the year 2000. The present plan has
the project completed in 2002. They ask it be advanced in 2001 and that the
appropriation of the property be conducted in the following year. At Point Roberts,
the citizens believe there is an appearance problem attributed to abandoned
vehicles, RVs on vacant lots, abandoned houses, and a number of health hazards.
In that regard, the Voters Association began a dialogue with the County. Things
are working out favorably. Action is being taken by Sheriff and Code Enforcement
to clean the area up. In the Port of Bellingham study, Tyee is noted as an
appearance problem. Tyee is the gateway to the community and is important from
a commerce point of view.
Barbara Tannis, 517 Hilltop Drive, Sedro - Woolley, stated she was promised a
year ago that the work would begin on Park Road. She asked to have the work
done. She submitted a petition of support. Hundreds of children travel the road to
school. A bus went into a ditch over a year ago because it could not pass a large
truck. She asked the County to bring the road up to standards and make it as safe
as can be. It is not a speed issue. It is a safety issue. Widening the road and
bringing it up to standard will not make people go faster. They need more Sheriff
patrols in the area.
Imhof stated the engineering was done last year, they just received money
from the State, and it is scheduled for the next construction season. It takes one
season to do engineering and one season to do the construction.
Mills stated the reason for the delay has been due to environmental
permitting. He pledged it would be done.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
46
Dick Gilda, Jensen Road, Lake Whatcom watershed, questioned the Whatcom
Connector. Mills stated it is low on the list.
Gilda requested it be moved up on the priority list. It is needed to take a load
off the north end. He questioned whether the route has been decided upon. Mills
stated the length was based on a 1990 study, and is an approximate estimate.
Gilda suggested they look at other alternatives for a route.
Rita Foley, S. Lake Whatcom, Blue Canyon Road, stated her road comes out
to South Bay Drive. Park Road meets South Bay Drive. There have been a number
of people who miss the curve because they are going too fast. She could bring in
140 signature saying the problem is because people are not slowing down.
Widening of the roads will bring more development. They only need to resurface
Park Road. The Anderson Creek diversion is in that area. That will be a big impact
to the diversion. Salmon are also involved.
Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
Imhof moved approval.
Hoag stated she was concerned Double Ditch was not included. The fog lines
are practically falling into the ditches. The priority should be safety. She wanted
double ditch road on there, and not Van Buren and Lindsay. All weather roads are
a lower priority than safety.
She moved to substitute Double Ditch for Van Buren and Lindsay. She sent
information to Public Works Engineering, but has had no response. The Van Buren
and Lindsay roads do not pose safety hazards. There are good sight distances.
Mills stated they don't have to take out a project to add another project in.
The projections of revenue must match what they have in the six -year road plan.
That might mean dropping something somewhere else. They can add anything
anywhere on the list, if the Council feels it must be done sooner.
Imhof asked if funding would go away if they drop a project with specified
funding. Mills stated that was correct. Many projects have secured funds. Van
Buren is one of those. It is high on the State's list. Regarding Double Ditch Road,
from West Badger to the border, the roads are rated by traffic numbers, number of
accidents, and collectors. That road is considered a local access road and has little
traffic. There have not been any accidents in the area, and because of the low
traffic, it would be low on the list.
Brown stated the ditches on both sides create environmental problems, so it
would be extremely difficult to get on the list for improvement. Mills stated it would
be expensive. The Department of Fisheries does consider those to be fish streams.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
Brown stated they spoke about maintenance activities to shore up the road.
Mills stated they are limited by the Department of Fisheries to do even the
maintenance.
Hoag questioned whether there is funding currently, or if they will be
requesting it. Mills stated they had funding secured for Van Buren, but they moved
it to another road, which they are sometimes flexible enough to do. They cannot
move it to Double Ditch Road. The County rates the roads and sends the rating to
the State, who comes to the area and reviews the rating.
Hoag asked if it would ever end up on the list, since it is considered a local
access road. Mills stated it would have to be done with local funds.
Hoag amended her motion to include it on the list without removing the other
roads from the list.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated Maintenance and Operations is
trying to put together work to stabilize the situation. It hasn't been done yet
because of permitting problems. Any work done now will be short term because of
the steep slopes. Without a reconstruction, the maintenance will be short -term.
They can put any roadway on the road program. To this point, they have focused
primarily on the arterial system, not the access system. They can include it now,
but would like some guidance as to how rapidly the Council would want the project
completed. Their first big decision would be whether they move the two streams
away from the road, consolidate the two streams, or other mitigation. There would
be a substantial amount of work, more per mile than other projects.
Hoag stated she would leave the timeline to the discretion of Public Works.
She asked only that it be looked at. Monsen stated, if it is the intent to get the
work done in the next six years, they need to determine funding and remove other
projects.
Brown stated they would have difficulty getting permits to do the
construction. They should do preliminary studies and negotiations. Mills stated it
would probably be $1 million per mile, for two or three miles.
Dawson stated this road hasn't been requested by the public to be repaired.
She was reluctant to spend that kind of money. Mills stated they could do a staff
study and see if Fisheries would approve.
Hoag withdrew her motion.
Monsen stated any formalized work would need to be a part of the road
program.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
Hoag stated she would not withdraw her motion.
Brown questioned whether they would need to designate funding. Monsen
stated an officially sanctioned road project would need to be a part of the road
program. To do evaluation of the project, they will need biological and structural
expertise.
Imhof recommended it be inserted as project #36 or #37 because that's
where the engineering projects are listed.
Monsen stated he wanted to ensure whether it is the Council's expectation to
have a report back this time next year. If it is, then they need to put it in next
yea r.
fall.
Imhof stated they would need to put it into the one -year road program this
Monsen asked what level of analysis the Council wanted.
Hoag stated they want a preliminary analysis of the costs and options, and
whether or not they want to proceed. Monsen stated a general analysis can be
discussed in committee and doesn't need to be in the road program.
Hoag withdrew her motion.
Brenner asked about Tyee Drive. She wanted it bumped up to a completion
date of 2001, but didn't know where to put it on the list.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Mills stated Tyee might still end up being moved ahead automatically if other
projects fall through.
Brown stated the reasoning given for this item was aesthetics and promotion
of the area. That is not a reason to move it ahead. There are other areas with
safety concerns that should be kept where they are on the list.
Brenner stated there has been concern on Tyee Drive regarding the
abandoned trailers. She questioned whether it could be moved forward. Mills
stated it would automatically be moved forward if other items were dropped.
Nelson asked about the Lake Whatcom Connector. Mills stated there is no
plan to proceed with the planning.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
Monsen stated the transportation elements of the stormwater management
plan are focused on basic operation and maintenance. It will be some time before
they get into road adjustments.
Nelson stated it is difficult to get into town because of the traffic levels.
Monsen stated the delay of the connector was to see the outcome of the joint
stormwater program, which will be awhile before they get to the point to make a
decision on building the connector or its alternatives. The stormwater program is
not geared toward road construction activities. The focus is not toward answering
the question.
Brenner questioned the Van Wyck Road and stated the Council supported the
negotiation on part of the Van Wyck Road without realizing there are 1,000 feet
that will not be paved and is right next to the Guide Meridian. She suggested they
move things around to pave the first 1,000 feet. Monsen stated it is not an issue
regarding the six -year road program.
Brown stated it is prudent to have the County surface some of the gravel
roads because it saves the County money. Regarding the Lake Whatcom
connector, there is a route going to Hwy 99 that does not connect into the City of
Bellingham, and would relieve the concerns of pushing a lot of traffic into
Bellingham, via the connector. He questioned whether that had been studied. Mills
stated the 1990 study looked at several alternatives. The study felt the delay of
time using that route would not encourage people to use that route.
Brown stated the idea is that going that route would be quicker than facing
the bottleneck in town.
Monsen stated item #66 is a placeholder for all gravel conversions.
Expenditures only occur when individuals approach the County.
Brenner stated she wanted the Van Wyck Road item discussed in Public
Works Committee. Monsen stated the amendment they need to discuss is regarding
the policy matters and the conditions in which the County would consider an
alternate approach.
Motion to approve the plan carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
CODE, TITLE 20, ZONING TEXT AND MAP, REGARDING FILE #46 -98
ZM) (AB99 -269)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated it is a rezone of 160 acres in the Birch Bay - Blaine subarea. A substitute
ordinance was distributed earlier in the day. The proposal is to rezone 160 acres
along Birch Bay - Lynden from R10 to R5. The Planning Commission and staff
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
recommended approval. The Planning Committee had concerns about the
agricultural potential of the area and recommended a public hearing. The area is
already subdivided. North of the road, the average parcel size is 2 -3 acres.
Overall, the average parcel size average is 5.6 acres. The parcels south of the road
are predominately 10 - 12 acres. 2/3 of the property has prime agricultural soils,
but they are in the parcels that are already in 2 acres with houses. There is not
much agricultural potential in the area. It is not farmed. It is heavily wooded. The
Birch Bay subarea plan is still a part of the County planning documents. The
locational criteria say the area should be R5. In this area, the existing density is
already 5.6 acres.
Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Larry Freeman, 4584 Anderson Road, Birch Bay, stated this property had
been in his family for many years. They own the Forest Grove Ballroom. The
property was broken up and given to the family. His entire reason for the rezone is
so he can give some of the area to his children. There are seven parcels in the area
that is 10 acres and one that is 15 acres. Everything else is five acres or smaller.
The outline of the boundary makes a smooth transition from the R10 acres to the
UR -4 in the Birch Bay area. The area is served by water from Birch Bay Water and
Sewer District. There is sewer on two sides and would be available. There hasn't
been any agricultural use in 40 years.
Dean Croft, Blaine, stated he is zoned for 10 acres. When he bought the
place it was one -acre zoning because it was unfit for farming. They changed his
acreage to ten acres because he was not in the sewer district. He wanted his
property changed to five acres.
Dawson asked if his property was included in the rezone. Freeman stated
Mr. Croft's property is in the northwest corner.
Goodwin stated it is recommended to stay in.
Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
Nelson stated the motion was to approve.
Hoag stated this came up in committee. The portion above Birch Bay - Lynden
road has several small parcels. The portion below, which abuts the Urban Growth
Area (UGA), is all larger parcels. The bottom section alone does not qualify for a
rezone because it does not average five acres. The smaller lots bring down the
average size. There is more land in the larger parcels than in the smaller lots. The
existing criteria says that R10 zoning should be where existing density is less than
or equal to one dwelling unit per 20 acres and the average parcel size is greater
than or equal to 10 acres, and where agriculture or silvaculture exist or possibly
could be viable economic enterprises. The lower portion calls for R10 zoning. It
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
does not qualify to be rezoned to R5. Her concern was that there are prime
agricultural soils. The Comprehensive Plan calls for predominantly R10 zoning, and
they prefer to keep property zoned R10 in the UGA's that abut next to R10 zoning,
until there is development so they can plan efficiently for transportation and other
things. To the north there are several parcels that are Open Space /Agricultural.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for development that is forestry or agriculturally
oriented. There are no changed conditions.
Sutter questioned whether the two areas could be split apart. Goodwin
stated they could. They included the entire area because it didn't make sense to
isolate that small area.
Brenner stated she believed zoning would be Rural 5 acres in areas not in an
Urban Growth Area, until it was time to put them in the Urban Growth Area.
Sutter stated that was the minimum lot size. Goodwin stated the
Comprehensive Plan specifies that rural should be five, ten, or two acres, with the
predominant being ten acres. The policy is in the staff report.
Brenner questioned if that was the case when the average was close to ten
acres, rather than five acres. Goodwin read the exact Comprehensive Plan
language.
Hoag stated that leaving it in 10 -acre parcels would allow it to be more easily
developed in good growth patterns. Goodwin stated that is generally true. When
there is a house in the middle of each of the ten -acre lots, it becomes more difficult
to develop an efficient pattern of future development.
Brown stated the Comprehensive Plan left the references to the subarea
plans in so local people could have a say over what would happen within their
areas. The criteria spell out the criteria for five acres. As long as they recognize
the subarea plans as a part of the Comprehensive Plan, they should be adhered to.
To create a small block of R10 between the Urban Growth Area and this seems out
of character. He supported the recommendation to rezone to R5.
Dawson stated the five acres might never have a higher density. They
should encourage that also.
Hoag stated the staff report references the average parcel size of the parcels
south of the Birch Bay - Lynden Road as 11.29 acres. Based on average lot size, this
area does not meet the subarea plan locational criteria for RSA. This area has
prime agricultural soils and is mostly in large parcels other than the ones that
predate zoning. If they are going to base the zoning on the small parcels that
predate zoning, then they could rezone the entire County.
Brown stated they didn't predate zoning. Zoning was in effect at that time.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
46
Hoag stated that may be what it was when the speaker bought his property,
but Brown didn't know when those were platted. There are little lots all over the
County that predate zoning. If they are going to figure them into the average
parcel size, they will end up rezoning the entire County to R5. They instead need
to look at the existing soils, the criteria the Comprehensive Plan calls for, whether
there are changed conditions, and the long -term best interest of developing the
area in planned, orderly growth. That would support keeping the area zoned R10.
Imhof stated it falls within the criteria of the sizes. It is included in one
block. The soils are an interesting mix. Nothing is ever grown out there
commercially. It is mixed with non - agriculture, wetlands, and a County garbage
dump. It would be ludicrous to sandwich a 10 -acre area between a five -acre area
and an Urban Growth Area.
Brenner stated she had mixed feelings and looked at the properties. There
may be agricultural soils, but did not look like agricultural land. On two sides, it
has UR4 zoning. The rezone would get rid of an anomaly in the area.
Sutter asked if the properties on the south side of the road would need road
frontage if they were to be sub - dividable. Goodwin stated they could subdivide by
short plat and creating a flag lot. They couldn't do an exemption. The Technical
Advisory Committee JAC) has been working on amendments to the subdivision
ordinance, but they are not proposing elimination of a flag lot. There could also be
a small lot cluster subdivision.
Hoag stated the subarea plan says the Comprehensive Plan requires they
protect prime agricultural soils, whether or not the land is actually farmed. It
doesn't matter whether they are farmed.
Motion to approve the Planning Commission recommendation carried 6 -1
with Hoag opposed.
3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
CODE, TITLE 20, ZONING TEXT, REGARDING FILE #58 -98 ZT (AB99-
270)
Goodwin stated there is another substitute ordinance (powder blue cover
sheet). This is to amend Title 20.36 to allow expansion of public facilities as a
permitted use at Smith and Northwest. Planning Commission originally
recommended this, and there were two sections. One dealt with section 20.36, the
Rural zone. Another dealt with section 20.44, the Recreational Open Space zone.
The amendments to the Recreational Open Space zone would allow snack bars,
boat rentals, bicycle rentals, and other similar uses without a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP). The one that was moved forward last week only dealt with the
changes to WCC 20.36 on Smith and Northwest. There were 21 zoning requests all
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
46
in one ordinance. She read from the original recommendation from the Planning
Commission on section 20.36. The Planning and Development Committee had
concern, as well as public concern, that it may allow facilities such as a jail or waste
facility. She didn't believe that would be allowed because they wouldn't be
complementary to the existing facilities. Also, any such facility would require the
County Council to appropriate the money and approve it. That process would allow
the public process. Staff proposed two alternate languages to the Planning and
Development Committee that limited the "other quasi - government uses" and would
still require a CUP and limit the uses to office buildings, public works maintenance
yards, storage buildings and athletic fields. The other option adds a sentence, "if
they are compatible with the character of existing facilities and the surrounding
rural residential neighborhood." The committee thought those were still too broad
and could still allow uses that would be of public concern. The committee
recommended the last part that discusses the expansion of current uses located
within the County complex. Staff's concern was that it would not allow any new
uses, even if they were small or compatible. The CUP process causes a staff and
time delay.
Dave Wareing, Deputy Executive, distributed another alternative. He
recommended that the Council approve as outlined in his memo. Part of their
problem was that a flyer was distributed with erroneous information that the
County was going to install a jail facility. The wording they recommend would
prohibit that anyway. There is a multi -step public process.
Imhof read the suggestion into the record.
Brenner stated the flyer was not erroneous. It talked about examples of
what could go in the area.
Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Barbara Casort, Belfern Drive, stated she received the flyer.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side 8.)
Casort continued to state that these uses could happen and do happen. It is
important to let the public know what is going on. They should keep the public
process. More information should be given to people in the neighborhood.
Janice Schuch, 1411 W. Axton, stated her concern was that her children go
to school near this property and attend the soccer fields. The public process must
be maintained. When the County has buildings with so much land in a critical area,
the public should have a hearing process.
Mark Drinkwine, Belfern Drive, also received the flyer. His family members
play in that area. There needs to be consideration about what goes into the area.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
Dale Limburger, 1063 W. Laurel Road, objected to the zoning change. It will
give up the public's voice.
Lee Snider, 5464 Northwest Road, stated it should be kept as it is. He
remembered when it was the poor farm. At one time, they talked about putting the
County Courthouse in that location. It would have been a good location for the
County Courthouse.
Wareing stated there had been a disservice to the community. People were
told directly by Council Member Brenner that a jail would go in. The County would
never consider for a minute putting a jail in that area. They never did. Sheriff
Brandland did not tell Brenner where he was proposing a jail because he was afraid
she would involve herself in that project. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt has been
spread throughout the neighborhood. If that is the concern, then he would
recommend the language he provided for inclusion, "Facilities that do not conform
to the current pattern of use, could reasonably be expected to arouse the concern
or alarm of the public, or that is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood,
shall require normal conditional use review." His language would enable the County
to go ahead and build such non - controversial items.
Cheryl Mizen, 5603 Northwest Road, stated the wording as suggested is
subject to interpretation. In the future, people may interpret the language
differently. It is better to keep public process as it is.
Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
Brenner defended herself. She had a conversation with Sheriff Brandland,
who had a location for a jail facility. He did not want to tell her the location
because he did not want to arouse the neighbors. That is the only thing she said to
Wareing. The idea for a jail is not a new idea. She told the neighborhood
association of the issue. They did the rest of it. It is outrageous the County would
not be telling people what is going on.
Brown stated last year there was discussion of moving some Sheriff
operations to the area for faster service to the County. There were formal
discussions during criminal justice discussions and budget discussions.
Hoag moved to adopt the ordinance with exhibit one, which is attached to
the blue substitute ordinance. When this came forward to committee, they asked
the purpose for the change. Administration said the problem was they had to get a
CUP to do simple remodels. This proposed language would allow that to be done
without having to get a CUP. An expansion of current uses that have already been
approved for the area, provided the expansion is compatible with the character of
the existing facilities and the surrounding rural residential neighborhood, would be
allowed. That language solves the problem, but it doesn't go any further to remove
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
the public process. She understood the current administration has no intentions of
building any facility out there that neighbors don't want. However, if they change
the language to any other recommended items, it is open to interpretation. If a
recommendation comes forward that the public will not have a problem with, then
there won't be any problem going through the CUP process. This is the
recommendation from the Planning and Development Committee, and that is why
they recommended it.
Dawson stated government needs to go through the same process as the
public. She also supported Hoag's motion, but suggested leaving out the word
"rural."
Hoag stated she did not want to strike "residential." It is important that it
also be compatible with residential neighborhood. It didn't matter whether or not it
says rural, because that does not affect the policy.
Nelson stated he would not support Hoag's suggestion. He would rather
identify specifically the concerns that should be addressed in a conditional use
process. The reason he was concerned about specifying what would be permitted is
because communities and standards of development change. It may not be a
residential area in the future. It may change into a commercial or industrial area in
the future. "Neighborhood" adequately addresses the current pattern of
development. Laws should reflect what is current in the communities.
Sutter moved to amend the language as presented in option #3 on the
handout provided by Planning as an amendment to the existing amendment, with
the change recommended by administration and the addition of the proposed
alternative language. "Facilities that do not conform to the current pattern of use,
including, but not limited to, jail facilities or hazardous waste facilities, that could
reasonably be expected to arouse the concern or alarm of the public, or that is
incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, shall require normal conditional
use review." That would address the concerns of uses that are not compatible with
the neighborhood in two ways, by saying they must be compatible or, if not, they
would have to go through the CUP process. They should specifically name as
examples the two uses identified as a concern of the neighborhood.
Brenner stated there is growth management and a CUP process for a reason.
The jail rumor is an old one. The purpose of what they are supposed to be doing is
to give people clear ideas of what the County is doing. There is nothing wrong with
the policy as it is. County government should operate with the same laws as the
public. Only in an emergency would something need to go through the process
quickly. Other than that, there is a budget process. County government should not
operate at a different standard than everyone else.
Nelson stated all of government process is a public process. Anything they
do is a public process. When the County approves a building, they go through
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
more extensive public process than anyone. They have to approve the funding and
go through a contract process, which are both public processes. They are trying to
help the taxpayers by streamlining the process so they can know what will happen
regarding capital facilities, which is a part of the Growth Management Act (GMA).
Residential neighborhoods are not a part of GMA. Neighborhood refers to whatever
is in the neighborhood at the current time. That is why GMA review occurs every
year. Locking it in now is not according to GMA.
Sutter requested they address their comments to her amendment. She read
her amendment into the record. She restated her motion:
20.36.050 Permitted Uses.
.060 Public uses associated with government office buildings, public
works maintenance yards and storage buildings, and athletic fields and
associated facilities if located within the current county complex at Northwest
and Smith Roads. Other government or quasi - government uses of similar or
complementary type would also be allowed if such uses are compatible with
the character of existing facilities and the surrounding neighborhood.
Facilities that do not conform to the current pattern of use, including, but not
limited to, jail facilities or hazardous waste facilities, that could reasonably be
expected to arouse the concern or alarm of the public, or that is incompatible
with the surrounding neighborhood, shall require normal conditional use
review.
Brown stated this is public process. Everything they do is public process, but
they should subject themselves to the same public process that citizens go through.
Through the normal course of budgeting and contracts, people do not get a chance
to comment.
Hoag stated Sutter's amendment opens up a Pandora's box. In that process,
they have to predict what people might be offended by. It is subjective. Her
concern was that they were opening a Pandora's box and removing the public's
review. The Planning Committee recommendation is an excellent one. It leaves
the neighborhood the ability to have public process.
Wareing stated the first request by administration was to have this area
zoned properly to construct and build facilities at the location. If this was zoned in
the proper manner to facilitate these types of facilities, then they would be going
through the same process as the public. Regulatory reform supports the concept of
streamlining systems. They have not abridged anyone's right to have a review.
The administration, when asking for the rezone, intended to be able to go through
the same processes that the public goes through. The administration is trying to
protect the public and their interests. The additional language he recommended
more than adequately addresses the issue.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
46
Brown asked how many acres are involved. Wareing stated there are
approximately 140 to 160 acres. The farmstead goes a long way back from the
road. He asked they consider adding maintenance facilities or shops to the
allowable uses.
Brenner stated Hoag's motion covers administration's concerns. Sutter's
amendment does not.
Imhof called for the question.
Hoag clarified her motion is for an expansion of current uses. New uses
would still be allowed if approved through the CUP process. It is appropriate the
neighborhood be allowed to speak to the new uses.
Knapp stated there is a danger using the term "existing uses," because there
is an existing vacant jail. They need to specify the uses they don't want to allow.
Hoag stated it doesn't say "existing uses," it says "current uses." There is
not a current jail in use.
Sutter read her motion into the record again. She included the phrase
"maintenance facilities ".
20.36.050 Permitted Uses.
.060 Public uses associated with government office buildings; public
works maintenance yards or facilities, such as shops; storage buildings; and
athletic fields and associated facilities if located within the current county
complex at Northwest and Smith Roads. Other government or quasi -
government uses of similar or complementary type would also be allowed if
such uses are compatible with the character of existing facilities and the
surrounding neighborhood. Facilities that do not conform to the current
pattern of use, including, but not limited to, jail facilities or hazardous waste
facilities, that could reasonably be expected to arouse the concern or alarm
of the public, or that is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood,
shall require normal conditional use review.
Hoag clarified that Sutter's motion is not what was recommended by the
Planning and Development Committee.
Motion to amend carried 4 -3 with Hoag, Brenner, and Brown opposed.
Motion to adopt as amended carried 5 -2 with Hoag and Brenner opposed.
The Council took a five - minute break at 9:57 p.m.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
46
OTHER ITEMS
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER
TRAVEL AND /OR EXPENSES (AB99 -022 K)
Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
stated the committee recommended approval.
Motion carried 6 -0 with Hoag absent from the room.
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS
TO COMPILE AND ASSESS AVAILABLE HYDROLOGIC DATA FOR WRIA
#1 AS OUTLINED IN THE DRAFT SCOPE OF WORK, WRIA #1
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT, AND IDENTIFY DATA NEEDED
TO CONSTRUCT A HYDROLOGIC MODEL FOR THE ENTIRE WRIA, AND
A PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP THE MODEL, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$244,000 WITH WHATCOM COUNTY'S SHARE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$184,000 (AB99 -243)
Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
stated the correct amount is $224,000, with Whatcom County's share in the
amount of $184,000. This had an amendment. The concern raised in committee
regarded the assessment of the data and to ensure it identified the values. There
have been discussions with the United States Geological Service (USGS) to make
sure they can still move the item forward and everyone is in agreement. They were
agreeable to include language, "Wherever possible, USGS will provide an estimate
of accuracy for each of the Part 1 data sets and study elements." That would go
under the scope of work on Council packet page 20, after the list of tasks.
Monsen stated it would become "Note for Part I."
Nelson moved to approve the authorization.
Nelson moved to amend by inserting the above language.
Hoag stated she had real concerns. This will be some of the most important
work going on in terms of the water quantification studies. The first portion,
compiling current available data, is just a matter of compiling. It is important that
the second and third parts include interfacing with the Planning Unit.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side A.)
Hoag continued to state that, even with the amendment, there is nothing to
require an interface with the Planning Unit. Objective two is a major policy
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
45
decision. The Planning Unit needs to direct USGS as to what additional data needs
to be obtained. She suggested an amendment to Objective two, "Working with the
Planning Unit, they will identify the additional data needed to quantify the water
resources of the WRIA using a hydrologic model developed to the standards of
accuracy and precision recommended by the Planning Unit and approved by the
Initiating Governments; and." It is important this tie into the framework for water
planning. She was disappointed this language wasn't run past USGS, since the
other language was. It was also an amendment that was discussed earlier in the
day.
Sutter stated Hoag's suggested language was not approved by the
committee.
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated it didn't come to mind when he
spoke with USGS. The focus seemed to be the potential of different elements. The
areas for study are to be mutually agreed upon by the parties or their authorized
representatives. USGS said the one -page document is interpreted to include a lot
of the issues that were discussed after the Finance meeting. USGS will meet with
the parties and their representatives.
Hoag asked where the required standards of accuracy are defined. Wareing
stated those standards would be established by the County's designated group,
such as the Planning Unit.
Sutter stated it is not appropriate to include the Planning Unit. That is a
body to make recommendations to the Initiating Governments and to the County
Council. County Council's job is to give them direction.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated it should be clear that the primary
effort is accomplishment of objective one only. Objectives two and three pertain to
the USGS making recommendations about what the County should do next.
They're not being given direction to do anything at this point. It is up to the County
to determine how to involve the Planning Unit. Acting on the recommendation will
require a contract matter coming before the County Council. The Planning Unit will
concur; they will be actively involved in reviewing the recommendation prior to the
Council ever seeing a contract. They would actually accept the data gaps and
determine what will be gathered.
Brenner stated she wanted Hoag's wording under Scope of Work, Part one,
item 1.12. Then it wouldn't be in the contract and not a problem for the USGS.
Nelson stated it is part of the contract.
Wareing stated that was not possible. That portion is a part of the contract.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
Hoag clarified it is possible. She said Wareing was trying to say her language
has not had the approval of USGS.
Brenner stated she would support Council Member Nelson's amendment if
this suggestion were not possible. However, if USGS will agree to the language
proposed by Council Member Hoag, then she would rather see that. She
questioned why they couldn't adopt Hoag's language if it meets the approval of the
USGS.
Sutter stated Nelson's amendment was approved by the Finance Committee.
That's why the amendment went to USGS. Hoag's was not.
Motion to approve Nelson's amendment carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
Brenner moved to add item 1.13, an amendment to Objective two, "Working
with the Planning Unit, they will identify the additional data needed to quantify the
water resources of the WRIA using a hydrologic model developed to the standards
of accuracy and precision recommended by the Planning Unit and approved by the
Initiating Governments; and." This would have to be approved by USGS.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Brenner and Hoag in favor.
Nelson moved to approve as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CHARTER, TO BE
SUBMITTED TO THE PEOPLE, REGARDING THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
OF GOVERNMENT (AB99 -191)
Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
stated the committee recommended approval on a 2 -1 vote. He so moved.
Brown moved to amend language proposed in Exhibit A, section 2.20(b),
"...expenses, ,
annually feF the yeaFs 2000 and 2001, and exeept that thereafte-F no council
member..." It is self- serving to put this out unless the elected officials have gone
through an election cycle. The effective date of this means that anyone getting
elected this year would get the pay raise.
Sutter stated $20,000 a year is a lot of money for a part -time job. She could
support it if there was a full -time council, but not part -time.
Brenner stated she would support Brown's motion, but would not support the
ordinance at all. The process is supposed to go through a charter review
commission.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
Hoag respectfully disagreed with Brenner. If they waited until the
Councilmembers go through an election cycle, then it would be very awkward for
some Councilmembers to be paid more than others. The change needs to be
universal. The council members' positions may be called part -time, but she puts in
more than 60 hours per week on this job.
Sutter stated she agreed, but they all need to be full -time, not just some of
them.
Hoag continued to state that there is more work involved than just the
Tuesday meetings. They are also involved in contacting constituents, working on
issues, attending meetings, and serving on boards. If they were paid more, then
the Council would not be as subject to special interests and they would get more
qualified candidates. They are only putting this issue out to a vote of the people.
There is no other option for even looking at this issue. They could go through a
charter review, but it is more expensive.
Brenner stated she did not suggest a Charter review commission process
now, only when it is time. They have no business putting this on the ballot now.
There are a lot of things that are to be put to the public. She did not support
Councilmembers putting a raise for themselves on the ballot.
Brown stated they all knew what the salary was when they ran for office.
There is also a wide variety of participation and assigned work. This is work by
choice. They ran for office and made a commitment to the position. How involved
or uninvolved they are is a personal choice.
Hoag stated she didn't know when she ran for office that it was a paid
position.
Brown stated she filed a paper to run for office, which disclosed the position
was paid.
Hoag stated that is when she found out the position was paid.
Brown stated that is when she ran for the position; when she filed.
Hoag stated she did not run for this job because of what it paid. She ran for
office because she wanted to serve. Her concern is not about herself or her job.
However, there are people who cannot serve because of the amount of money and
time involved.
Brenner stated $20,000 is not enough to keep someone from a full -time job.
It is going to pad pockets of people who are elected. There is a better way to
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
resolve this by allowing the Councilmembers reimbursement for everything they
spend on the job.
Imhof stated it is myopic of the Councilmembers to view this as a self -
serving interest. All of the Councilmembers have said this job is more than what
they expected. It is not right to keep good people from running for office because
they cannot afford it. It puts Whatcom County in the same category as Asotin
County, whose commissioners are part -time and make about $23,000 to $24,000
per year. They have a population of 8,000 in that county. Until they bring the
standard up, they are not going to have people who would accept the responsibility
and take the abuse. For the compensation of $20,000, it would compensate people
for the time taken away from families and for the money paid out of their own
pockets.
Brown restated the motion to amend.
Motion to amend failed 3 -4 with Sutter, Brenner, and Brown in favor.
Sutter stated one of the reasons she was not running again is because she
cannot afford it. In order for her or anyone to afford it, it must be a full -time
position with full -time pay.
Motion to approve failed 4 -3 with Sutter, Brenner, and Brown opposed.
Motion needed a super- majority.
4. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
TITLE 20, ZONING TEXT (AB99 -184)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated four
items will be coming forward and will be introduced this evening. In addition, they
wanted to schedule the public hearing on the Lake Whatcom regulations, file #61-
98, for August 10. They will also schedule for committee the docket items for
1999, the Point Roberts Plan, the remainder of Title 20, and also Title 20.44.100.
They will be working on the remainder of that docket and it should be brought
forward at the September meeting. The public hearing on Lot Consolidation will
also be held at the September meeting.
S. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AUTHORIZING PROVISIONAL SHORT TERM
PLANNING AREA STATUS AND CONDITIONS FOR PERMANENT SHORT
TERM PLANNING AREA STATUS FOR THE DRAYTON HARBOR AREA OF
THE BLAINE URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB99 -265)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated they
recommended it be remanded to the Planning Commission to create specific
development regulations to address the issues of urban development levels as
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
opposed to environmental needs of the area, including the status of Drayton Harbor
and the presence of wetlands in the area. Hopefully, they can work up specific
standards that will allow the appropriate level of development that will be
acceptable to the property owners and also provide the protection that is needed, in
terms of getting rid of any old septic systems out there by having sewer go in, if
that is the viable alternative. She so moved.
Dawson stated the protection is installing the sewer. Zoning has been in
place for a lot of years and should be recognized. The Planning Commission has
too much of a workload.
Sutter stated the sewer is not necessarily the solution. If sewer goes in and
development occurs at four units per acre, then the County needs to make
provisions for protecting Drayton Harbor and the vast wetlands in the area. Over
50% of that property is in wetlands. The residents want to know that what the
County does takes the wetlands into consideration. They want specific
development standards to protect the environmental area.
Brown asked if the Growth Management Act (GMA) could allow extension of
services because of public health or safety issues.
Sutter stated the property owners want it to be a short -term planning area
so they can subdivide to four units per acre. If they don't put it into a short -term
planning area, and even if they allow services to be extended for public health and
safety, the development level is one unit per five acres.
Hoag stated there are differences of opinion between the owners. People are
not interested in having to pay for the sewer line. The premise of this request was
that the people really needed a sewer. She would rather there be a focus on
getting funding to provide sewers. Property owners say the only way they can pay
for the sewer is to subdivide. They should look at other sources of funding for the
sewer line. The Health Department discussed pursuing State funds.
Brenner stated she would like to see the County try to find extra funds. She
didn't think putting the area into the short -term growth boundary would cause
environmental damage. There are so many wetlands, she didn't believe much of
that area could be developed anyway. She wanted to see how many actual
buildable lots there would be.
Hoag stated as soon as this came from the Planning Commission, and they
suggested a provisional short -term planning area, David Syre began buying up
property. He wouldn't be doing that if he couldn't develop it. Putting the area in a
short -term planning area guarantees the development of a lot of houses.
Imhof stepped out of the room.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
Hoag continued to state it is appropriate to send this to the Planning
Commission.
Brenner stated Trillium is getting $275,000 for quarter -acre lots in
Semiahmoo, and if they think sewer is going into the area, then any lots are
valuable to them. It would be unlikely that even Trillium would be able to develop
the property. They do sensitive development around wetlands. She was more
concerned about getting sewer in there to protect the Drayton Harbor watershed
from pollution.
Council moved to item #6 until Imhof's return.
Motion to remand to the Planning Commission carried 6 -1 with Brown
opposed.
6. 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 Committee and stated this
item has been held in committee for two weeks. They will be back on August 10.
If the committee should bring this forward with substantial amendments, then they
will need to hold a public hearing, which will mean they will need to call an
emergency meeting of the Council because the amendments have to be adopted by
August 31.
Imhof returned.
Brenner stated there are two other options. They can set a public hearing
during this meeting, or ignore the deadline. She would prefer not to have an
emergency meeting because it rushes everyone. She would rather plan a hearing.
Sutter stated it wouldn't rush everyone if they introduce on August 10, then
hold the public hearing two or three weeks after that, and still meet the deadline.
Goodwin stated one of the concerns expressed at the meeting was not
having the draft Planning Commission minutes. She submitted those minutes.
Hoag also requested letters from the City of Bellingham and Birchwood
Neighborhood. The Birchwood Neighborhood did not write a letter on this item,
only another item. She also submitted those documents, along with documents
from the applicant of the Garrett property and from Jack Petrie. The purpose of
delaying it was to allow time for review.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side 8.)
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
47
Hoag stated the City of Bellingham said they preferred the County not make
these changes. The neighborhood association also spoke against it. Because of
that, she wanted a public hearing or to delay it past the deadline. That was her
recommendation. Voting on whether or not to have a hearing would be premature,
since the Council had not had time to look at it. If they just miss the deadline, she
didn't see how it would cause a problem.
Sutter stated there is still the other option of having an emergency meeting
for that one issue.
(Council returned to item #5 for a vote.)
OTHER BUSINESS
Sutter stated there was Discussion regarding a Memorandum of
Understanding with the State Department of Historic and Archeological
Resources (AB99 -272), which comes forward with a recommendation for
approval. She so moved.
Brenner stated people should know that there will be places on someone's
property that will be designated as archeological sites. It has incredible significance
on what a property owner can and can't do on their property. The property owner
may not know if there is an archeological site on the property.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated they
may be able to inform a person trying to buy property. He would find out for sure
one way or another.
Nelson stated one of the tribal concerns is identifying archeological sites to
the public because it puts their sites in jeopardy for theft or desecration.
Motion to approve the Memorandum of Understanding carried unanimously.
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND GENERAL
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 231 (AB99 -211)
Imhof moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
S. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM'S EFFORTS TO
PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE REOPENING OF THE OLYMPIC
PIPELINE (AB99 -277)
Imhof moved to recommend approval.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
46
Dawson read the resolution into the record.
Brown stated he hadn't read it. He understood the intent and the incident
was a tragedy. However, if they prolong the process of getting the pipeline up and
running, other tragedies will be caused, by increasing transportation by other, less
safe methods. They need to stress that safety issues should be followed, but it
should not be delayed any longer.
Dawson stated it is to influence the support necessary for appropriate action
by State and federal regulatory agencies and the pipeline industry. They're going
to ensure the pipeline safety and protection.
Brown stated the resolution expressed the language "all" and "every." It is a
very long and lengthy process.
Brenner questioned whether the word "its" in the sentence "NOW
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Whatcom County Council supports the City of
Bellingham to the full extent of its authority and jurisdiction..." referred to the
extent of the City's jurisdiction or the County's jurisdiction.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated the resolution was drafted by Dan
Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor. He was unsure of Gibson's intent.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated it was not a legal issue.
She interpreted it to reference the City's jurisdiction. Kremen, Sutter, and Brenner
agreed.
Kremen stated the intent of the resolution was to support what the City of
Bellingham is doing, without putting Whatcom County in any legal liability or
vulnerability. He would clarify it by saying the word "its" refers to Bellingham.
Brenner stated she preferred the word should refer to Whatcom County
because the City has no responsibility to do anything in the unincorporated areas.
She agreed to support the City, but the County also has obligation to the citizens in
unincorporated Whatcom County. Also, the County is the Health Board and this
falls within the jurisdiction of the County Council as the Health Board to protect the
health and safety of the County's residents.
Kremen stated the intent is to support the City within all limits of the
County's authority and jurisdiction.
Hoag stated the County is supporting reasonable steps taken by the City to
ensure public safety. Those reasonable steps are what the City is taking to ensure
public safety within the authority of their jurisdiction.
Sutter moved to approve the resolution.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
46
Dawson moved to amend to make the reference be toward the City.
Brenner commented that it should not refer to the City of Bellingham
because they only deal with the issues in the City. The Council as the Health Board
should not pass the ball to Bellingham.
Brenner suggested added language, "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the
County Council, as the Health Board, will develop an emergency ordinance to
ensure that Whatcom County residents know what caused the recent tragedy and
have access to lot- specific County maps showing County pipeline relocations, before
restarting the pipeline."
Sutter stated Brenner was talking about two different resolutions. This
resolution supports the City of Bellingham. They need a different resolution if they
are going to have comments on the County Health Board's intent.
(Imhof left the meeting.)
Hoag stated it is very important that they first determine the cause of the
problem before restarting the pipeline. She supported the resolution. She
suggested amending the last paragraph, "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is the
intent of the Whatcom County Council, together with the County Executive, to -weFk
with the Geunty Exeeutive to influence and support all necessary and appropriate
action..." She so moved.
(Brown left the meeting.)
Brenner restated her motion and added, "WHEREAS, the Whatcom County
Council, as the Health Board, has jurisdiction for protecting the health and safety of
it's residents."
Brenner's amendment failed 3 -2 with Hoag and Brenner in favor.
Hoag's motion carried 5 -0 with Brown and Imhof absent.
Dawson restated her motion to clarify the intent that the authority and
jurisdiction refers to the City's jurisdiction.
Brenner stated Dawson's motion says the City will take care of Whatcom
County.
Nelson stated they can say it, but the City does not have the legal authority.
Hoag called for the question.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
Motion failed 3 -2 for lack of a majority, with Hoag and Brenner opposed.
Motion to approve as amended carried unanimously.
Hoag stated the pipeline companies addressed the Natural Resources
Committee to discuss what they are doing in terms of safety. The committee will
be making recommendations to the agencies. At that time they can bring forward a
proposal for the Council's support.
Kremen stated he met with all four pipeline companies that have
transmission pipelines throughout the County. He is working with all companies
and invited the Council members to ask questions. He spoke with the companies
over a month ago and expressed the County's concern.
Hoag stated there are five companies, including ARCO. She wanted the
Council and administration to work together on speaking to the companies, so
recommendations could be made from the County as a whole.
Kremen stated it was important for administration to contact the companies
as soon as possible.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Sutter stated there are five additional items from the Planning Committee
docket to add to the Introduction Items. Those items are Planning Department files
numbered 45 -98, 47 -98, 55 -98, 53 -98, and the item regarding Title 20.44.100.
She moved to add those to the introduction items and moved to accept all the
items.
Goodwin stated there was a sixth item to set a public hearing on Lake
Whatcom, file #61 -98.
Sutter also moved to accept file #61 -98.
Goodwin requested they not introduce the item regarding Title 20.44.100,
regarding Public Facilities. She needed to write the ordinance.
Sutter withdrew that item and stated she will schedule it at the next Planning
and Development Committee.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 98 -063 ACME /VANZANDT SUB -
FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT; ORDINANCE 98 -064
LYNDEN /EVERSON SUB -FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT, AND
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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
ORDINANCE 98 -065 SUMAS /NOOKSACK /EVERSON SUB -FLOOD
CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT (AB99 -276)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 98 -080, THE 1999 WHATCOM
COUNTY UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE TO INCLUDE APPEALS TO THE
HEARING EXAMINER FOR CODE VIOLATION AND FOR OTHER
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (AB99 -279)
3. RECEIPT OF REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF LONG PLAT
APPROVAL FILED BY BEK PURNELL ENGINEERING FOR RICHALOU
ESTATES (AB99 -282)
4. ORDINANCE TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OF A NON- EXLUSIVE
FRANCHISE FROM CABLE PLUS COMPANY, L.P. TO NEWCO. L.L.C. AND
FURTHER TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP FROM NEWCO. L.L.C. TO
MILLENIUM DIGITAL MEDIA SYSTEMS, L.L.C. (A.B. 99 -278)
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 20 TO ESTABLISH A NEW CHAPTER
WATER PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONE, AND AMEND 20.80, LAND
CLEARING AND STORMWATER REGULATIONS (AB99 -286)
6. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 16.04
REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS (AB99 -287)
7. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE
TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.64, RESORT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (RC)
(AB99 -288)
8. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, POINT
ROBERTS SPECIAL DISTRICT (AB99 -289)
9. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20 ZONING
AND TITLE 21 SUBDIVISIONS (AB99 -290)
OTHER BUSINESS
Dawson stated they need a motion to send the letter from Dennis Beaman.
She moved to send the letter.
Sutter stated she needed more background information.
Dawson stated they would schedule this item for Planning and Development
Committee.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/27/99, 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 there was another letter regarding the Northwest Regional
Council asking for Council support. She so moved.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated the law requires local planning processes and local planning
forums. This is a regional council. She asked how that is accomplished.
Nelson stated it is accomplished because there is local representation on the
regional board.
Dawson stated they need to make plans to have a meeting at Mt. Baker
Foothills for the public hearing on the rezone. The rezone will not come forward
until at least September.
(Nelson left the meeting.)
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Sutter stated they received a letter from the State Department of Social and
Health Services (DSHS) regarding the Sean Humphrey House. It supported her
argument that the Council needed to talk to DSHS before approving the funding.
They made that decision without hearing both sides of the argument.
Sutter also stated that the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC)
will schedule a meeting to discuss the shoreline management guidelines. They are
only allowing two people from each county. She will attend, and requested Michael
Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, also go.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:35 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, 7/27/99, Page 31