Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial County Council October 30 1990WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING October 30, 1990 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Hansey at 7 p.m. Present Absent Emily Jackson Mary Vanderpol Bob Imhof Dan Warner Marge Laidlaw Dennis Vander Yacht INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ( *CONSENT ITEMS) 8. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE IMPOSING A TEMPORARY MORATORI- UM ON PROCESSING OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICA- TIONS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES AND SITES, PENDING STUDY OF APPROPRIATE CONTROLS (AB90 -363) WARNER MOVED TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE. Hansey explained the procedure. He said there had been discussion about having a regular ordinance but that would take several weeks so it has become necessary to propose an emergency ordinance. It has become necessary to consider an emergency ordinance because applications for facilities have been received by Buildings & Codes that may be located in inappropriate areas; by adopting an emergency ordinance tonight, these applications would be held in abeyance until the Planning Commission recommendations and Council concurrence for the most appropriate zoning and land -use plan designations for the siting of landfills would be complete. Jackson asked Randy Watts, Deputy Civil Deputy Prosecutor when the emergency ordinance would become effective and how it would affect the applications filed today. Watts said the ordinance would become effective upon passage and he was not sure if the applications were complete; if the applications were complete, they would get in under the wire but if they were not, this ordinance would preclude the applications from being accepted. Vanderpol asked what constitutes an emergency. Hansey said when there is a matter pending before the Planning Commission to develop land -use regulations that may be better for the public safety and health of the community, we have in the past adopted emergency ordinances to cover the period of time until the regulations are in effect. The pending applications received today have prompted this action. Watts said Jablinski v Snohomish dealt with a similar issue and the zoning ordinance was upheld even though it had not been publicized prior to its passage. One of the reasons this decision was reached was to allow the government to identify and act on its long term planning decisions. Watts said there needed to be a limit on its duration. Hansey said the emergency would be in effect for 60 days ending December 30, 1990. Jackson said she would support this because there is evidence that many ill planned inert landfills have caused jeopardy to people's health and safety and she feels the ordinance could be defended on this issue. Warner said he will support this; he is not so concerned about the water but the safety and welfare of the residents. Motion passed unanimously. HEARINGS AND FINAL CONSIDERATION ORDINANCE IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTION OF THE FINAL BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 1991 AND RESTRICTING THE EXPENDI- TURE OF CERTAIN FUNDS THEREIN (AB90 -352) Public hearing opened Frank Crosby, 729 E. Smith Road: When the executive proposed the budget, she said there was no money in the budget for solid waste. Warner said the problem was seriously complicated by the referendum and the County is not now proposing to site a landfill. There is doubt there will ever be a landfill in Western Washington because of the wetlands legislation. There is $1.3 million set aside for solid waste disposal but not for siting a dump, said Warner. Don Keenan, Executive Director, Opportunity Council: Would like to speak for the social agencies in the County and the tremendous need. He read from articles by the World Bank and the United Nations that stated the goals of development is to improve the human condition and offer people more options; the success of plans must not be linked to economic growth alone but to the quality of life for all. Reducing poverty should be the world's highest priority of today's decision makers; the total number living in poverty could be reduced if nation challenged themselves to make a sustained attack on poverty. Lack of housing is a growing problem in this area; the federal government has cut down on funding for housing. The Opportunity Council has had 500 calls so far in 1990 for people who have no place to go. The housing situation is critical! The clinic has seen over 3000 patients this year which is a great increase from last year. He suggests the County consider taking $1 million of the $4 million surplus and put it to work for the underprivileged of the County. These funds could be leveraged to do a great deal of good for social services. Please take a serious look at this; housing trust matching funds can make a serious impact on the housing need in the County. The public hearing was closed. OTHER BUSINESS *RECEIPT OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, FILED BY RDM COMPANY (ON FILE PENDING RECEIPT OF TRANSCRIPT) (AB90 -364) Minutes, 10/30/90, Page 2 This item was received and placed on file. INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ( *CONSENT ITEMS) 1. *RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1991 SIX -YEAR PHYSICAL PLANT AND FACILITIES CAPITAL PROGRAM RELATING TO BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES (AB90 -362) 2. *RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1991 ANNUAL ROAD CONSTRUC- TION PROGRAM (AB90 -361) (HEARING TO BE SCHEDULED) 3. *ORDINANCE REVISING THE 1990 CONVENTION CENTER FUND FOR MOUNT BAKER THEATER RESTORATION (AB90 -358) 4. *ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR COUNTY AND STATE PURPOSES IN THE COUNTY FOR THE YEAR 1991 PURSUANT TO THE HOME RULE CHARTER SECTION 6.10 (AB90- 360) (HEARING TO TAKE PLACE ALONG WITH HEARING ON BUDGET ORDINANCE, ON 11/13) 5. *ORDINANCE AMENDING EXHIBIT A OF ORDINANCE 89 -24 ESTABLISHING 1991 FEES FOR THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT (AB90- 360) (HEARING 11113) 6. *ORDINANCE IMPOSING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON PROCESSING OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES AND SITES, PENDING STUDY OF APPROPRIATE OFFICIAL CONTROLS (AB90 -363) The above six items were received by Council with hearings scheduled for Items 2,4 & 5. 7. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A POSITION OPPOSING INITIATIVE 547 RELATING TO LAND USE (AB90 -365) HANSEY MOVED ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION. Sherilyn Wells, 1020 Geneva: She spoke on behalf of initiative 547. The City of Everett chose to oppose the initiative and it was found that the members of the Council had not read the initiative. Does it make sense, with the list of supporters from neighborhood groups, church groups, education groups, etc., that it would be in favor of removing local control. She stated the initiative has a mandate to involve the public in all phases of control; there are 15 references to citizens empowerment in the Initiative. Four of the ten top donors for the opponents are from out of State; the list includes Boeing, Weyerhaeuser and California developers and their donations have funded a misleading campaign. She stated wetlands protection is inadequate because the State and the Ports are not subject to Minutes, 10/30/90, Page 3 compliance to the laws. Initiative 547 is a far superior alternatives to what we have in place now where there is no enforcement provision, stated Wells. Art Castle, Building Industry Association: He stated the biggest reason against the initiative is evident when you have read it. HB2929 had involvement from both sides and was passed in a very short time but it has been in process for two years. Kathy Stromer, 1265 E. Smith Road: Our group asked last week to have an emergency moratorium put on all landfill permits until correct regulations could be imposed by the Planning Commission; except for one member it was rejected and now there is an application in Buildings and Codes for a facility in my neighborhood. If that is not an endorsement of Initiative 547, I don't know what is; if the residents can't count on our local County Council to give support in these areas, people have no alternative but to take the control away and put other limits on. Hansey clarified there was a motion to prepare an ordinance not an actual ordinance on hand. Vander Yacht is opposed to Initiative 547 but would not feel comfortable telling the public how to vote. Jackson said she would oppose Initiative 547 as it is a breach of the public trust; there was no contact of local government by the drafting committee. She said she would support the resolution but would urge the public to read the initiative and vote their conscience. JACKSON MOVED TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION ON LINE 24 AFTER (ESHB 2929) TO ADD "AND SUPPORTS THE GROWTH COMMISSION'S RECOM- MENDATIONS TO THE LEGISLATURE" AND DELETE THE LAST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 2. Motion to amend failed 4 -3 with Hansey, Laidlaw, Vanderpol and Warner against. Warner said he had planned to support this resolution but has decided he cannot in good conscience vote for it because he has not read the whole packet and does not feel he should vote until he is better informed. Jackson asked if the Council would strengthen the last paragraph. Hansey said this is what the Washington State Association of Counties passed. WARNER MOVED TO AMEND BY DELETING THE WORDS "ONGOING CONSIDERATION OF" FROM LINE 1, PAGE 2 OF THE RESOLUTION. Motion to amend carried unanimously. Laidlaw said she has read both issues and noted the Dairy Association and Cattleman's Association, League of Women Voters, most Cities and Counties, and Planners around the State were against the initiative; she stated she would support the resolution. Vanderpol said he read the initiative and is against it on the basis that issues would be placed in the hands of an independent board without an adequate appealing process. Minutes, 10/30/90, Page 4 Sherilyn Wells: Regarding the review board referred to by Vanderpol she stated the review board mentioned in ESHB 2929 is less subject to the local control and accountability to people than Initiative 547 would require; the Initiative 547 board has to have Senate approval, they are subject to recall, the members have limited terms and there is a conflict of interest provision. She stated there are a host of conditions that would make this group subject to the people's will and have local accountability. Haney said in ESHB 2929 the local people do make the recommendations on land - use issues according to State guidelines to the State. The State can then accept them or not but it can then go on to an appeal process. The difference with Initiative 547 is that when the local people passes an issue, it is sent to a panel; if the panel rejects the issue, the local government officials would have to make the appeal. The meeting was adjourned at 8 p.m. ATTEST: L Barbara Maher, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Minutes, 10/30/90, Page 5