HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil October 26 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
October 26, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Kathy Sutter None
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Tom Brown
Robert Imhof
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Marlene Dawson reported they had a Council of the Whole meeting in which
Whatcom County Public Works Director Jeff Monsen reported to Council on
the status of local salmon recovery efforts, the fall Washington State
Association of Counties meeting, and the Puget Sound Leader's workshop
(AB99 -017).
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES TO CHIEF DEPUTY AUDITOR
TERRY HINZ AND INTERNAL AUDITOR KIM HERRENKOHL IN
RECOGNITION OF THEIR 1999 PROFESSIONAL FINANCE OFFICER
AWARDS (AB99 -017)
Dawson stated ongoing education makes the employees valuable to the
County. A lot of the extra time spent in education is a sacrifice to the families. For
that dedication and accomplishment, she presented Hinz and Herrenkohl with
certificates of appreciation.
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY THE FARM FUTURES TASK FORCE (AB99 -
017)
Joy Monjure, Everson City Councilmember, presented an action plan for
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
increasing the economic viability of farming in Whatcom County. A group of people
has been meeting for the last six months to draw up a plan of action for preserving
agriculture. There are four goals. The four goals represent serious action that can
be done to help preserve agriculture and make it more economically viable. She
asked the County Executive to draw up a resolution, which will come forward at the
next council meeting. The City of Everson will also sign a resolution in support of
the action plan. The Whatcom Land Trust is also considering a resolution of support.
They will also be asking for support from the Ag Preservation Committee and others
in the community.
There are objectives in the plan, as well as specific actions and assessment
methods. The first goal is to help the elected officials in the community understand
the contribution agriculture makes to the economy. The second goal is to protect
currently productive and potentially productive agricultural land from development,
and make it affordable and available for farming. The third goal is consumer
awareness. The last goal is to create an agricultural institute, where farmers can
learn about new technology to help them meet ongoing regulations.
Nancy VanDeHey, 8348 Carl Road, Everson, owns Harmony Farms.
Promoting and modeling sustainable agriculture has been her goal. The vision of
the Farm Futures Task Force is that they all hope to see Whatcom County have an
ecologically sound farm economy. Hopefully the four goals from the action plan
will accomplish this. There are a lot of changes going on in agriculture these days.
There are a lot of regulation changes regarding pesticide use, and manure -
spreading practices. The action plan will help to promote good sustainable farming
in the future in Whatcom County. They are seeing new farming techniques all over
the place. Many groups are working to promote good agriculture for the future.
The Whatcom Land Trust is looking into preserving the valuable farmland in the
county.
Hoag asked about the first goal, objective two, regarding making the industry
a significant focus of the Economic Development Council and Port of Bellingham's
economic development activities. She asked how they would do that. Monjure
stated they felt strongly that agriculture was being ignored by some of the people
working on Whatcom County's economic development. They want to get a farmer
on their board. By the Port doing the feasibility study for the agriculture institute, a
lot of things will come to light about how valuable farming is. This plan is not all -
inclusive. There are other things that need to be done. The American Farmland
Trust has offered help. There are other entities that are willing to help. It is
important to preserve the industry.
Brenner applauded the efforts but did not see anything about putting money
into this. She questioned whether farming could be made affordable enough to
keep farmers in farming, without some public assistance. Monjure stated it has to
do with current regulations. There are regulations now in the Comprehensive Plan
that are specifically for finding ways to help, such as transfer or buy out of
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
development rights. They are in there, but they are not being implemented. Part
of the plan is to encourage the County to devote some resources to this. The
Agricultural Institute was ranked number two on the Washington State Community
Economic Revitalization Team (WA -CERT) list. The Port of Bellingham may promise
to help. They are hoping the City of Everson has also made the Agriculture
Institute a priority.
Dawson stated she didn't see anything that asked the County to help in
carrying out the four work plans. Monjure stated they do ask the County to devote
resources and staff time to implement some of the items in the Comprehensive
Plan, such as the transfer of development rights.
Brenner stated they can also beef up the Right to Farm Ordinance. Monjure
stated they need to make sure that the farmers don't turn their land into
development. They need to find ways to keep the land in farming.
Sutter stated the list of Task Force members is impressive. She commented
on Monjure's excitement and energy.
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY THE COMMISSION AGAINST DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE REGARDING CURRENT ACTIVITIES (AB99 -017)
Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, provided an update
on the activities of the Bellingham /Whatcom County Commission Against Domestic
Violence. The Health and Human Services Department (HHSD) is the lead agency
overseeing the funds and the services the commission is providing. He introduced
Manca Valum, the chair of the Bellingham /Whatcom County Commission Against
Domestic Violence.
Manca Valum, 3169 Mt. Baker Highway, Bellingham, stated she has been
before the Council many times asking for something. Now she wanted to show the
Council the accomplishments that have been created in the community, with the
Council's support. They have been working for just over six months. In addition to
the items presented, the commission took a leadership role in the community to
support and facilitate the work of the Domestic Violence Awareness activities that
went on in the community. The result was better collaboration between agencies,
and provided a central point of access for the community members. Consequently,
the events were better attended, media outreach was better, and there was
excellent press coverage.
The commission opened its office on September 1 at 1409 Commercial in
Bellingham. She introduced the full -time coordinator, Sue Parrott. On October 19,
the commission held a community -wide planning meeting. Members of the
Whatcom County Domestic Violence Task Force, the Lummi Domestic Violence Task
Force, and other stakeholders in the community sat down to look at the work the
community needs to do to create a truly coordinated community response to this
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
problem. It was an information gathering project that will help inform the
commission of what that coordinated response plan is going to look like.
Kathy Washatka, 2607 Lakeridge Lane, Bellingham, stated the commission
became aware of a resource book that people who work in the field used. It was
created by the King County Metropolitan Council. The booklet missed some things
about what Whatcom County had to offer. They went to the organization and asked
them to use the resource book and adapt it to the community of Whatcom County.
They inserted information that was most relevant to what Whatcom County has to
offer. Five thousand copies were made. The goal was to distribute it to people
personally. They will target public and private schools, churches, law enforcement,
elected officials, businesses, and people in human resources industry. They will
also target doctors' offices and people in the mental health field.
Valum explained partnership within the community to facilitate the work they
are doing. One partnership was with Premiere Graphics who came on board and
has helped defray the printing costs.
Glen Butler, 412 Arbutus Place, Bellingham stated he is the ARCO refinery
manager and spoke about the media campaign. The commission is utilizing
resources in the media campaign, which has the goal to increase awareness,
increase awareness about the commission, and encourage people to take action.
They targeted three forms of media; radio, television, and newspaper. They've
received matching funds from Trillium Safe Community Foundation, the Cascade
Radio Group, and AT &T /TCI. Some of the spots were professionally developed by
the Family Violence Prevention Fund in San Francisco, with local tags and interviews
to help it be tied more to this community. All the media spots include the theme
from this year's domestic violence awareness month. The cable television
campaign will include 168 paid spots, and a bonus of 336 public service spots that
were matched by AT &T. This is a six -week campaign that will reach 90 percent of
adult cable households. The message will be seen an average of four times during
the six week period that it will be showing. It will start on November 1. The media
spot will include information on the commission and acknowledge Trillium Safe
Community as a sponsor. They showed the media spots on the videotape player.
Valum stated this is one of two media spots.
Butler stated the second piece is the radio. The Cascade Radio Group media
campaign has been running throughout October. Overall, 75 percent of the
Cascade Radio Group listeners; KGMI, KISM, KAFE, and KIXT are listening to an
average of five spots per week. These listeners are typically 18 years and older.
The count does not include the public service announcements that have also been
running during the month. They highlighted KIXT, which is the country station.
They are getting significantly higher coverage with that station. This is an audience
that has been left out in the past. The Cascade Radio Group is interested in an
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
ongoing relationship with the commission. The commission would like to use the
media campaign as a way to change norms regarding domestic violence.
They will also have five advertisements in the Bellingham Herald to coincide
with key events during the domestic violence awareness month. They will evaluate
the effectiveness of the campaign later in the fall. The community has had the
opportunity to run an intense, professional, and high - profile domestic violence
awareness campaign.
Brown asked how the commission plans to evaluate the campaign. Valum
explained there will be a general survey in the community, starting with service
providers, to find out if they have noticed an increase in activities regarding phone
calls or general comments that people have been making. They will do a broad
general assessment about whether people were impacted by the campaign. They
cannot do a formal evaluation to see if domestic violence was reduced because it
would cost thousands of dollars. They can anecdotally identify if people were
hearing the message and making the connection.
Brenner asked if any other newspapers would be included. Valum stated that
for this campaign they chose to focus on print advertisements in the Bellingham
Herald. In the future, they plan to do ongoing public relations work and ongoing
stories. They certainly need to include the county papers as well.
Dawson asked about providing information when people apply for a marriage
license. Valum stated that is something they have on their list of ideas. This is
something that is done in other communities. The booklet is intended to be a
mechanism in which to do that.
Imhof asked about having information in Spanish or other languages. Valum
explained that is of critical importance in this community. They need to make a
focused effort on the under - served populations, whether that is geographically,
culturally, or ethnically.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS: AUGUST 3
AND OCTOBER 12, 1999 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE; SEPTEMBER 2,
1999 SPECIAL COUNCIL
Imhof moved approval.
Brenner withdrew all three sets.
Imhof withdrew his motion.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
46
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Harry Skinner, 6600 Goodwin Road, Everson, distributed the Lake Whatcom
Fish Alert (handout on file). It is based on the latest State Department of Ecology
(DOE) sampling study of the Lake Whatcom watershed. He asked the Council to
request the Health Department to issue and formal fish alert to the general public
as to the dangers of eating fish caught in Lake Whatcom due to the mercury
concentrations in the small mouth bass samples.
Brenner requested that Dick Grout, State Department of Ecology (DOE),
come to the Natural Resources Committee and give a report.
Imhof requested that the County Health Department also be available.
Hoag stated that the person from DOE who put the study together is already
scheduled to give a report at the next Natural Resources Committee meeting. She
asked to have the State Department of Health there also. The committee can act on
it at that time.
Nelson stated that, if this were a health issue, the committee wouldn't be
able to act on anything. They will have to act as the Board of Health.
Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, explained they have
consulted with DOE on the need to do a fish advisory, and it was not warranted at
this time but can be re- considered.
Hoag explained that she would like to see this looked into. There is enough
evidence to warrant another look. Benjamin stated there are a number of variables
that need to be looked at, such as the number of fish that were collected and at
what depths they were collected.
Muriel Terry, Drayton Harbor Road, stated over a year ago, the Council voted
unanimously to direct the Planning staff to find a way to give section 13 and part of
section 18 a short -term planning area designation so that property owners there
could petition for public sewer and subdivide their land for installation of sewer and
upgraded water. After countless hours of research, and many discussions with the
County Council, the Health Department, and Birch Bay Water and Sewer District,
staff found a way to do this. It has twice been unanimously approved by the
Planning Commission. The Council of Governments also unanimously agreed that
they should have public sewers and offered support in obtaining grant applications
to Birch Bay Water and Sewer District, once south Drayton Harbor was given short -
term planning designation. Many in the area have lived there and paid developable
rate taxes for many years for land that was not farmable, but for which they held
for development; a right they counted on for their long- standing Urban Residential
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
zoning. Only three years ago did they learn that they also had to be in a short -
term planning area because of the 1991 Growth Management Act. They were not
notified of that ruling. They were not notified of the Growth Management Act. In
the past three years, they have tried to go through all the proper steps to obtain
the short -term planning area designation. Although people have said this is a top
priority problem, they are still waiting.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Terry continued to state that there are 87 owners. They contacted and
received responses from over 80 percent of all the owners. Over 87 percent of the
respondents want short -term planning area status. They want sewer at no cost or
a reasonable cost. Over 95 percent of the respondents want a sewer at no cost.
She strongly requested that the Council issue a directive to the Planning Committee
to review the map and the other information they have, and then to recommend
passage of a short -term planning designation for south Drayton Harbor at the next
Council meeting on November 9.
Sutter stated this is already on the agenda for the next Planning Committee
and is requesting staff to get together to go over the materials.
Nelson requested that the Planning Committee make this a high priority.
Sutter stated that they will put this item at the top of the list of agenda
items.
CONSENT AGENDA
Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
recommended approval of items one through five.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND BOISE CASCADE
OFFICE PRODUCTS FOR THE ANNUAL SUPPLY OF OFFICE MATERIALS
IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $120,000 (AB99 -413)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL
ENGINEERS, LOCAL 17 (AB99 -414)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
WASHINGTON STATE NURSES ASSOCIATION (AB99 -415)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 231 (AB99 -416)
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
AND URS GREINER WOODWARD CLYDE FOR THE PREPARATION OF A
LONG -TERM SAAR CREEK MANAGEMENT PLAN, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$35,000 (AB99 -417)
PUBLIC HEARING
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.83 AND
20.38, REGARDING LOT CONSOLIDATION AND NON - CONFORMING
USES (PLANNING NO. 54- 98:ZT) (AB99 -328)
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, gave a staff
report and stated there are four purposes that he wanted to focus on. They want
to minimize the consolidation of lots within urban growth areas. They want to focus
consolidation on lots less than 6,000 square feet, as referenced on page four of the
ordinance. Within rural areas, two acres would be a minimum size for
consolidation. Regarding water quality, 6,000 square feet would be the minimum
lot size within the urban growth area within the criteria. Another criteria for
consolidation would be if a portion of one of the lots was in the Lake Whatcom
watershed. Other criterion would be if a lot was within a flood plain or within a
shoreline management area. Within the rural areas, they still want to look at the
watershed as a focus for consolidation. Another focus would be on agriculture,
commercial forestry, or rural forestry lands as designated on the Comprehensive
Plan. Between 1972 and 1983, Whatcom County was not stamping the process.
Lots exempt from the lot consolidation process are those that were formally
established after September 2, 1955, by long plats or assessor plats; short plats;
the binding site -plan process; division - certified exempt, or the conveying
instrument by Whatcom County; and parcels that were legally created after
February 3, 1972 under the subdivision regulations. They didn't stamp the
exemption at that time.
Sutter explained legally created lots. Any lots that were legally created, by
legal process, after September 2, 1955 or created by exemption after February 3,
1972 are exempt.
Imhof stated it was never recorded on the deed as exempt, so it could be
considered for consolidation. After 1983, they were all stamped as exempt.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
Hoag asked how they know if they are exempt if they weren't stamped.
Knapp stated they were recorded.
Brown questioned whether that would include lots in the General Protection
zoning.
Sutter stated it would include them if the lots were created by the legal
process at the time. If they didn't go through the legal process, it would not make
it exempt from lot consolidation.
Dawson stated that gifting is an area in which people get into some trouble.
Knapp stated the waiting period is five years, but it could be longer than that.
Brenner asked why the two dates were picked.
Nelson stated that is when the laws were established.
Brenner stated there was some recording that was done before 1955.
Imhof stated it was the short -plat process law.
Brenner stated there have been lots of record recording before 1955. She
questioned whether older lots would not be exempt. Knapp stated that is a legal
question.
Sutter stated there are rules that have been established regarding the chain
of title and how far back that goes. It depends on how the lot was created and who
held title through history.
Knapp stated they are proposing to encourage consolidation of lots less than
6,000 square feet within urban growth areas.
Imhof stated this ordinance would be held in committee.
Brown questioned whether this regulation makes it more or less likely for lots
to be consolidated.
Sutter stated it makes it less likely.
Knapp stated that outside of urban growth areas, they wanted to encourage
consolidation of lots less than two acres.
Dawson opened the public hearing and hearing no one, closed the public
hearing.
Sutter moved to hold in committee.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING CODE, TITLE 20
(VARIOUS SECTIONS), REGARDING HARVEST ACTIVITY IN RF /CF
AND CONFLICTS WITH LANDOWNERS (PLANNING NO. 64- 98:ZT)
(AB99 -329)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, gave
a staff report and stated the committee recommended one final change. The
Council asked the Planning Commission to take a look at the rural forestry zoning
and forestry zoning, and how they might minimize the conflicts between the two
with zoning changes. The Planning Commission concluded that the existing
language in most of the residential zones already had a 100 -foot setback between
commercial forest activities and residential zoning. They added a few minor
changes to make that stronger. Goodwin explained the added language to WCC
section 20.61 regarding new small town commercial zoning. The change the
committee made is on page 98E, number three, "(3) For parcels of less than five
nominal acres, unless the provisions of WCC 20.80.283(2) above are applicable, a
k five fee side yard and a n9iningurn five feet rear yard setback shall be
owed conform to underlying zoning." The underlying zoning in rural forestry is
20 feet.
Dawson opened the public hearing and hearing no one, Dawson closed the
public hearing.
Sutter moved approval of the ordinance as amended in committee.
Brown asked about a timber owner having to harvest the timber next to
someone building a house near the property line, to avoid a blow down on the
house. He asked if that problem was solved.
Sutter explained the concerns addressed in the ordinance are to alleviate
some of the conflicts between foresters and homeowners. A five -foot setback
doesn't do that. When they revert to the underlying zoning, that requires a 20 -foot
setback. They still have to allow them the use of their property. Someone with an
acre of property will not have much use of their property if there are 100 -foot
setbacks on two or three sides.
Brown asked if there was any way to put something into the ordinance to
protect the forester from having to harvest before they are ready. A timber owner
would be liable if one of the trees were to blow down on a residential house.
Goodwin explained the ordinance would afford that protection. On page 98E,
section 20.80.283(2) says that a setback is 100 feet if there is commercial forestry
production.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
Motion carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20
(VARIOUS SECTIONS), TO PROVIDE CLEARER RULES FOR
DETERMINING FRONT YARD SETBACKS FOR STRUCTURES (PLANNING
NO. 56- 98:ZT) (AB99 -384)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, gave
a staff report and stated this was a very simple change suggested by the Public
Works Department. Currently the code states it assumes the road right -of -way is
60 feet wide, and the road is in the middle of the right -of -way. That is not usually
the case. Now the code says that if the road right -of -way boundary is unknown,
then it has to be surveyed and the setback is from the actual edge of the right -of-
way. That will prevent structures from encroaching on the right -of -way. There
hasn't been a lot of public comment on this. Both the Planning Commission and
staff recommend approval with no changes.
Dawson opened the public hearing, and hearing no one Dawson closed the
public hearing.
Sutter moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. RESOLUTION EXTENDING CURRENT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT FUNDING MECHANISM (AB99 -392)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director gave a staff report and stated the Council
is acting as the Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors. The resolution
reflects that action. It is a continuation of the financing formula that was approved
last year by the County Council. It is the first step in a process. It may seem early
for this. They are not required to deal with it this evening, but that is the goal. In
two weeks, there will be hearings on sub -zone assessments. Those cannot be dealt
with until the Board of Supervisors deals with this matter because the sub -zones
are based on the countywide funding mechanism. While it is relating to the
budgetary process, they need as much time as possible to be done before the end
of the year, so the assessment rolls can be completed based upon the formulas.
Lastly, it is before the Board of Supervisor's consideration to be extended for three
years to provide certainty of ongoing funding over time.
Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Ron Bronsema, 8135 Northwood Road, Everson, stated he was a member of
the County Flood Advisory Committee, who supports the resolution. They have
accumulated a surplus over the last number of years. They are at the point that,
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
with the approval of the plan, they will soon be using money out of that surplus.
There are a lot of things they can do and they can spend a lot of money. He
encouraged the Council to approve the extension of the fee.
Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
Hoag recommended changing the fee structure to equalize fee increases
pertaining to the difference in property valuation. She submitted a recommended
change, which would make it more consistent and increase the top amount. She
talked to the County Assessor's Office and asked them about the impact of her
recommendation and also if it was something they could do under the current
program and structure. The County Assessor stated he was not able to determine
the financial impact, but generally it doesn't change the majority of the fees, so
there wouldn't be much impact. The County may pick up a few additional dollars.
Regarding their current systems, they can add five new value stratum definitions,
they can change the definition of the value within the stratums, and they can
change the per parcel fee determination. She proposed six additional stratums,
and they can only accommodate five. They could cut the top limit to $2 million.
However, the rest of her recommendations could be done.
Brenner stated Hoag's recommendation was fair, however they cannot legally
base fees on assessed value. It should be a flat fee for everyone outside the flood
plain and a fee for those inside the flood plain that is based on the amount of
contribution the property makes. She would like to put this on hold and see if this
is a problem legally.
Monsen explained the financial impact by the change in the fee structure
would generate approximately an extra $100,000. Regarding the need to deal the
funding in terms of contribution and benefit, it was clear when the fee structure was
originally put into place that the intent of the County Council was to make it
temporary until an evaluation could be completed that dealt with the programs the
money was intended for. The Flood Advisory Committee worked on that
recommendation for two years. Ultimately, the recommendation that came back
was that they couldn't find a better formula, so there was ultimately no change
proposed. That is why there wasn't any action to consider. Shortly thereafter, the
flood fee was halved to deal with the countywide issues. They also promoted and
created specific sub -zones and diking districts to generate money in those areas, to
specifically charge a higher assessment to the folks in the flood plain who are
receiving a specific benefit. An individual in the sub -zone flood plain pays three
times what an individual pays that is outside of the sub -flood zone and outside of a
flood plain.
Nelson moved to refer to the Finance and Administrative Services
Committee. He was also concerned about the low cap.
Brenner asked if a new public hearing would be needed.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
Imhof stated it doesn't shut off discussion.
Brenner asked if there are people in the sub -flood districts that don't live in
the flood plain. Monsen stated the sub -flood district boundaries are to resemble the
drainage basin. The people in the sub -zones are paying an additional assessment
because they live in a flood plain and because they are contributing runoff into the
flood plain. The people outside of the flood plain, but still in the sub -zone, pay a 30
percent surcharge. They still pay a second fee, but it is much smaller than those
living in the flood plain.
Imhof stated he liked Hoag's proposal. He questioned whether they would
have to have a new hearing.
Sutter stated the public hearing could be held open for two weeks.
Hoag asked for clarification regarding the need for a new public hearing.
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, explained that they need to
introduce a new ordinance with new fee schedule during this meeting.
open.
Imhof moved to introduce the new fee schedule and keep the public hearing
Motion carried unanimously.
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20,
REGARDING SITE SPECIFIC REZONES, MASTER PLANS, AND SITE
PLAN AMENDMENTS (PLANNING NO. 69- 98:ZT) (AB99 -331)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, gave
a staff report and stated they've split the rezones into several types, one being site -
specific rezones that don't require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and is
associated with a specific project. It can go to the Hearing Examiner outside of the
annual docket process. It will expedite project approval and avoid the backlog they
are experiencing now. The ordinance would also define an area -wide rezone.
Those go forward annually with the docket. There is a process for a concomitant
rezone, which they have done in the past, but has lacked specific criteria and a
procedure. There is also an application and approval process for master plans. The
committee made changes and held it in committee. She encouraged them to move
quickly on this item.
Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Imhof requested to keep the public hearing open for two weeks.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
Jean Freestone, 3864 Robby Court, stated that she owns 4.89 acres in the
Custer re -zone area.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Freestone continued to state that anything under five acres would not be
developable. They need to clarify that. She would be speaking on packet pages
104 through 106. She asked for five or six minutes to speak.
Nelson stated it would be easier for the councilmembers if she put it in
writing. The hearing is open. That way, they can look at it.
Goodwin asked that comments be in by November 2nd
Nelson moved to have comments in writing by November 2nd
Hearing no one else, Dawson stated they would continue the public hearing
for two weeks and stated that comments should be in writing by November 2nd
Motion to continue carried unanimously.
6. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF A WHATCOM COUNTY
CONSERVANCY BOARD AND ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE
2.23 (AB99 -389)
Hoag gave a report from the Natural Resources Committee. The committee
received a petition from Public Utility District #1, the City of Lynden, Bengen
Farms, and Mayberry Packing to create a board to work on requests of transfer of
water rights and make recommendations to the Department of Ecology (DOE). The
committee makes a recommendation to the full Council to create the Water
Conservancy Board. The DOE cannot prioritize those requests. This will allow
transfers within the same source of water to be processed by a board consisting of
three commissioners to be appointed by the County Council.
Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Charles Anthott, 2265 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, stated he is an organic
farmer on Lummi Island. He has had 32 years of international agricultural
development experience, mostly in south Asia, eastern Europe, and some in the
Middle East. In that context, it has been his experience that empowering local
bodies on this issue has lead to increased water use efficiency, increased on -farm
conservation practices, and enhanced sustainability of water systems - either
surface or groundwater. A more centralized approach to dealing with water use
and water rights has lead to inefficiencies and waste. He supported the board.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
Henry Bierlink, 9713 Double Ditch, Lynden, stated everyone is appreciative
that they've heard nothing but good comments and suggestions about creating the
board. One of the amendments discussed was to limit it to sub - basins. He urged
the Council to refrain from doing that because it may set up some situations
because the lines aren't that distinct.
Steve Mach, 3864 Robby Court, Bellingham, stated he owned property on the
Guide Meridian. He is involved in several groups that deal with water. It is
important to have local people working on this issue. He supported the
conservancy board.
Brian Cieslar, 310 Hawley Street, Lynden, stated he was asked by his
employers at Mayberry Farms to speak. Three issues to be addressed include the
importance of a local involvement in this issue. Right now with the water right
issues there is no incentive to conserve water. If they don't use the water they are
allotted through the water rights, then they are at risk of losing the water rights.
To keep agriculture in the county, they need supplemental irrigation.
Doug Clark, 980 Crabtree Lane, Ferndale, stated he represented an
agriculture business store in Lynden. He was involved in irrigation systems for
farms in the county. A large part of his business is in the conservation of water.
Through the water rights transfer ability, there will be an actual conservation of
water and efficiency in farming. From a grower's standpoint, if they can transfer
water to ground that is more suited to the crop, the end result will be a more
efficient operation.
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley Street, Bellingham, spoke in favor of the
conservancy board. It has two advantages. One significant benefit is the ability to
manage the resources in a purely technical way, while stepping away from
bureaucratic constraints. In addition, this is a classic example of real local people
working with real local issues to create something that works well locally.
Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved approval of the ordinance, with the amendments approved in
committee.
Sutter moved the amendment to section 2.23.020, "...the County Council
shall choose from among persons who are residents of t+re Whatcom County er- a
ceunty that is centigueus te the ceunty that the water censeFvancy beard is te
smote.
Brown stated that language also shows up on packet page 13, section 3.3.
Sutter stated that is part of the Conservancy Board by -laws, and the County
Council can't set those by -laws.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
Hoag stated the County Council can only give the board direction to remove
that language to match the ordinance.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Motion to approved amended ordinance carried unanimously.
OTHER ITEMS
1. RESOLUTION INITIATING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WRIA 1
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT DECISION MAKING PROCESS
(AB99 -391A)
Hoag reported for Natural Resources Committee and stated the committee
amended the ordinance, which she submitted as a substitute. The substitute was a
combination of versions submitted by the councilmembers. She made a few
changes to the substitute that were not approved during committee. The public
recommended some of those changes and the Public Works attorney recommended
others. Those changes are underlined in the substitute ordinance.
Hoag moved to amend the language in paragraphs one and three,
" addFessing ESHB 2514 planning under RCW 90.82..."
16.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to insert "...that policy changes negotiated..." on page two, line
Brenner asked about budgetary changes.
Hoag stated they would come to the Council for review and approval of policy
and budget matters, as stated in the paragraph beginning on page two, line 11. In
the paragraph on page two, beginning on line 16, the County Executive is to
identify a financial administrative process. That would cover any budgetary
changes.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to amend language on page two, line 19, ...for 4n-a4 approval
" She wasn't
comfortable with that language.
Hoag stated this was the language that was voted on in committee.
Sutter stated she is making a new amendment.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
Hoag stated this language is the language that was in Sutter's proposal for
committee.
Sutter stated she still has the right to change it.
Hoag stated this is the language adopted by the committee. The language at
the end of the sentence makes it clear that, if there are changes, then those
changes would come back to the Council for approval. The last phrase was also in
her version of the resolution because there was some concern about whether the
County Council would be making policy decisions during the budgeting process.
They were trying to say that policy decisions would be made prior to final budget
approval by the Council. Once the policy has been approved, then it would go
through the budgeting process where the funds would be released.
Dawson stated that the County Council would not be in the position of
disbursing the funds. The other entity would be disbursing the funds.
Hoag stated this doesn't address that. It just says the changes would be
negotiated prior to that. The committee wanted to make it clear that, in acting as
lead entity and disbursing funds, they are not taking a "second bite at the apple."
Instead, this has to be approved ahead of time.
Nelson also stated that the policy direction of the Council would be given to
administration, as part of the Initiating Government format. They would have an
opportunity to review if there is going to be significant policy changes. He would
not support anything that would make the budget process and disbursement
coming back to the Council. The final language in there tells the members of the
Initiating Governments that the County Council will take another look at the item if
there are significant changes. That will cause those entities to feel as if the County
Council is getting the "second bite." The reason for the other two sections is to
establish a mechanism for distributing funds.
Dawson suggested language, "...for final approval prior to the budget process
and the disbursement of funds by the joint financial administrative group." They
can't approve the policy without also addressing the budget at the same time.
Imhof stated policy decisions are different from the budgeting process. He
read the language from the paragraph on page two, beginning on line 22, regarding
the County Executive. That is where the money is disbursed. Prior to that, the
County Council sets policy and can modify and change policy as they go along.
They cannot hold up financing as they do that. The Initiating Governments have to
know that the projects that have been okayed, have the funding, and can move
along. By putting policy and funding in one package they are jumbling the process
and making it more difficult than it needs to be.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
Brenner stated she could support the concept. They are only getting "one
bite of the apple" by doing all of their policy and budget approval before the final
budget process and disbursement of funds. If they make those decisions before the
budget and disbursement of funds, then they won't need a second bite and will take
care of it. The reason for that language was because they don't want to make a
final approval, and then have that process changed somewhere else. The only
reason the words are in there is to prevent significant changes after they have
made their policy and given their approval, and to give the Council the time to
make decisions ahead of time, instead of at the last minute.
Brown read from page two, lines 11 -14, regarding meeting with the County
administration. That language gives the County Council the opportunity for
approval of the items. Then it puts the responsibility on the Executive to ensure
the items go forward as agreed. If not, then the County Council can look at it again
the next time something comes forward for review or budgeting.
Dawson stated that policy changes also refer to and incorporate those budget
changes they already have reviewed and approved.
Imhof, Nelson, and Sutter disagreed.
Dawson stated they have one "bite at the apple" in terms of managing and
being held accountable.
Hoag stated that the paragraph on page two, beginning on line 11, is very
important. That is where the County Council gives its policy direction, and reviews
what is under consideration. She read the paragraph on page two, line 16. The
first time they are reviewing and approving what is going on. If the County Council
approves something that goes forward, and it is significantly changed and is a
policy matter, then it will come back to the County Council. As far as the budget
goes, all it says is that it will come back for approval prior to the budget process. It
doesn't say the budget will come back to the County Council. The budget is
addressed in the interlocal agreement. If they don't like the word "final," then it is
okay with her, but any policy changes that occur need to come back to the
respective councils for approval. If the County Council specifies what the County is
willing to do, and the other Initiating Governments don't agree, then the issue
needs to come back to the Council. The Council would have to decide whether or
not to agree with the other four Initiating Governments. It is a consensus based
planning approach. It is very important that any policy change made at the table
come back to the Council for review. That is separate from budget. That is what
that wording is saying.
Sutter agreed that it is separate from the budget process and they should
not be tied together. They are talking about policy changes. Some of the policy
changes the County Council gives to the administration may not be tied to the
budget at all. They are going to be making policy decisions all year long. Some of
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
those decisions will not be tied to the budget and should not have to hold the
budget up. She cannot support tying those two together in this context.
Brenner stated she understood they would be going through segments of
budgets and policies all along, and they are not tied to a once per year budget
process. She assumed that the County Council could okay changes and budgets as
they go along. This is not a once per year thing.
Hoag stated it was not the intent of the language to restrict it to the yearly
Council budget process. This is not intended to tie it to the County Council's budget
process. It is simply intended to separate the processes and say that policy
changes need to come back to the County Council before the money for those
changes is disbursed.
Nelson stated the flood control money used in the process is accorded to and
controlled by the County Council. There are pass- through dollars that will be going
through the County administrative process. The County administration will be
providing monthly meetings to address policy and budget concerns. Executive
Kremen will be going to the Initiating Government meetings and will be taking the
policies of the Council. The other Initiating Governments will be making decisions
based on the concerns of their Councils. Everyone will have to reach a consensus.
Hoag stated the flow chart she had shows a different role than what Nelson is
referring to for the Initiating Governments administrative decision - makers. The
administrative decision - makers are exactly that - administrative. The policy comes
from the councils of the Initiating Governments. Those types of decisions go to the
Councils for approval. If there are changes that are negotiated, then they go back
to the councils for approval. This is what the law calls for and what the flow charts
called for when they approved the memorandum of understanding. Nelson's
comments about the role of the Initiating Governments and Executive Kremen's
role are not accurate.
Nelson stated it was not accurate by her interpretation.
Brown stated the County Council has the opportunity to tell its representative
to the Initiating Government, Executive Kremen, what the County Council wants
during the monthly meetings. When Executive Kremen sits at the table with the
other four members, then they all have a viewpoint of their own. Among them,
they must reach an agreement. If Executive Kremen feels that he is jeopardizing
what the County Council has said, then it is up to him to stop the process there. He
has that ability because all five must agree. The County Council has to put its faith
in Kremen.
Kremen stated that Whatcom County, the City of Bellingham, the Nooksack
Tribe, the Public Utility District, and the Lummi Tribe have been working in unison
for a long time. Compared with other efforts statewide, they are far ahead of most.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
They need to take advantage of the collaboration. Right now, they are at a
crossroads. It is very important that the County does everything it can to foster
the continuation of this effort. It is for the good of the entire community. The
Council ultimately has veto ability within reason. The County Council should let the
Initiating Government achieve their objectives.
Brenner asked about the veto power. Kremen stated that the County Council
can say no on a policy they don't buy into.
Hoag stated that after watershed planning has been completed and all of the
parties have contributed their input and there is a final product, it would be very
difficult for the County Council to reject that. It is more important to do what the
law calls for. The veto he referred to says the legislative authority of the County
cannot amend the final plan. They can only say no. The County is one of the
Initiating Governments. It is important the County be actively involved in the
policy that is decided at that table, on behalf of the County constituents. The other
governments at the table don't represent the farmers, fishers, or loggers. Only the
County does. The County will not relinquish its job at the table. It is the Council's
job to determine, set, and approve policy. All they're asking is that any changes
negotiated at the table come to the Council for approval.
Kremen stated Hoag misinterpreted his comments. He was trying to enable
the Council to move forward and make the right decision. He didn't disagree with
any of Hoag's assertions. Everyone who lives in Whatcom County is a constituent,
including the tribes. They do have an important, significant charge.
Motion to amend carried 4 -3 with Hoag, Brenner, and Dawson opposed.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Sutter read a proposed amendment to the language on page two, the
paragraph beginning on line 22, "...to identify vaFieus ,'te~ ~dies fee= the el=eatien e
by way of an interlocal agreement a financial administrative process..." That
language doesn't specify who that agreement is to be with.
(Clerk's Note: Although the Council did not move to approve or vote on the
above proposed language, it was the clear intent of the Council to do so.)
Hoag stated Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor Dan Gibson talked with her about
that during the afternoon. He recommended that it be left open for the
administration to work out and bring to the County Council for approval.
Imhof stated it might be a different agreement with each Initiating
Government.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
Sutter stated they were talking about the financial administrative process for
the entire watershed management project. That administrative process, which is to
be jointly administered by the five Initiating Governments, needs to be agreed to
by all five Initiating Governments.
Imhof stated that is probably what will happen, but they will leave it to the
administration to bring forward the options.
Hoag stated they are leaving it to the discretion of the administration.
Nelson suggested that they see what the Initiating Governments have to say.
Imhof moved to approve as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated they didn't discuss the amendments on lines 28 and 29 of page
two. She questioned whether, when they voted for the resolution "as amended,"
the intent was to approve the amendments shown in the substitute resolution.
(Clerk's Note: Resolution approved as amended, including all amendments
specified in the draft resolution.)
The Council agreed that they were included.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1999 BUDGET, REQUEST #9 (AB99 -401)
Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved approval. There is a correction to the total in a substitute ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.82,
PUBLIC UTILITIES (PLANNING NO. 50- 98:ZT) (AB99 -377)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated they
need to schedule for public hearing for November 9th because of the nature of an
amendment proposed by the committee.
Hoag stated she wanted to bring forward more changes for consideration.
Sutter stated they don't have the exact language of the amendment. The
amendment is under item number five, to delete the amendment that the Planning
Commission is recommending, and also to amend section 20.82.023.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
46
47
48
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated the amendment is to add a restriction to water storage tanks for fire
reservoirs so they would not exceed 50,000 gallons.
Sutter stated it is a difference between a permitted and a conditional use.
Goodwin stated it would be a permitted use if it was under 50,000 gallons,
and a conditional use if over 50,000 gallons.
Sutter stated it is being held in committee and scheduled for a public
hearing.
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20
(VARIOUS SECTIONS), REGARDING PERSONAL STORAGE BUILDINGS
(PLANNING NO. 51- 98:ZT) (AB999 -378)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated there is
an amendment to the findings on packet page 77. She read finding number three.
It sounds like it is okay to place a storage building only when no other structure is
present. They want to amend it to say, "Staff finds that the placement of personal
storage buildings on individual lots, when ne e whether or not another structure
is present, the size of the structure is limited...." She so moved.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
asked for latitude to write the language so it makes a complete sentence.
Sutter agreed.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brown wished one could have larger storage buildings on lots that don't have
a home.
Sutter stated that was clarified in committee.
Brown stated someone with a wood lot in rural lands couldn't get a building
permit for a building to store a tractor, unless one gets a permit to build a house.
That is what people are told when going to the Building and Land Use Division.
Nelson stated that wasn't true, if the land was used for commercial forestry.
Brown stated someone with a wood lot used for gathering firewood couldn't
legally have a storage shed for storing a tractor. That makes a lot of outlaws out of
people. There are a lot of five, ten, and 15 acre parcels that people use to get
wood.
Goodwin stated they might need an administrative interpretation to clarify
the intent. The use is commercial forestry or growing of trees, which are both
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
47
48
49
permitted uses in a rural zone, then other accessory uses, including a storage shed,
would be allowed if the primary use was growing of timber.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Director, stated that constructing
large buildings begins to conflict with the residential purpose in residential zones.
That is why it has not been allowed in the past.
Brown stated people are not being allowed to protect their equipment, or
they are required to haul it up and down the road when they want to play on the
land. People should be able to store something on their land.
Brenner stated she wanted to see this issue discussed in committee.
Brown stated another problem is that one can't legally have any plumbing in
these buildings, so one can't have a pump house.
Knapp stated one couldn't have indoor plumbing.
Dawson stated this was discussed during committee. Planning said that the
pump house is not indoor plumbing. One could have a pump house.
Hoag stated she brought it up in committee. She proposed language that
would say indoor plumbing fixtures would be prohibited. That would allow someone
to have a pump house. Planning said one could have a pump house.
Brown stated that one would not store equipment in the pump house. If one
has a pump house, then one can't have another building to store equipment. A
person is allowed only one storage building.
Sutter stated a pump house is not a storage building.
Brown stated he wanted that clarified.
Dawson stated it is on the record, and there has been clarification from the
staff. A pump house is not a storage building.
Hoag asked if one could have a pump house and a storage building. She
questioned whether they are going to allow these things on lots in the county.
Generally, if people are going to develop, they will put in a well. She didn't want to
litter the countryside with pump houses and storage sheds. She had seen this in
areas where people will buy a lot, put up a storage shed, and will park their
recreational vehicle there once a year.
Brown stated people enjoy going there once a year, and the rest of the year
the land is undeveloped.
Sutter moved approval as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, Page 23
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.85,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS ACCESSIBLE PARKING (PLANNING
NO. 57- 98:ZT) (AB99 -380)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Committee and moved
approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20
(VARIOUS SECTIONS), REGARDING ADULT FAMILY HOMES AND
CHILDCARE FACILITIES (PLANNING NO. 63- 98:ZT) (AB99 -381)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated the
committee made an amendment that will require a public hearing. They want to
schedule the public hearing for the next meeting. The amendment will be on the
bottom of packet page 90, "20.XX Certain Non - Commercial and Non -
Industrial zone districts. Add the following new conditional uses to eaeh e# the
El and districts." The conditional use listed is a daycare center. Many daycare
centers are not in a family dwelling and they believed it was not appropriate for
people to go into an agricultural area and build a daycare center facility. It would
still be allowed in a family daycare home. This item does not need to be scheduled
in committee.
Nelson questioned whether building a daycare facility was an allowed use in
industrial zones.
Sutter stated it would be allowed as a conditional use.
7. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.34,
REGARDING LUMMI ISLAND RR -1 DISTRICTS (PLANNING NO. 66-
98:ZT) (AB99 -330)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated they
needed to schedule a public hearing. The amendment is on packet page 96, to add
language, "(9) No aerial application of chemical products shall be allowed."
Brown stated that would not allow anyone to fight a fire from the air.
Sutter stated it is only for Lummi Island and it is only as it applies to retail
plant nurseries.
8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A NEW
LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FROM BIRCH BAY BALLROOM
RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE, 8732 BLAINE ROAD, BLAINE, WA (AB99 -
419)
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
Imhof moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
9. REQUEST CONFIRMATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
MICHAEL STONER TO FILL THE VACANCY ON THE WHATCOM COUNTY
MARINE RESOURCES COMMITTEE FOR THE ECONOMIC INTEREST
PERSPECTIVE, AS OUTLINED IN RESOLUTION 99 -023 (AB99 -420)
Imhof moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
10. APPOINTMENT TO DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #3, FOUR
MILE CREEK AREA (AB99 -141)
Imhof moved to appoint Jason Vander Veen
Motion carried unanimously.
11. APPOINTMENT TO DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #15, SUMAS
AREA (AB99 -364)
Imhof moved to appoint Albert Schulz and James Olesen by acclamation.
Motion carried unanimously.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Imhof moved to accept the 21 introduction items, including Agenda Bill 99-
392A added as an introduction item.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. ORDINANCE REVISING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 24.05,
ON -SITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS (AB99 -421)
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE POINT ROBERTS
CHARACTER PLAN TEXT AND TITLE 20 ZONING TEXT RELATING TO
POINT ROBERTS (AB99 -411)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND TITLE 20 ZONING TEXT REGARDING ADULT
ENTERTAINMENT (AB99 -412)
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN REGARDING CAPITAL FACILITIES (AB99 -407)
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING THE BLAINE UGA (AB99 -410)
6. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING THE COLUMBIA VALLEY /KENDALL
UGA (AB99 -409)
7. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING AGRICULTURAL LANDS (AB99 -406)
8. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA PLAN AND
THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20 ZONING MAP FROM UR3 TO
LII FOR 10.74 ACRES (BELLINGHAM UGA /MARINE DRIVE REZONE)
(AB99 -405)
9. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONE MAP
REGARDING RURAL AND RURAL FORESTRY DESIGNATIONS FOR 5.84
ACRES IN THE FOOTHILLS SUBAREA (WARNICK AMENDMENT) (AB99 -
408)
10. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, LII
AND HII ZONING TEXT TO IMPLEMENT THE URBAN FRINGE PLAN
(AB99 -404)
11. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TEXT
REGARDING THE CHERRY POINT PIER DEVELOPMENT (PLANNING
COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99 -
430) (AB99 -403)
12. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WHATCOM COUNTY 2000 ROAD
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (AB99 -422)
13. RESOLUTION EXTENDING CURRENT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL SUB -ZONE FUNDING MECHANISM FOR ACME /VAN ZANDT
SUB -ZONE (AB99 -423)
14. RESOLUTION EXTENDING CURRENT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL SUB -ZONE FUNDING MECHANISM FOR LYNDEN /EVERSON
SUB -ZONE (AB99 -424)
15. RESOLUTION EXTENDING CURRENT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL SUB -ZONE FUNDING MECHANISM FOR
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
SUMAS /NOOKSACK /EVERSON SUB -ZONE (AB99 -425)
16. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOWER NOOKSACK RIVER
COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN (AB99 -426)
17. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2000 SIX -YEAR PHYSICAL PLAN AND
FACILITIES CAPITAL PROGRAM RELATING TO BUILDINGS AND
FACILITIES FOR WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON (AB99 -427)
18. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR COUNTY AND
STATE PURPOSES IN WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON, FOR THE
YEAR OF 2000, PURSUANT TO HOME RULE CHARTER, SECTION 6.10
(AB99 -428)
19. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGET OF WHATCOM COUNTY
FOR THE YEAR 2000 AND RESTRICTING THE EXPENDITURE OF
CERTAIN FUNDS THEREIN (AB99 -429)
20. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE YEAR 2000 UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE
(AB99 -431)
21. RESOLUTION EXTENDING CURRENT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL ZONE DISTSRIC FUNDING MECHANISM (AB99 -392A)
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Dawson announced the following meetings:
• Forestry Forum on November 4th
• Budget Hearing on Thursday, October 28th and Tuesday, November 2nd
Imhof reported on the County Road Administration Board (CRAB) Board.
There is $8 million in extra money. Whatcom County may pick up some extra
money, around $500,000. They'll find out at the January meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Dawson reported on a letter that was to be sent to the Justice Department
and copied to their federal officials concerning an executive order preserving 40
million acres of forestry without any public input. Dawson moved approval of
sending the letter.
Brenner stated she would abstain because she didn't see it in her mail and
hasn't had time to review it.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner abstaining.
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, 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
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Brenner stated Sylvia Goodwin and she are going to Point Roberts to look at
the situation with the recreational vehicles. They are going on November 10th, and
invited other councilmembers to attend.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on , 1999.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Regular County Council Meeting, 10/26/99, Page 28