Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket Apr 14 2009WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-163 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: Cathy CraverCAI-3 v 3/31/09 Introduction I� V E D �C L� Division Head: Oliver Grah lJJ (_1r �/GQ /O i 4/14/09 Nat Res/Council L/ MAR 2 4 2009 Dept. Head: David Stalheim tltv RR n' ?i ? ;{ a a d� ®� N Prosecutor: Royce d Buckingham (COUNCIL Purchasing/Budget: Executive: Pete Kremen `� i.)y TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Ordinance amending the Whatcom County Code to add section 20.04.075 Watershed Boundaries ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance SEPA review required? ( X ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( X ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: S UMMA R Y S TA TEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Ordinance amending the Whatcom County Code to add section 20.04.075 to address boundary maps for the regulated watersheds of Whatcom County. COMMITTEE ACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION: 3/31/2009: Introduced Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. WHATCOM COUNTY oM CO Planning & Development Services �� `yA 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 360-676-6907, TTY 800-833-6384 �'sMNatO� 360-738-2525 Fax MEMORANDUM To: Whatcom County Council David Stalheim Director J.E. "Sam" Ryan Assistant Director MAR 2 0 2009 Through: David Stalheim PETS KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE From: Cathy Craver, Planner II6cl Date: March 19, 2009 Subject: Zoning Text Amendments for regulated watersheds boundary maps The Whatcom County Code does not currently include text defining the use of watershed boundary maps for the regulated watersheds of Whatcom County (Lake Whatcom, Lake Samish, Lake Padden, Drayton Harbor, and Birch Bay). The proposed amendment gives clarification to the purpose and accuracy of the maps utilized in reviewing development applications for proposals within one of the regulated watersheds, and for implementing regulations of the Water Resource Special Management Area, Water Resource Protection Overlay District, and the Stormwater Special District. The watershed boundaries were established based on the Surface Water Delineation Boundaries Map -Version 3, as adopted in the Water Resource Inventory Area 1 (WRIA-1) Watershed Management Plan, February 2005. These boundaries are approximate boundaries given the Best Available Science. The maps are general guides for the Technical Administrator, property owners, and members of the public for assessing the general location of a watershed boundary. Parcels intersecting boundaries on the maps may still be subject to field investigation to confirm actual boundary. 2 I SPONSERED BY: 2 PROPOSED BY: 3 INTRODUCTION DATE: 4 5 6 ORDINANCE NO.. 7 8 AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20, TO ADD SECTION 9 20.04.075 WATERSHED BOUNDARY MAPS 10 11 WHEREAS, Whatcom County Code 20.71 has established a Watershed Resource 12 Protection Overlay District to provide additional controls to preserve and protect unique and 13 important water resources within Whatcom .County; and 14 15 WHEREAS, Whatcom County Code 20.80.635 has, established Stormwater Special 16 Districts to provide additional stormwater controls to preserve and protect unique and important 17 water resources within Whatcom County; and 18 19 WHEREAS, Whatcom County Code 20.80.735 defines Water Resource Special 20 Management Areas to establish a more stringent standard for clearing activity in highly valued 21 water resource areas within Whatcom County; and 22 23 WHEREAS, the above codes regulate five watersheds in Whatcom County (Lake 24 Whatcom, Lake Samish, Drayton Harbor, Birch Bay, and Lake Padden; and 25 26 WHEREAS, the'boundaries of the regulated watersheds were established based on the 27 Surface Water Delineation Boundaries Map -Version 3, as adopted in the Water Resource 28 Inventory'Area 1 (WRIA-1) Watershed Management Plan, February 2005; and 29 30 WHEREAS, these boundaries are approximate boundaries given the Best Available 31 Science; and 32 33 WHEREAS, the amendment will allow the Technical Administrator and the general public 34 to utilize watershed boundary maps as guidance for determining watershed boundaries for 35 implementation of the code; and 36 37 WHEREAS, RCW 36.70.795 requires the adoption of Findings of Fact to justify Council 38 action, the Council makes the following Finding of Facts: 39 40 1. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing, for the Zoning Text Amendment was 41 published in the Bellingham Herald on July 13, 2008. 42 43 2. Notice of the subject amendment was sent to the Department of Community Trade 44 and Economic Development (CTED) and other State agencies on July '14, 2008.. 45 46 3. On April 2, 1996, Whatcom County designated Lake Whatcom and Drayton Harbor 47 watersheds as Water Resource Special Management Areas. 48 49 4. On November 23, 1999, Whatcom County designated the Drayton Harbor watershed 50 as a Special Stormwater. District. 51 Page 1 3 1 5. On December 7, 1999, Whatcom County adopted the Water Resource Protection 2 Overlay District for Lake Whatcom, and also designated the Lake Whatcom 3 watershed as a Special Stormwater District. 4 5 6. On May 15, 2001, Whatcom County designated the Lake Samish watershed as a 6 Water Resource Special Management Area, Water Resource Protection Overlay 7 District, Special Stormwater District. 8 9 7. On September 28, 2004, Whatcom County designated the Birch Bay watershed as a 10 Special Stormwater District and a Water Resource Special Management Area on an 11 interim basis, with a permanent designation adopted on February 22, 2005. 12 13 8. On March 11, 2008, Whatcom County designated the Lake Padden watershed as a 14 Water Resource Special Management Area, Water Resource Protection Overlay 15 District, Special Stormwater District on an interim basis. 16 17 9. The government of Whatcom County and the general public will benefit from the 18 adoption of watershed boundary maps for the regulated watersheds of the Water 19 Resource Special Management Area, Water Resource Protection Overlay District, 20 Special Stormwater District for the purposes of guidance when implementing Title 20 21 Zoning Code. 22 23 10. This amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies of the 24 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan: 25. 26 Policy 11E-2: Maintain as a high priority the protection of water quality and 27 quantity, and associated features like watersheds and aquifers. 28 29 GOAL 11F: Protect and enhance Whatcom County's surface water and 30 groundwater quality and quantity for current and future generations. 31 32 Policy 11F-1: Manage surface water systems, where appropriate, on a 33 watershed basis. 34 35 Policy 11F-2: In conjunction with the public and appropriate local, State, and 36 Federal jurisdictions, define and identify watersheds, which may require special 37 protection. These areas may include aquifers, critical aquifer recharge areas as 38 defined under the Growth Management Act, Groundwater Management Areas, 39 wellhead protection areas, and high priority watersheds such as those specified 40 under WAC 400 - "Local Planning and Management of Non -point Source 41 Pollution", WRIA Watershed Management Planning, and 'Under legislative policy 42 direction (e.g. Nooksack Basin, Lake Whatcom; Lake Samish and Drayton 43 Harbor). 44 45 GOAL 11G: Protect water resources and natural drainage systems by controlling 46 the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff. 47 48 Policy 11G-1: Manage stormwater runoff to minimize surface water quality and 49 quantity impacts and downstream impacts on channel morphology, property 50 owners, and aquatic habitats. 51 Page 2 0 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 Policy 11G-6: Develop specific stormwater management programs for each drainage basin within the county's jurisdiction, which may be impacted by urban levels of development. Recognize the Lake Whatcom Watershed., Lake Samish, and Drayton Harbor as high priorities in this effort. Coordinate efforts with the Lake Whatcom Management Committee program, the Lake Samish Watershed Management Advisory Committee, the shellfish protection districts, and other watershed management plans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that Whatcom County Code Title 20 is hereby amended as indicated in Exhibit F of this ordinance. ADOPTED this day of , 200_. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of the Council APPROVED AS TO,FORM:..:::`. ram,... Civil Deputy Prosecutor Page 3 Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Pete Kremen, County Executive ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Date Signed: 5 z s 7 } � i0' � t roc N4 a EXHIBIT E II t } ,r--��- 1 t - -- _! FAGLEWOOD a j i auras-- r ! .# Dlct KERSON PALMER% U { , Ij m 1 4 1 1 pe i' INGSMILL t o O } OI l ; �`� { ItoU.{ ' ' z - anal ,-}7 r Qi — � t_—TAE17�_,__t JULIA r j ; &OUTFI H — RAPTOR' �C2GEFIELD $ - p of ( SEHOME �—� —I �i O Z f l �H - A'Y SOUiH� : w HPRRISON ` 1 : 4 -1 Lt_ ' WIL v BROADS j - TIMBERLAK6� " 3y�.`� bDLLEGE COLLEGE T j Lj PRIVATE 77 w �,11 1= GERiTY a =`u� C� Lu LAKE PARK z 1 _�L9ELlE tl U� ;. - \—SAT76, 3TOf1E _.tom 8AYV1 04 k -------- 2ND� ' °EEUFWNI TC°N C°U°M1600tlTE INPI EB 7 AGREEARNT WNNTNE FOUMMa STATEMENT: Lake adder MIND �rullolmr \e ■ mnmenmw�`%!ma wr�4omnumox., Implll. MnpneeWmarrmafFleMtleepnenaleplb.— eq, npelrcl, map WtptnprAeaAl/pideM depimN apiE4 ap. ApFpprmlNa nap a[WaNaaN MtpomlNlllil pal Mnam,am Watershed Nmm open M IMN Wpekpn G°YF pennipn f mm Nntl eENetl eep tla�n�.MpWII4WIYepkpmmpnelWamn. Source: Whatoom County PDS a' zpe 4 Whatoom County Assessor June 2008 sbw. Feel 0 zoo 400 Nee 1.200 11600 10 EXHIBIT F Whatcom County Code 20.04.075 Watershed Boundaries. Where provisions of this title refer to watershed boundaries, the approximate location and extent of such watershed boundaries shall be based on surface water delineation maps, which shall be available at the Planning and Development Services Department for public inspection. Property owners, the director, and/or members of the public may use these watershed boundary maps as a general guide, but the maps do not provide a comprehensive accounting of areas subject to this title nor do they provide a definitive watershed boundary designation. Watershed boundaries shown on the county's maps are approximate. Field investigation, analysis by a qualified professional, and/or consideration of other sources of credible scientific information may be required to confirm watershed boundaries. The county shall update the maps on a regular and consistent basis as new information becomes available. 11 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION July 24, 2008 Regular Meeting 5 1 Public Hearing 2 3 File #ZON2007-00015: A proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt 4 maps of the designated sensitive watersheds of Whatcom County. (Lake Whatcom, Lake 5 Padden, Drayton Harbor, and Birch Bay. 6 7 Cathy Craver presented the staff report. 8 9 The regulated watersheds have special provisions. By adopting the proposed language the 10 maps will be used as a guide for staff and the public, when implementing these 11 regulations. The information we have today can't draw an exact line to delineate the 12 watershed boundaries so the maps are only a guide. Staff will need to go out and look at 13 the property if the boundary is in question. In some cases a qualified professional will 14 need to come in and verify the boundary. 15 16 Stalheim: The boundary lines are generally accurate within 500 feet. 17 18 Craver: On the revised maps we could have a reference to surface water delineation 19 boundaries from the WRIA process. We could put in language saying "surface water 20 delineation maps, which shall be available at the Planning and Development Services 21 Department for public inspection". That is language that is used in the Critical Areas 22 Ordinance. 23 24 The hearing was opened to the public. 25 26 Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County: If I get a map I expect it to 27 be more than a guide, I expect that map to tell me precisely where I am going. Going to 28 the counter and being told that the lines on the map may not be accurate certainly denies 29 the applicant some sort of certainty or clarity. Our members already have enough trouble 30 determining wetland issues so we are very concerned. The applicant should have enough 31 certainty to begin an investment. 32 33 Mann: How would we get the map more specific? It seems the only way would be to 34 spend more taxpayer dollars on more surveys, etc. 35 36 Quehrn: That's your job. It's not a map if it's not precise. Maybe it should be called 37 something else so it would alert the applicant. 38 39 Bob Wiesen, Whatcom County: I think you should be able to get an accurate map. Is 40 there going to be a cost to the guy that comes and asks the questions about the 41 boundary? That's not fair. You have enough data that you should be able to come up with 42 a map. Even if it misses just a little bit people will know where that line is. Having 500 43 feet on either side creates a monstrous gray area. 44 45 The hearing was closed to the public. 46 47 Work Session 48 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 47 48 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION July 24, 2008 Regular Meeting Hunter: What happens when someone comes in and is building close to the watershed line? Craver: They would be routed to our watershed team who would evaluate the site. Hunter: Do they get any guidance where they are in regards to the watershed? Stalheim: Currently there are no provisions within the code that provides that kind of guidance. Hunter: So how do you make the determination when someone walks in? Stalheim: We have maps we look at. Hunter: So what is the difference between what we are doing now and what we would be doing with these new regulations? Stalheim: In this proposal we are talking about a process to the review. Right now it just talks about watersheds, not some of the information that is used to make the determination. I think there are two different approaches. One is the approach that has been presented by staff with some limited accuracy. The other approach is to have hard and fast lines which may have properties inaccurately in or out of the watershed. We use the same approach for wetland mapping. It's inaccurate and we tell people that it's for information only. A Hunter: I think that's a good point that some parcels may be listed inaccurately if we have a hard line. Though it may costs individuals to get a determination I think the public is served by that. It will be a fairly modest amount of people who will be doing that. Melious: When a property is evaluated how is it done? Craver: The watershed team has criteria they use. If they can't make the determination they call for a specialist to come in. Mann moved to approve the staff report as presented. Lesow seconded. Roosma: I'm going to vote against the motion. There needs to be some certainty in the map. Mann: How are you going to pay for that? Roosma: Stick to the line you have. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — Burdge, Hunter, Lesow, Mann, Melious; Nays — Roosma; Abstain — 0; Absent — Menzies, Belisle, Steensma. Motion Carried. Work Session 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 47 48 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION July 24, 2008 ular Meeti 7 File #ZON2007-00016: Discussion of a zoning amendment designed to prevent garage - dominated streetscapes. Osborn: This is a follow up to the May 8, 2008 meeting. I would like to give you a tour, using Google Earth, showing the different types of garage placement. Graphics were shown of garages set out from the house, recessed from the front of the house and placed in the back of the house. Graphics were shown of various garage types in Whatcom County. Hunter: The problem with access in the back is then you have an alley. Does that create more impervious surface? Is this really a benefit? Mann: Do we require off street parking? Osborn: We require two off street parking spots. Mann: Why don't we change that to make if voluntary? Osborn: I want to clarify your purpose for the amendment which I take to be encourage the creation of more aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods, promote connectivity, walkability, livability, greater sense of community, all by eliminating the garage dominated streetscape. Mann: For me it's not aesthetics, it's all of the others. Lesow: When I first put this forward I was considering incentives to be put out to accomplish this. Incentives are fine but if we can go into this with some stronger language that would be good. Ladner, B.C. is my personal favorite because you can walk any where you need to go. Decreasing dependence on the automobile is a real strong point. Ladner is surrounded by agricultural land so there is a greater sense of living in a village that is surrounded by open space. Fishtrap Lodge, in Lynden, is not a walking community. I would like to see an open space component in this proposal. Melious: Design standards aren't something people are used to so I don't know that we should go forward with regulations without looking at other options. Osborn: I have drafted what these regulations would be applicable to and would like your input on them. They would apply to: all new proposed single family and multi -family residential proposed development at urban densities, cluster lot development in the Agricultural and Rural zones, and retro-development projects that incur costs greater than 50% of the original value. Lesow: I would say it should apply to single and multi -family homes, retro development projects and should not apply to clustering. It would not apply to areas outside the UGAs. Mann: Why don't you want it to apply to clusters? 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 47 48 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION July 24, 2008 lar Meeti Lesow: I think people generally move to an Agricultural or Rural zone in order to have a larger house or lot. It should apply to more walkable or transit oriented areas. 0 Roosma: If you build in a UGA the city says what your house is going to look like because the area will be annexed. Lesow: I think we are farther ahead on this than Bellingham is. They may think this is a good idea and go along with it. Osborn: Bellingham is headed in that direction. Osborn: These regulations would not apply .in Commercial Forestry, Neighborhood Commercial, Tourist Commercial, Light Impact Industrial, General Manufacturing, Heavy Impact Industrial or Airport Operations zones. Some ideas to consider for the regulatory approach are to Inclucle language that requires garages to occupy less than 50% of the front building fagade, mandatory garage rear lane or side yard access for all new residential development at urban densities, and language that requires garages to be set back, or recessed, a certain distance relative to the front building fagade. Lesow: Could you contact the planner in Markham, Ontario and see what percentage they use? Examples of design guidelines from various cities were shown. Hunter: It seems like you could eliminate a huge amount of impervious surface is to require that all garages are entered from the rear and the driveway can be no longer than four feet. That way you can't park in the driveway, you have to park in the garage and you don't have long driveways, but you would have driveways. I don't know how that would balance out with the amount of impervious surfaces. Osborn: Some of the incentives could be density bonuses similar to those allowed in a planned unit development, reduced front, side or rear yard setbacks to allow for placing of garages closer to side and rear lot lines, or variances to minimum lot size and minimum lot width and length. A hybrid approach would be to have mandatory front yard garage setbacks, building articulation, density bonus incentives, or permit fast tracking at the building permit level. From our previous meeting I noted your concerns were if alley or secondary street access designs are utilized so as to encourage side loaded or rear lane access how will this impact hydrology? Will this type of design be compatible with low impact development standards? Mann: In a typical new subdivision, with all of the garages in the front, what is the street width? 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 47 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION July 24, 2008 Regular Meeting Stalheim: If there is parking there is going to be 24 feet travel width and another 16 feet for parking. Mann: If we went to a situation with alleys could we reduce that by half? Roosma: The fire department has width requirements. Hunter: You could reduce it by having parking on only one side of the street. N Roosma: There are a lot of places you can't have alleys because there just isn't enough room because of the topography and wetlands. You would need to have language in there to address that. Osborn: The staff concerns are we getting into elaborate design standards? There is coordination we would have to have with the cities. What is the community visioning process? This could be coordinated with the 2011 GMA updates. Mann: Commissioner Roosma, do you think this should be incentive based or regulatory? Roosma: I'm not ready to make a decision on anything. I need to see some examples on how this affects the amount of impervious surface. Mann: Commissioner Melious, what do you -think? Melious: I talked to the Bellingham planners, a while ago, and they were saying they couldn't get density up to what it's zoned for because people wanted less dense areas so I'm wondering if density bonuses would really be an incentive. Burdge: Inaudible. Mann: I sort of like a hybrid approach. I'm not in favor of mandating alleys. The building fagade doesn't bother me, as a regulatory thing. I don't want to mandate the rear lane. I don't know if I want to mandate the side yard either. I'm leaning more towards having incentives. I don't mind having cars parked on the street. I like the idea of reducing the setbacks as long there is no real reason for it. Hunter: I would like to mandate alleys as long as there are no adverse impacts in regards to impervious surface. There would be less driveways which may make up for the alleys. I realize there may be situations where there is no room for an alley. I tend to lean toward the mandated approach. Mann: If we mandate an alley do we also get rid of one parking lane or some other reduction in the main thoroughfare? Narrow streets also contribute to the sense of community we are trying to achieve. Stalheim: It depends on how the fire department and how Engineering feel about it. 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 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION July 24, 2008 Regular Meeting 10 Staff will come back with a proposed ordinance and hold a public hearing on the issue at a later date. Work Session File #ZON2008-00002: Commercial Retail Establishments -Review and approval of the findings to support the recommendations made by the Planning Commission at their meeting on July 10, 2008. Burdge moved to approve the findings as presented. Lesow seconded. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — Burdge, Hunter, Lesow, Mann, Roosma; Nays — 0; Abstain — 0; Absent — Melious, Belisle, Menzies, Steensma. Motion Carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Minutes prepared by B. Boxx. WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Ken Mann, Chair David Stalheim., Secretary 17 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009 — 161 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council O ice Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 3/23/2009 3/31/2009 Introduction Division Head: 4/14/2009 NR/Council Dept. Head. - Prosecutor: o 3hi-110 Purchasin /Bud et: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. - Ord Repealing 98-075, changes to Flood Control repair and Maintenance Program ATTACHMENTS: SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMAR Y STA TEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Ord Repealing 98-075, changes to the code goverbning the flood control repair and maintenance program COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION. 3/31/2009: Introduced Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at. www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council, in 1 2 3 4 5 6 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 50 51 SPONSORED BY: Council PROPOSED BY: Council INTRODUCTION DATE: 3/31/2009 ORDINANCE NO. Repealing Ordinance 98-075, amending the Flood Control Repair and Maintenance Program WHEREAS, in making changes to the code governing the flood control repair and maintenance program in 2008, the Whatcom County Council repealed Ordinance 97-027 by enacting Ordinance 2008-047 and the Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors enacted a resolution establishing the criteria and procedures for the repair and maintenance program; and WHEREAS, an ordinance of the Whatcom County Council relating to the flood control repair and maintenance program was inadvertently excluded from the ordinance repealing Ordinance 97-027 and should be repealed to avoid any conflict with the 2008 enactments of the Council and Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that Ordinance 98-075 is hereby repealed. ADOPTED this day of , 200_. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of the Council ����• •FORM: Civil Deputy Prosecutor Page 1 Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Pete Kremen, County Executive ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Date Signed: 19 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-186 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 313112009 Intro Division Head: 4/14/09 Nat Res/Council Dept. Head: Prosecutor: 03180 01 Purchasing/Budget: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT.• Resolution amending rules governing membership, vacancies and meetings of the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee established in resolutions 92-015, 92-029, 94-001, 98-032 and 2001-046 and recodifying them from Chapter 2.92 of the Whatcom County Code To Title 100.02 Of The Flood Control Zone District ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution and Exhibit A SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) The proposed resolution of the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors amends and recodifies the rules relating to the District Advisory Committee, including membership, vacancies and meetings. COMMITTEE ACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION: 3/31/2009: Introduced substitute version Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at. www.co.wlzatcom.wa.us/council. 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 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: INTRODUCTION DATE: RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING RULES GOVERNING MEMBERSHIP, VACANCIES AND MEETINGS OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED IN RESOLUTIONS 92-015, 92-029, 94-001, 98-032 AND 2001- 046 AND RECODIFYING THEM FROM CHAPTER 2.92 OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TO TITLE 100.02 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT (A resolution of the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors) WHEREAS, Whatcom County Code Chapter 2.92 relates to the flood control zone district advisory committee, and those provisions are more properly located in Title 100 of the Flood Control Zone District code with all of the FCZD enactions; and WHEREAS, the existing code provisions need to be amended to provide representation on the committee for the wide variety of stakeholders with concerns about programs and projects funded with FCZD funding; and WHEREAS, the procedures governing filling of vacancies currently call for certain vacancies to be filled by the Public Works staff rather than the FCZD Board of Supervisors, and WHEREAS, other rules relating to the advisory committee need to be updated to reflect the current practices of the committee or to reflect changes in Board policies; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the rules governing membership, appointments and meetings of the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee as established and amended by five previous resolutions of the Board of Supervisors of the Flood Control Zone District are hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A and shall be recodified to FCZD Title 100.02. APPROVED this day of , 2009. ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of the Council A P�OVED AS TO FORM: j i A 0', 7&� Civi eputy Prosecutor WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Carl Weimer, Chair 1 21 1 EXHIBIT A 2 5 Chanter 100.02 6 7 8 9 2. 2-100.02.010 f,....._a7. n of a Need centre' zone d:_truet 10 advisery eemmitiee Flood Control Zone District Advisory 11 Committee. 12 The Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors 13 hereby creates a Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee. T#e 14 15 16 17 2.92.920 100.02.020 Duties of the flood control zone district 18 advisory committee. 19 The Advisory Committee is an integral part of the operations and 20 management of the flood control zone district and is charged with the 21 following duties and responsibilities: 22 23 A. Provide advice on flood hazard management and other water 24 resources plan development and implementationrTe-be-eR 25 26zene distr et;:�e- 28 29 30 the plan. 31 32 B. Discuss and recommend budget appropriations and 33 supplemental budget appropriations from the funds of the district; 334 5 36 C. Review ether fleed eentrel matters as assigned by the BeaFd 37 of Super-visers. Advise the Board of Supervisors on issues the 38 Board may refer to it from time to time 39 40 D. Act as a liaison between the Board of Supervisors and the 41 public, and as requested, have hearings or public meetings on behalf of the Board of Supervisors. 442 3 44 45 '.�0 100.02.030 Membership. 46 The advisory committee will consist of fifteen voting members and one 47 ex officio non -voting member, each of whom resides in Whatcom 48 County, to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors. as follows: 49 50 A. Two members representing special districts, such as drainage and 51 diking districts or flood control district subzones: te be appeinted by 52 the beaFd ef supeizviseFs. 53 54 B. Two members representing cities impacted by flooding,te-be 56 57 Ge nts 58 22 C. Twe members repFesenting the indian Tribes,te be appeinted by 2 the beard ef super-viseFs, whieh will take ante eensideFatien the 3 r-eeeffimendatweigs of the ni,.,.k. aek and L . • Tribal G •lOne 4 member representing each of the two federally -recognized Indian 5 Tribes, after consideration of the recommendation of the Nooksack 6 Tribe and Lummi Nation governing bodies. 8 D. Nine members 9 Whateem Geanty, te be appeffinted by the beaFd ef supeFyisers who 10 collectively represent a diversity of flood control zone district 11 stakeholder interests and geographic areas throughout the county, whenever possible. 112 3 14 E. One non -voting ex officio member to be selected by the Board of 15 Supervisors from its own members. 16 17 2. 2.e40-100.02.040 Term of Office. 18 A. The term of office for the nine members representing stakeholder 19 interests and geographic areas within Whatcom County shall be four 20 years_ 21 shall ;er-ie feF twe yeaFs and three members appeinted te the initial 22 beard shall serve fGF three yeaFs. A member may be appointed to 23 serve up to two consecutive four year terms, regardless of whether 24 that member has served a first term of less than four years 25 26 B. The members appointed to represent special districts, the ex officio 27 member and the Indian Tribes shall each serve for a one year term. 28 These representatives may serve consecutive terms. 29 30 C. No member representing stakeholder interests or a geographic 32 area should serve more then two consecutive full terms. 33 2.^Z 92.050100.02.050 Meetings - Quorum. 34 The advisory committee shall meet once monthly or as its members 35 shall determine, but not less frequently than once every three months 36 A majority of the appointed earrent aetivevoting members of the 37 advisory committee , but On ne event less than seven Yeting membeFs7 38 shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Any actions 39 taken by the advisory committee must be passed by a majority of the 40 appointed voting members. 41 42 2.92.960100.02.060 Committee Staffing Staff. 43 Pursuant to the terms of an interlocal agreement, Whatcom County will 44 provide limited staffing for the advisory committee, recording and 45 producing minutes and providing agendas and other technical support 46 as requested and available. 47 staff. 48 49 r rrvr �.0 100.02.070 By -Laws and Election of Officers. 50 the advisery , effieer-s' adept bylaws and sueh FUles 52 rules, 54 55 Meetings ef the adViSeFy eeffiFnittee shall be subjeet te th' 56 Meetings Aet, Ghapter 42.39 RGW et seq. At its initial meeting each 57 year, the advisory committee will elect a chairperson and vice- 58 chairperson. The chairman shall preside over each meeting of the 59 advisory committee. The vice chairperson shall have the power to 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 57 58 59 perform all duties of the chairperson in his or her absence. The advisory committee may adopt bylaws to govern the conduct of their meetings, but any such by-laws shall be consistent with this chapter. 2.92.080.100.02.080 Vacancies. A. An advisory the death, eemmittee membership shall become vaeant an reslignation, rneetings of the advisery or reeall' committee of the member-, witheut as a result. being excused fulfill the duties being earnmMee for the member. and responsibilities associated with a - ------ ex effileme division mernber-, from vacancies shall be filled by list ng an alternate ef mem When a vacancy occurs as the result of a completed term, or due to the death, resignation, or unexcused absence from two consecutive regular meetings of the advisory committee, or if for any other reason a member is unable to fulfill the duties of membership, the vacancy will be filled by appointment of the Whatcom Countv Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors. possible. When a mid-term vacancy occurs, the board may choose to solicit additional applications, or it may decide to fill the vacancy from the alternate list without soliciting additional applications if it determines that an alternate can fill the vacancy while maintaining the desired geographic and stakeholder diversity or the appropriate .governmental representation on the committee. serve an additional term notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter. 100.020.090 Public Meetings and Records Written notice of the time and place of any meeting shall be sent to each member of the committee and each appointee to the alternate list at least five (5) days prior to each meeting_ The Board of Supervisors intends that the Advisory Committee shall give public notice of its meetings consistent with the Washington Open Public Meetings Act, hold meetings open to the public, and record the proceedings of any meeting, including those instances in which the Open Public Meetings Act itself may not apply. The Advisory Committee shall not take any action or make any recommendation to 0 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 the Flood Control Zone District the Board of Supervisors except through recorded decisions made at properly noticed public meetings Records of the Advisory Committee shall be retained by the River and Flood Division of Whatcom County Public Works Department, unless otherwise provided for by agreement between Whatcom County and the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District. 100.020.110 Effective date. The rules relating to membership and vacancies shall apply to vacancies and appointments that occur on or after April 14 2009 25 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009 — 188 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: Crawford 4/7/2009 4/14/2009 Finance Division Head: Dept. Head: Prosecutor: Purchasin /Bud et: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Presentation by Glacier Chamber of Commerce ATTACHMENTS: SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Jan Eskola from the Glacier Chamber of Commerce requested time on the Finance and Administrative Services Committee agenda to provide information on the Chamber's activities and purpose, as well as a possible discussion regarding the current Lodging Tax Advisory Board membership and decision -making process. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION.• Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at. www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 26 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-190 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date !! eve i o ci ice Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 4114109 FinancelCouncil E. Stroebel Division Head: , J Hutchins a-ze 3 o I APR _ 7 2009 Dept. Head: F. Abart Q HATCOM COUNTY Prosecutor: D. Gibson dl 04103109COUNCIL Purchasing/Budget: B. Bennett MDC 4103109 Executive: P. Kremen TITLE OF DOCUM N Interlocal with Whatcom Conservation District for Pilot Small Farm Cost -Share Project ATTACHMENTS: Memo, Contract Information Sheet, and Interlocal Agreement with related exhibits SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMAR Y STA TEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Whatcom County Public Works requests to partner with the Whatcom Conservation District (WCD) to implement a pilot small farm cost -share project in the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District. Effective reduction of bacterial sources related to agricultural practices has been identified as a high priority in the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Recovery Plan. This pilot project will provide a financial incentive to landowners to install best management practices identified in their farm plans and thus provide the public benefit of improved water quality through reduced animal access to surface waters. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: 200706033-1 Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at: www.co.whatcomwa.us/council 27 WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATIONSHEET Whatcom County Contract No. o20090 06 Originating Department: Public Works — Natural Resources Contract Administrator: Erika Stroebel/Scarlet Tang, Senior Planners Contractor's I Agency Name: Whatcom Conservation District Is this a New Contract? If not, is this an Amendment or Renewal to an Existing Contract? Yes X No Yes _ No If yes, previous number(s): Is this a grant agreement? Yes _ No X If yes, grantor agency contract number(s) CFDA number Is this contract grant funded? Yes X No If yes, associated Whatcom County grant contract number(s) 200711010 Is this contract the result of a RFP or Bid process? Yes _ No X If yes, RFP and Bid number(s) Contract Amount: (sum of orig contract amt If a Professional Services Agreement is more 'than $15, 000 or a Bid is more than and any prior amendments) $35, 000, please submit an Agenda Bill for Council approval and a supporting' $_50, 000 memo. Any amendment that provides either a 10% increase in amount or more than This Amendment Amount: $10,000, whichever is greater, must also go to Council and will need an agenda bill $ and supporting memo. If less than these thresholds, just submit to Executive with Total Amended Amount: supporting memo for approval. $ Scope of Services Whatcom County Public Works requests to partner with the Whatcom Conservation District to implement a pilot small farm cost -share project in the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District. Effective reduction of bacterial sources related to agricultural practices has been identified as a high priority in the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Recovery Plan. This pilot project will provide a financial incentive to landowners to install best management practices identified in their farm plans and thus provide the public benefit of improved water quality through reduced animal access to s surface waters. Term of Contract: Ex iration Date: 613012009 Contract Routine Steps & Sieno{f %sign or initialL iindicate date transmitted 1. Prepared by: Remy Stratton Date 412109 [electronic] 2. Attorney reviewed. Daniel L. Gibson Date_04103109_ [electronic] 3. AS Finance reviewed.•_MCaldwell Date_4103109 felectronicj 4. IT reviewed if IT related Date [electronic] 5. Corrections made: Date (electronic] hard copy printed 6. Attorney signoff Daniel L. Gibson Date _04103109_ 7. Contractor signed: 8. Submitted to Exec Office ! Date Date -3 0 I %summary via electronic, hardcopies] 9. Reviewed by DCA Date 10. Council approved (if necessary) Date IL Executive signed: Date 12. Contractor Original 13. Returned to dept; Date 14. County Original to Council Date this form may need to expand to more than one page m WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FRANK M. ABART Director TO.: THROUGH: FROM: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM The Honorable Pete Kremen, County Executive and The Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council Frank Abart, Public Works Director 0101 Jon Hutchings, Public Works Assistant Director Erika Stroebel, Senior Planner- Marine Resources NATURAL RESOURCES 322 N. Commercial, Ste. 110 Bellingham, WA 98225 Telephone: (360) 676-6876 FAX: (360) 738-2468 www. whatcomcounty. us APR 0 3 2009 PETE KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE Interlocal with Whatcom Conservation District for Pilot Small Farm Cost -Share Project April 2, 2009 Please find attached for your review and approval two (2) originals of an interlocal agreement between the Whatcom Conservation District (WCD) and Whatcom County for a pilot small farm cost -share project. ■ Background and Purpose Whatcom County Public Works requests to partner with the WCD to implement a pilot small farm cost - share project in the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District. Effective reduction of bacterial sources related to agricultural practices has been identified as a high priority in the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Recovery Plan. In 2005, Whatcom County updated the Critical Areas Ordinance and included the Conservation Planning on Agricultural Lands Program. In the past year, approximately 100 landowners with small farms in the Drayton Harbor watershed have been contacted regarding critical area buffers and farm plans. However, many landowners have cited the financial challenge of implementing best management practices. This pilot project will provide a financial incentive to landowners to install best management practices identified in their farm plans and thus provide the public benefit of improved water quality through reduced animal access to surface waters. In general the activities of this agreement consist of development of program guidelines, criteria, and forms; advertising and accepting applications; reviewing applications for eligibility; and administering cost -share funds. The pilot project will result in the implementation of small farm best management practices in the Drayton Harbor watershed to help improve and protect water quality. This project ranks 37 out of 287 projects through CWRIP, with a public benefit evaluation score of 70.4. ■ Funding Amount and Source Whatcom County's contribution of $50,000 to this project is completely funded through the Drayton Harbor Local Government Stormwater Grant (DOE Grant Number G0800197, Whatcom County Contract Number 200711010). Please contact Erika Stroebel or Scarlet Tang at extensions 50692 and 50638 respectively if you have any questions or concerns regarding, the terms of this agreement. 29 Whatcom County Contract No. ,:;),00 g0goo�/ 2009 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WHATCOM COUNTY- WHATCOM CONSERVATION DISTRICT Drayton Harbor Pilot Small Farm Cost Share Program WHEREAS, Whatcom County and the Whatcom Conservation District (WCD) desire to establish an arrangement wherein Whatcom County will provide funding to the WCD to administer and implement a pilot cost -share program for landowners with small farms in the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District to the mutual advantage of each jurisdiction; and, WHEREAS, the County received funding through a local government stormwater grant agreement between the Washington State Department of Ecology and Whatcom County to implement water quality improvement projects in the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District (Grant # G0800197, County Contract # 200711010); and WHEREAS, effective reduction of bacterial sources related to agricultural practices has been identified as a high priority in the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Recovery Plan; and, WHEREAS, the WCD is providing technical assistance to landowners with small farms and livestock to support development and implementation of farm plans; and WHEREAS, many landowners with small farms are not eligible for existing federal and state cost -share programs that target commercial farm operations and acreage; and, WHEREAS, the WCD administers landowner incentive and cost -share programs including CREP and Washington State Conservation Commission (WSCC) Livestock Cost -share Program for Whatcom County; and WHEREAS, the most efficient use of resources is to have the WCD supplement its technical assistance and cost -share programs consistent with the specific needs described in Exhibit A to help improve and protect water quality in the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of each party to enter into this Interlocal Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, the. WCD and County agree as follows: I. Purpose: The purpose of this agreement is to set the terms whereby the County will make available funds to the WCD so that the WCD will implement the small farm cost - share program as described in Exhibit A attached hereto. II. Administration: No new or separate legal or administrative entity is created to administer the provisions of this agreement. III. Whatcom Conservation District Responsibilities: The WCD hereby agrees to implement the small farm cost -share program as described in Exhibit A attached hereto. Page 1 of 9 W IV. Whatcom County Responsibilities: The County hereby agrees to reimburse the WCD, not to exceed the total budget amount allocated to the WCD as shown in Exhibit B attached hereto, for the costs in providing and performing the services stated. V. Payment: Contractor shall submit itemized invoices in a format approved by the County. Each request for payment shall include invoices which detail when and what resource specialist services were performed. Each request for reimbursement of payments to landowners will include copies of equipment, supply or vendor receipts and substantiation for equipment and labor hours paid. The County will compensate the WCD for services rendered within thirty (30) days following receipt of an approved invoice, provided all other terms and conditions of the contract have been met and are certified as such by the Contract Administrator. In order that the County may submit invoices to the Department of Ecology for reimbursement under its grant program, the WCD shall submit all invoices to the County for services rendered and/or cost share no later than July 10, 2009. Invoices submitted to the County subsequent to that date may .be rejected by the County as untimely. VI. Term: This Agreement shall be effective for services performed from April 15, 2009, through June 30, 2009. VII. Responsible Persons: The persons responsible for administration of this Agreement shall be the Whatcom County Public Works Department Director and the WCD Manager or their respective designees. VIII. Treatment of Assets and Property. No fixed assets or personal or real property will be jointly or cooperatively acquired, held, used, or disposed of pursuant to this Agreement. IX. Indemnification: Each party agrees to be responsible and assume liability for its own wrongful and/or negligent acts or omissions or those of their officials, officers, agents, or employees to fullest extent required by law, and further agrees to save, indemnify, defend, and hold the other party harmless from any such liability. It is further provided that no liability shall attach to the Parties by reason of entering into this Agreement except as expressly provided herein. X. Modifications: This Agreement may be changed, modified, amended or waived only by written agreement executed by the Parties hereto. Waiver or breach of any term or condition of this Agreement shall not be considered a waiver of any prior or subsequent breach. XI. Applicable Law. In the performance of this Agreement, it is mutually understood and agreed upon by the Parties hereto that this Agreement shall be governed by the laws and regulations of the State of Washington and the federal government, both as to interpretation and performance. The venue of any action arising herefrom shall be in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for Whatcom County. XII. Severability: In the event any term or condition of this Agreement or application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other terms, conditions, or applications of this Agreement that can be Page 2 of 9 3,1 given effect without the invalid term, condition, or application. To this end the terms and conditions of this Agreement are declared. severable. XIII. Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the Parties. All items incorporated herein by reference are attached. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the Parties hereto. XIV. Recordation: Upon execution of this Agreement, Whatcom County shall file a copy of it with the office of its County Auditor pursuant to the requirements of RCW 39.34. Dated this day of April, 2009. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement this .2009. WHATCOM CONSERVATION DISTRICT By Dick Yoder, WCD Chair Approved as to form: Office of the WCD Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) ss. WHATCOM COUNTY By Pete Kremen, County Executive day of Approved as to form: 66`f, Whatcom County Deputy Prosecu ' g Attorney Director of Public Morks On this day of , 2009, before me personally appeared Pete Kremen, to me known to be the County Executive of Whatcom County and who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) ss. On this day of 2009, before me personally appeared Dick Yoder, to me known to be the Chair of the Whatcom Conservation District and who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. Page 3 of 9 32 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires: Page 4 of 9 33 EXHIBIT A- SCOPE OF WORK DRAYTON HARBOR PILOT SMALL FARM COST -SHARE PROGRAM PROJECT DESCRIPTION The purpose of this interlocal agreement is to identify the activities that will be conducted by the WCD to administer and implement a small farm cost -share program in the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District. In general the activities consist of development of program guidelines, criteria and forms; advertise and accept applications; review applications for eligibility; and administer cost -share funds.' Details of each of these activities are provided below. Task 1- Small Farm Cost -Share Program Documents • Using King and Snohomish County cost -share programs as examples, WCD staff will work jointly with Whatcom County staff to develop program guidelines, eligibility criteria, application and recordkeeping forms, maintenance agreements, and field check procedures. o Guidelines will emphasize requirements of project proposals to ensure public benefit. o Eligibility criteria will provide consistent mechanism for identifying project benefits, comparing projects, and creating waiting lists if needed. o Application and recordkeeping forms will provide consistent mechanism for landowners to seek cost -share funds. These will be modeled after the Washington State Conservation Commission forms. o Maintenance agreements will provide mechanism to ensure long-term function of funded projects. o Field check procedures will provide consistent mechanism to ensure BMPs have been installed as described in cost -share agreement prior to reimbursement. Deliverables and Timelines: Final guidelines, criteria and application form by April 15, 2009. Final recordkeeping forms, maintenance agreements and field check procedures by April 29, 2009. Task 2- Advertising and Accepting Applications • WCD will distribute notices to landowners in the Drayton Harbor watershed about the cost -share program and available funds. This will include one direct mailing and press releases in the local newspapers. • WCD will act as point of contact for program questions and distribute and receive application materials. Deliverables and Timelines: Advertisement of cost -share program sent to landowners by April 17, 2009. Log of number of program inquiries for additional BMP requests and general program comments by June 30, 2009. List of applications received and date of receipt by June 30, 2009. Task 3- Eligibility Review and Project Approval • WCD will review each project application against the final program guidelines and criteria to ensure eligibility of project. WCD will forward proposals to approve projects to Whatcom County for concurrence. Whatcom County will respond within one business day. • Once deemed eligible, WCD will give the landowner notice to proceed on approved BMP installation. Under this interlocal, the WCD will administer the cost -share program to landowners providing 75% cost -share for fencing and watering facility BMPs that follow Department of Ecology guidelines with a maximum project cost of $5,000 per landowner. Deliverables: Copy of written notices to proceed within one week of approval. Page 5 of 9 M Task 4- Administer Cost -Share Funds • WCD staff will assist the landowners with BMP installation and recordkeeping according to the cost -share program requirements. WCD will receive notification of project completion and schedule final site visit. • WCD and County staff will jointly visit the project site to verify that BMPs have been installed according to plan specifications. Approve or deny reimbursement of funds. If reimbursement denied, provide landowner with required changes to be approved for reimbursement. • WCD will review landowner records and provide cost -share reimbursement. Deliverables: Report including approved applications, installed BMPs, date and findings of site visit, and cost -share reimbursement by June 30, 2009. Requests from the CD to the County for reimbursement for cost -share on qualified projects must be submitted with all necessary documentation no later than July 10, 2009, for work which shall have been completed no later than June 30, 2009. Page 6 of 9 35 EXHIBIT B- BUDGET DRAYTON HARBOR PILOT SMALL FARM COST -SHARE PROGRAM Personnel I Rate/Hr Est. Hours Cost Task 1: Small Farm Cost -Share Program Documents Resource $42.00 PO $840.00 Specialist Task 2: Advertising and Ac epting Applications Resource $42.00 20 T$_840.00 Specialist Task 3: Eligibility Review and Project Approval Resource $42.00 40 $1680.00 Specialist Task 4: Administer Cost -Share Funds Resource $42.00 100 $4200.00 Specialist Landowner Maximum project $42,440.00 Reimbursement cost of $3,750 per (75%) landowner -------------------------- - *See description-below_-_- ------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------- Task Subtotal Totals Not to exceed $50,000.00 Task 4 Landowner Reimbursement Description Eligible landowners that are approved by the Whatcom Conservation District through the mechanisms described in Exhibit A will receive a 75% cost -share towards a maximum project cost of $5,000. Fencing and watering facility BMPs are eligible under the cost -share program utilizing the following rate table for costs. Labor and materials are current estimates. Landowners have the option to do labor themselves. The reimbursable rate for owner/operator is, based upon USDA established rate sheet (Exhibit C). NRCS Practice Unit —Cost (labor and Code (for materials) Maximum reference Unit_ payable rate or hold . only) Practice Name Component Type down rate. Electric Charger 382 Fence for fence No $300.00 each Fence includes 382 Fence 4 strand wiregates Ft Installed $3.50 Fence woven 382 Fence 4 strand woven wire Ft $4.50 614 Water Facility Nose Pump No $575.00 each installed Avg tank size 200 gal 614 Water Facility Trough or Tank Gal $3.00 Plastic pipe/ 1 614 Water Facility in., installed Whatcom Conservation District will submit invoices to the County which for each project include the landowner cost -share approval form, WCD/County field inspection sign off, maintenance agreement, landowner reimbursement form, and copies of all receipts. Page 7 of 9 W Examples of landowner cost -share reimbursement: Install Alternative Water facility • Nose pump —installed is approximately $575 per pump. Labor to install is estimated at $300- $400 (about 8hr at $45/hr labor). The landowner reimbursable labor rate is $20hr + equipment rate which varies from (16.50/hr- 137.50/hr). See USDA rate sheet as Exhibit C. • Total Project Cost= $575.00 • Landowner Portion= $145.00 (25% of total) • Cost -Share Reimbursement= $430.00 Install livestock exclusion fencing • 1-,400 lineal feet of exclusion fencing @ $3.50 per lineal foot=$4,900 • Landowner Portion= $1,225 (25% of total) • Cost -Share Reimbursement= $3,675 Page 8 of 9 37 EXHIBIT C- USDA ESTABLISH RATE SHEET DRAYTON HARBOR PILOT SMALL FARM. COST -SHARE PROGRAM Small Farm Costshare Pilot Program April 1, 2009 USDA Taken From USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) 2008 Reimbursement Rates for Producer Labor and Producer Owned Machinery/Equipment The Whatcom County Committee has established rates for producer labor and machinery/equipment work performed by the owner operator. These rates will be reviewed and updated as necessary. When a farmer operates his own machinery and/or equipment, the individual hourly late rate shall apply. These rates are %100 and will be used to compute the applicable cost -share level of specific practices. Description Rate Individual labor/operator labor $20.00/hr Equipment Only, without operator Small tractor $16.50/hr Medium Tractor $27.50/hr Large Tractor $55.00/hr Front end loading $16.50/hr Excavator, Light $49.50/hr Excavator, Med $88.00/hr Excavator, heavy $132.00/hr Chain saw $11.00/day Landowners eligible for costshare assistance through the Small Farm Costshare Pilot program can utilize this rate sheet if they choose to do their own labor. Rates will be reimbursed at 75%. Landowner pays 25% of the project costs (labor and materials). CONSERVATION DIS-TRtCT www.whatcomcd.org for more information contact our office at 354-2035 x3 Page 9 of 9 W WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-191 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: Lynne Givler /09 () E C�V�� n E D Ij� �C 4/14/09 Financel Counc Division Head: ,APR — 7 2009 Dept. Head: M. McFarlane 3112109 @!7 H ATC OM COU N�/ 3 Prosecutor: Jc 9 T COUNCL P Purchasin /Bud et: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMEN Farm Land Lease ATTACHMENTS: Farm Land Lease Agreement between Jim Snydar and Whatcom County (Parks & Recreation) to farm approximately 80 acres of land at Hovander Homestead Park In Ferndale, Washington. SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes (X ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARYSTATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: This Farm Land Lease grants permission to Jim Snydar to use approximately 80 acres of land at Hovander Homestead Park to farm according to Section 4 of this lease — Permitted Uses. The intent of this lease is to preserve the property as a farm. The fee for this Farm Land Lease is $2,658.63 plus leasehold tax of $341.37for a total of $3,000. The term of this lease shall be for a period of nine (9) months commencing April 1, 2009, and terminating December 31, 2009. COMMITTEE ACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at. www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. W WHATCOM COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION DEPT. 3373 Mt. Baker Hwy. Bellingham, WA 98226 MEMORANDUM TO: Pete Kremen, County Executive FROM: Michael G. McFarlane, Direct RE: Farm Land Lease at Hovander Homestead Pa DATE: March 12, 2009 Michael G. McFarlane Director Enclosed are two (2) originals of the Farm Land Lease between Jim Snydar and Whatcom County (Parks & Recreation) for your review and signature. ■ Background and Purpose Hovander Homestead Park was dedicated in 1971. After that time the acreage referred to in this land lease has been leased out for farming. The intent of this Farm Land Lease with Jim Snydar is to preserve the property as a farm, following the "Permitted Uses" in Section 4 of this lease. ■ Funding Amount and Source Jim Snydar is paying $2,658.63 plus leasehold tax of $341.37 fora total of $3,000.00 for this Farm Land Lease. ■ Differences from Previous Contract The term of this lease shall be for a period of nine (9) months commencing April 1, 2009, and terminating December 31, 2009. This agreement is similar to the last land lease (#200803008) at Hovander Park, except, the lease period has been changed. Please contact Lynne Givler at extension 32073, if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this agreement. Encl. M WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET Whatcom County Contract No. a0 0 903 Originating Department: Parks & Recreation Contract Administrator: Lynne Givler Contractor's /Agency Name: Jim Snydar Is this a New Contract? If not, is this an Amendment or Renewal to an Existing Contract? Yes X No Yes _ No If yes, previous number(s): Is this a grant agreement? Yes _ No X If yes, grantor agency contract number(s) CFDA number Is this contract grant funded? Yes _ No X If yes, associated Whatcom County grant contract number(s) Is this contract the result of a RFP or Bid process? Yes _ No X If yes, RFP and Bid number(s) Contract Amount. -(sum. of orig contract amt If a Professional Services Agreement is more than $15, 000 or a Bid is more than and any prior amendments) $35, 000, please submit an Agenda Bill for Council approval and a supporting $3, 000.00 per year($2, 658.63 plus12.84% memo. Any amendment that provides either a 10% increase in amount or more than leasehold tax of $341.37) $10, 000, whichever is greater, must also go to Council and will need an agenda bill and supporting memo. If less than these thresholds, just submit to Executive with This Amendment Amount: supporting memo for approval. Total Amended Amount: Scope of Services To grant permission to Jim Snydar to farm on approximately 80 acres of land within the boundaries of Hovander Homestead Park In Ferndale, Washington. Jim Snydar will be using farming techniques as described in detail in Section 4 - Permitted Uses, in the Farm Land Lease. Term of Contract: April 1, 2009 through Expiration Date: December 31, 2009 December 31, 2009 Contract Routing Stem & Signoff fsign or initiall (indicate date transmitted 1. Prepared by: bnims Date_3112109 [hard copy] 2. Attorney reviewed: rjw Date [electronic] 3. AS Finance reviewed: ,dl ,�v Date �V electronic] 4. IT reviewed if IT related Date __ [electronic] 5. Corrections made: Date [electronic] hard copy printed 6. Attorney signoff.• 1� Date ` j I __ � 7. Contractor signed: _snyaar Date /3 10109 8. Submitted to Exec Office ,s Date ae, 0 `05 [summary via electronic, hardcopies] 9. Reviewed by DCA Date 10. Council approved (if necessary) Date 11. Executive signed: Date 12. Contractor Original 13. Returned to dept; Date 14. County Original to Council Date this form may need to expand to more than one page 41 WHATCOM COUNTY' � . ®RIGI D, CONTRACT NO. �O FARM LAND LEASE THIS LEASE is made and executed on this day of , 2009, by and between WHATCOM COUNTY (PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT), a municipal corporation, hereinafter designated as "Lessor," and JIM SNYDAR, residing at 6512 Vista Drive, Ferndale, WA 98248, hereinafter designated as "Lessee:" SECTION I - DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES Lessor hereby leases to Lessee the following described real property situate in Whatcom County, Washington, to -wit: Approximately 80 acres of land in Sections 29 and 32, Township 39. North, Range 2 East of W.M. SECTION 2 - RENT AND TERM A. Lessee shall pay Lessor for the use and occupancy of said property the sum of TWO THOUSAND AND SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY-EIGHT DOLLARS AND SIXTY- THREE CENTS ($2,658.63) plus 12.84% leasehold tax of THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY-ONE DOLLARS AND THIRTY-SEVEN CENTS ($341.37) for a total of THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($3,000.00) for nine months. The rent and tax will be paid by April 1, 2009. Delinquent payments shall accrue at the rate of twelve (12%) per annum until paid. In addition Lessee agrees to provide 80 bays of hale to be used at Whatcom County Parks & Recreation's Fall Festival at Hovander Park. B. The term of this Lease shall be for a period of nine (9) months commencing April 1, 2009 and terminating December 31, 2009. Farm Land Lease - Page 1 of 9 42 SECTION 3 - A CCEPTANCE OF PREMISES Lessee acknowledges that he is in all respects familiar with the premises and the improvements thereon and that no representations have been made by Lessor as to said premises and improvements except for those representations made in writing contained in this Lease Agreement and Lessee hereby accepts said premises and improvements as they are now situated. SECTION 4 - PERMITTED USES - LESSEE RESPONSIBILITY A. The intent of this Lease is to preserve the above -described property as a farm. 1. Fields will be cultivated and reseeded with a mix of grass crops. 2. Cultivation times will be pre -approved by Hovander Park Lead Park Ranger. 3. Grass must be cut at least once every year. Grass must be cut, chopped, and left on the ground or hauled away. Cutting of all grass fields will be coordinated with the .Hovander Park Ranger to coincide with special events at Hovander Homestead Park, including but not limited to: the Plant Sale and Garden Fair on May 2, Ski to Sea on May 24 and the Highland Games on June 6 and 7. 4. Lessee understands that park patrons and their dogs will be utilizing all fields under lease. B. Lessee shall not use, nor permit the premises or any part thereof to be used, for any purpose or purposes other than those outlined above in Part A. C. No change of crop or use shall be permitted without the written consent of the Lessor. SECTION S - LAND PRACTICES A. Lessee covenants not to commit waste nor permit anyone else to commit waste during this possession of the premises, and shall keep the lands free of thistles, noxious weeds Farm Land Lease - Page 2 of 9 43 and grasses. Accepted practices for good land management shall be employed in the use of the land, seeding, and fertilization. B. At no time will manure be applied for any reason. C. Any fertilizer application will need prior approval from Lessor and coordination with Hovander Park Lead Park Ranger. SECTION 6 - LESSOR'S RIGHT -OF -ENTRY Lessee shall permit Lessor and the agents and employees of Lessor to enter into and upon the premises at all reasonable times for the purposes of inspecting the same, performing work, making improvements, or exhibiting the premises to prospective tenants. SECTION 7 - MAINTENANCE OF FACILITIES A. Maintenance of the leased premises and all improvements thereon shall be the responsibility of Lessee. B. Farming and other equipment will not be left on site after the farming season is over. If equipment is not removed, the Hovander Park Lead Park Ranger will arrange to have it removed and will bill the Lessee for any moving costs. SECTION 8 - NOTICES All notices, demands or other writing in this Lease provided to be given, made or sent, or which may be given, made or sent by either party hereto to the other, shall be deemed to have been fully given, made or sent when mailed to the following address and party: Lessor Lynne Givler, Parks Operations Manager or Designee Whatcom County Parks & Recreation Department 3373 Mount Baker Highway Bellingham, Washington 98226 Farm Land Lease - Page 3 of 9 EM Lessee Jim Snydar 6512 Vista Drive Ferndale, WA 98248 SECTION 9 - UTILITIES The Lessee is not utilizing any park utilities. However, due care and caution are required of the Lessee and all persons coming upon the premises by his permission so as not to damage, destroy, interfere with, nor disturb any utilities or pipelines. In the event of any damage to such utilities or pipelines, the Lessee shall immediately notify the pipeline company and have the same repaired at his own expense to at least as good a condition as existed prior to damage. SECTION 10 - LIENS Lessee shall keep the above -described real property free from any liens arising out of any work performed, materials furnished or, obligations incurred by Lessee. In the event Lessee becomes insolvent, voluntarily or involuntarily bankrupt, or if a receiver, assignee or other liquidating officer is appointed for the business of the Lessee, then the Lessor may cancel this Lease at Lessor's option. SECTION 11-SUBLEASE AND ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED The Lessee agrees not to let or sublet the whole or any part of the said premises nor assign this Lease or any interest therein without the written consent of the Lessor. SECTION 12 - FLOOD OR OTHER DAMAGE Lessor shall not be held responsible for damage to buildings, crops, animals or equipment caused by flood or other acts of nature beyond human control, neither shall the Lessor be obligated to repair or rebuild any structure damaged by acts of God, or from acts beyond the control of the Lessor. Farm Land Lease - Page 4 of 9 45 SECTION 13 - ROADWAYS All roadways are to be maintained by Lessee in good condition for vehicle travel. No new or additional roads or roadways shall be placed upon any portion of the premises without the written consent of the Lessor. SECTION 14 - RIGHT OF LESSEE TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS Lessee shall not improve or alter the demised premises in any manner without the prior written consent of Lessor but shall, before making any improvements or alterations, submit plans and designs therefore to Lessor for approval. Lessee shall have the right to remove all alterations or improvements which may have been placed upon the premises by himself during the period of this Lease provided that the same are removed before the Lease is terminated and that the Lease is in good standing. Any improvements not removed from the premises by the conclusion of the Lease shall revert to Lessor. Provided, that Lessor shall have the option, to be exercised on expiration or sooner termination of this Lease, to require Lessee to remove any or all such improvements or alterations. The leased premises shall be restored by Lessee to conditions prevailing at the time of initiation of the Lease, normal wear excepted. SECTION 15 - INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS The Lessee agrees and covenants to indemnify, defend, and save harmless, the Lessor and those persons who were, now are or shall be duly elected or appointed officials or members or employees thereof, hereinafter referred to as the "Lessor", against and from any loss, damage, costs, charge, expense, liability, claims, demands or judgments, of whatsoever kind of nature, whether to persons or to property, arising wholly or partially out of any act, action, neglect, omission, or default on the part of the Lessee, his agents, successors, assignees, subcontractors and/or Farm Land Lease - Page 5 of 9 M employees, except only such injury or damage as shall have been caused by or resulted from the sole negligence of the Lessor. In case any suit or cause of action shall be brought against the Lessor on account of any act, action, neglect, omission or default on the part of the Lessee, his agents, successors, assignees, subcontractors and/or employees, the Lessee hereby agrees and covenants to assume the defense thereof and to pay any and all costs, charges, attorney's fees and other expenses and any and all judgments that may be incurred or obtained against the Lessor. In the event the Lessor is required to institute legal action and /or participate in legal action to enforce this Indemnification and Hold Harmless Clause, the Lessee agrees to pay the Lessor's legal fees, costs and disbursements incurred in establishing the right to indemnification. If the claim, suit, or action for injuries, death, or damages as provided for in the preceding paragraphs of this specification is caused by or results from the concurrent negligence of (a) the indemnitee or the indemnitee's agents or employees and (b) the indemnitor or the indemniter's agents or employees, the indemnity provisions provided for in the preceding paragraphs of this specification shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the indemnitor's negligence. In. the event of litigation between the parties to enforce the rights under this paragraph, reasonable attorneys fees shall be allowed to the prevailing. SECTION 16 - TERMINATION This Lease may be terminated by Lessor, at any time, by giving Lessee thirty (30) days written notice. SECTION 18 — INSURANCE Lessee shall maintain in effect throughout the term of this Lease general liability insurance covering the activities that occur on the premises by the Lessee, or any agents of the Lessee, in the Farm Land Lease - Page 6 of 9 47 amount of $150,000 for injury or death of any one person and $300,000 for injury to or death of any number of persons in one occurrence, and property damage liability insurance in the amount of $50,000. Lessee shall provide proof of such insurance to Lessor prior to occupancy. SECTION 19 - LA WS AND REGULATION Lessee agrees to conform to and abide by all lawful rules, codes, laws and regulations in connection with his use of said premises and the construction of improvements and operation of Lessee's business thereon and not to permit said premises to be used in violation of any lawful rule, code, law, regulation,or other authority. SECTION 20 - COMMIT NO WASTE Lessee agrees not to allow conditions of waste and refuse to exist on the above -described premises and to keep the premises in a neat, clean and orderly condition. SECTION 21- NON -WAIVER OF BREACH The failure of the Lessor to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements of this Lease or to exercise any option herein conferred in anyone or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of any such covenant or agreement or any other covenants or agreements, but the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. SECTION 22 - INTERPRETATIONAND VENUE This Lease shall be at all times interpreted under and in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington, and venue and jurisdiction of any suit brought to enforce any of the terms shall be in Whatcom County, Washington. Farm Land Lease - Page 7 of 9 Executed as of the date first written above. LESS y Jim Knydar Telephone Number: 360-933-1111 or 360-815-4023 STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) On this day personally appeared before me, J i M '5N y D ip— to me known to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledges that he/she/they signed the same as his/her/their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this /J day of WAAA-d- , 2009. NOTARY .PU$LIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at (,v My Commission expires: O" // Farm Land Lease - Page 8 of 9 Executed as of the date first written above. LESSOR WHATCOM COUNTY Pete Kremen, County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) On this day of , 2009 , before me personally appeared , to me known to be the of Whatcom County and who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. Given under my hand and official seal this _day of , 2009. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at Bellingham My Commission expires: DPAA�TOM MEN OLJNTY PARKS &RECREATION Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy Prosecuti )Itorne� Farm Land Lease - Page 9 of 9 50 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-192 CLEARANCES Initial ate Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: Lynne Givler 3112109 u�� r ' � /J j� D �' ll IL���� �Vf �C 4/14/09 Finance/Cour_ci: Division Head: ®o�g APR _ J ` HATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Dept. Head: M. McFarlane 3112109 Prosecutor: 3 /11.)65 Purchasing/Budget: Executive: � •7-'Q TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Land License Agreement ATTACHMENTS: Land License Agreement between Jeff Rainey, Coldstream Farm, LLC and Whatcom County (Parks & Recreation) to use approximately 64 acres of farm land known as "East Acme Farm ", Acme, Washington. SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARYSTATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) This Land License Agreement grants permission to Jeff Rainey, Coldstream Farm, LLC to use approximately 64 acres of farm land, known as the "East Acme Farm'; for cutting of the grass. The fee for this Land License Agreement is $6,400.00, which includes leasehold tax of 12.84% in the amount of $728.25. The term of this agreement shall be for a period of nine (9) months commencing April 1, 2009, and terminating December 31, 2009. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at: www.co.whatcom.wauslcouncil. 51 WHATCOM COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION DEPT. 3373 Mt. Baker Hwy. Bellingham, WA 98226 MEMORANDUM TO: Pete Kremen, County Executive FROM: Michael McFarlane, Director RE: Jeff Rainey, Coldstream Farm, LLC. DATE: March 12, 2009 Michael McFarlane Director Land License Agreement Enclosed are two (2) originals of the Land License Agreement between Whatcom County (Parks & Recreation) and Jeff Rainey, Coldstream Farm, LLC, for your review and signature. ■ Background and Purpose To grant permission to Coldstream Farm, LLC. to use approximately 64 acres of farm land known as the "East Acme Farm" for cutting of grass and removal of the hay crop. ■ Funding Amount and Source Licensee shall pay $6,400.00 which includes leasehold tax of 12.84% in the amount of $728.25. This is the same amount of funds associated with the previous agreement. ■ Differences from Previous Contract The term of this agreement shall be for a period of nine (9) months commencing April 1, 2009, and terminating December 31, 2009. This is similar to the previous agreement (200805004) at East Acme Farm, except the lease period has been changed. Please contact Lynne Givler at extension 32073, if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this agreement, Encl. 52 WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET Whatcom County Contract No. a00cl0 a$ Originating Department: Parks & Recreation Contract Administrator: Lynne Givler Contractor's I Agency Name: Jeff Rainey, Coldstream Farm, LLC Is this a New Contract? If not, is this an Amendment or Renewal to an Existing Contract? Yes X No Yes _ No If yes, previous number(s): Is this a grant agreement? Yes _ No X If yes, grantor agency contract number(s) CFDA number Is this contract grant funded? Yes _ No X If yes, associated Whatcom County grant contract number(s) Is this contract the result of a RFP or Bid process? Yes _ No X If yes, RFP and Bid number(s) Contract Amount: (sum of orig contract amt If a Professional Services Agreement is more than $15, 000 or a Bid is more than and any prior amendments) $35, 000, please submit an Agenda Bill for Council approval and a supporting $6, 400.00 per year which includes 12.84% memo. Any amendment that provides either a 10% increase in amount or more than leasehold tax in the amount of $728.25. $10, 000, whichever is greater, must also go to Council and will need an agenda bill and supporting memo. If less than these thresholds, just submit to Executive with This Amendment Amount: supporting memo for approval. Total Amended Amount: Scope of Services Grant permission to Jeff Rainey, Coldstream Farm, LLC, 2304 Valley Highway, Deming, Washington to use approximately 64 acres of farm land for removal of hay from "East Acme Farm" located at the northern portion of Section 8, Township 37 North, Range 5 East, all situated in Whatcom County. Term of Contract: April 1, 2009 through Expiration Date: December 31, 2009 December 31, 2009 Contract Routing Stens & Signoff [sign or initiall [indicate date transmitted 1. Prepared by Lynne Givler Date_3112109 [hard copy] 2. Attorney reviewed: Date [hard copy] 3. AS Finance reviewed: ,fig @!! Date /hard copy] 4. IT reviewed if IT related Date T [electronic] 5. Corrections made: Date [electronic] hard copy printed 6. Attorney signoff. )ILL>�: Date Z) I t I f Z Contractor signed: ___jrainey Date 3112109 8. Submitted to Exec Office Date [summary via electronic; hardcopies] 9. Reviewed by DCA Date 10. Council approved (if necessary) Date 11. Executive signed: Date. 12. Contractor Original 13. Returned to dept; Date 14. County Original to Council Date this form may need to expand to more than one page 53 WHATCOM COUN I Y CONTRACT NO. a00g030Z9 LAND LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLDSTREAM FARM, LLC AND WHATCOM COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT WHATCOM COUNTY, a municipal corporation, LICENSOR, acting on behalf of the Whatcom County Parks & Recreation Department, hereby grants unto COLDSTREAM FARM, LLC, 2304 Valley Highway, Deming, Washington 98244, LICENSEE, permission to use approximately 64 acres of farm land known as the "East Acme Farm" for cutting of the grass located thereon and more particularly described as follows: The northern portion of Section 8, Township 37 North, Range 5 East, as shown on attached Exhibit A. This license shall be for a term commencing April 1, 2009, and terminating October 31, 2009. It may be amended or terminated at any time by mutual written agreement of both parties, and may be terminated by either party upon 90 days written notice to the other party. In the event Licensee becomes in default of any of the covenants or conditions hereof, the Licensor, at its option, shall also have the right to terminate this license and to re-entry for the purpose of removing all persons and property from the premises. It is further agreed as follows: 1. LAND PRACTICES Licensee covenants not to commit waste nor permit anyone else to commit waste during his use of the premises. Licensee shall conform to accepted practices for good land/crop management in the use of said land. 2. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS Licensee shall protect, defend, save harmless and indemnify Whatcom County and the Parks & Recreation Department from and against all claims, suits, and actions arising from negligent acts or omissions of the Licensee or authorized subcontractors, and the agents or employees of either in the performance of this lease. Land License Agreement — Page 1 of 4 54 3. CROP CONDITION Licensor does not warrant the quality or condition of the grass crop. Crop is taken upon an "as is" basis. Land cannot be plowed and planted to another crop. Further, Licensee shall hold Whatcom County free and harmless from all crop damages caused by drought or fire resulting from any cause. 4. PAYMENT As consideration for this license, Licensee shall pay to Whatcom County Parks & Recreation Department each year on or before April 1: SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($6,400.00), which includes leasehold tax of 12.84% in the amount of $728.25. 5. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENT Licensee further agrees not to let the whole or any part of said premises, nor assign this Agreement, or any interest therein without written consent of Licensor. 6. NOTIFICATION OF OTHER CONDITIONS AND USES OF THE PROPERTY Licensee is hereby notified of the following conditions and concurrent uses of the property: a. The public has access to the farmland and will be allowed to walk on the fields. Licensee must get approval from County to temporarily limit public access to the fields during certain farming practices. b. The East Acme Farm will be further developed for public use. Licensee must be prepared to release certain areas at the County's request to accommodate riparian plantings, parking, trails, a restroom, and/or other park amenities. Payment to the County will be adjusted based on the change in farmland available. c. Only grass -type crops are allowed. d. Licensee must have a detailed farm plan following current Soil Conservation standards and criteria. e. Use of commercial fertilizer and manure are allowed if included in the farm plan. f. All applications of manure must be done in accordance with all rules and regulations of appropriate agencies in the State of Washington. Land License Agreement — Page 2 of 4 55 SIGNED AND AGREED this 1A day of , 2009. LICENSEE COLDSTREAM FARM, LLC STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) On this day oft--� , 2009, personally appeared before me ,) CFF )&NFY to be known to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she/he/they signed the same as her/his/their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and seal this Y day of , 2009. r NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State Q�of Washington, residing atf My Commission expires: /, Land License Agreement — Page 3 of 4 56 Executed as of the date first written above. WHATCOM COUNTY Pete Kremen, County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF WHATCOM) On this day of , 2009, before me personally appeared PETE KREMEN, to me known to be the County Executive of WHATCOM COUNTY and who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. Given under my hand and official seal this day of , 2009. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at Bellingham My Commission expires: WHATCOM CO TY PARKS & RECREATION DEPARYMENT Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy Prose cu 'n Atto ey Land License Agreement — Page 4 of 4 57 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-193 CLEARANCES ln#AF6 Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 3/31/09 r CME© 4/14/09 Fir.ar,.c e / C cn.n.c Division Head: Dept. Head: APR - � 2009 03%1 01 Prosecutor: OM COUNTY Purchasing/Budget:IA-61WHATC 9 Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Use of Premises Agreement between Whatcom County and Lummi Commercial Company for Ferry Vehicular Traffic Parking Area. Renewal and Extension. ATTACHMENTS:: 1. Cover Memo 2. Use of Premises Agreement SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (X) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes (X) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) The attached extension of Use of Premises Agreement for the Lummi Ferry parking lot at Gooseberry Point is effective April 17, 2009 and extends the agreement through April 16, 2012. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: 200303018-1 Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at. www.co.whatcom.wauslcouncil. WHATCOM COUNTY �GpM CoG Jim Perkins PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT asp �� Real Estate Manager CIVIC CENTER FRANK M. ABART 322 N. Commercial Street, Suite 210 DIRECTOR �q` ot Bellingham, WA 98225-4042 sHIN�+� Telephone: (360) 676-6876 FAX: (360) 738-2468 www. wha tcomco unto. us • - ,. t c ,, • 'erkins@comhatcomma.us Al, M E M O R A N D U M_;::;;y.•; To: The Honorable Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive. Through: Frank M. Abart, Directo $� From: Jim Perkins, Public Works Real Estate Date: March 31, 2009 Re: Use of Premises Agreement between Whatcom County and Lummi Commercial Company for ferry vehicular traffic parking area. Renewal and Extension • Requested Action ` Enclosed is the Use of Premises Agreement between Whatcom County and the Lummi Commercial Company, Renewal and Extension. I request your approval of the agreement, which will continue to provide parking for Lummi Island Ferry Users, for three years, at a total cost of $50,975.09 • Background and Purpose The current Use of Premises -Agreement expires April 16, 2009; this renewal will extend the agreement for an additional three years, expiring on April 16, 2012. Funding Amount and Source There is adequate budget capacity for the rental payments more particularly described in Section 4 of the Use of Premises Agreement. The rental payments will be paid from the ferry operating fund. Please contact me at extension 50798 if you have any questions regarding this action. Encl. 59 WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET Whatcom County Contract No. a0 030301 F-a Originating Department: Whatcom County Public Works Contract Administrator: Frank Abart Contractor's I Agent Name: Lummi Commercial Company Is this a New Contract? If not, is this an Amendment or Renewal to an Existing Contract? Yes _ No X Yes X No If yes, previous number(s): _200303018-1 Is this a grant agreement? Yes _ No X If yes, grantor agency contract number(s) CFDA number Is this contract grant funded? Yes _ No X If yes, associated Whatcom County grant contract number(s) Is this contract the result of a RFP or Bid process? Yes _ No X If yes, RFP and Bid number(s) Contract Amount: (sum of orig contract amt If a Professional Services Agreement is more than $15, 000 or a Bid is more than and any prior amendments) $35,000, please submit an Agenda Bill for Council approval and a supporting $ 50,975.09 This Amendment Amount: memo. Any amendment that provides either a 10% increase in amount or more than $10, 000, whichever is greater, must also go to Council and will need an agenda bill $ and supporting memo. If less than these thresholds, just submit to Executive with Total Amended Amount: supporting memo for approval. Scope of Services This renewal and extension of term of the Use of Premises Agreement shall commence on April 17, 2009 and shall be for a period of three years, expiring on April 16, 2012. The Use of Premises Agreement may thereafter be renewed upon the same terms and conditions, except as they may be modified by mutual agreement, in writing, of the parties. Term of Contract: Aril 17, 2009 Expiration Date: Aril 16, 2012 1. Prepared by: Jim Perkins L. - / / I Date 3131 09 [electronic] 2. Attorney reviewed: "lei • " Date 31 D [electronic] 3. AS Finance reviewed: Date [electronic] 4. IT reviewed if IT related Date [electronic] 5. Corrections made: Date [electronic] hard copy printed 6.Attorneysignoff.• ter` i,Z�o,_•_/ Date 03/3101 7. Contractor signed: Date 3 36 --a 5 8. Submitted to Exec Office ✓ Date y-2-0 J [summary via electronic; hardcopies] 9. Reviewed by DCA Date 10. Council approved (if necessary) Date IL Executive signed: Date 12. Contractor Original 13. Returned to dept; Date 14. County Original to Council Date this form may need to expand to more than one page this form may need to expand to more than one page GOOSEBERRY POINT PARKING LOT LEASE COMPARISON 83 spaces or 24,463.15 square feet Old Lease Lease began on April 17, 2006 @ $0.50 PSF or $12,232 per year and is ending April 16, 2009 @ $0.53 PSF or $12,965 per year. New Lease The new contract @ $0.63 PSF or $15,412 per year will begin April 17, 2009. The County will owe $10,917 for the 8.5 mos. remaining this year. COMPARISON of 3-YEAR LEASES Old Lease New Lease 2006 @ $0.50 PSF $12,232 yr. 2009 @ $0.63 PSF $15,412 yr $1,019 mo. $1,284 mo. 2007@ $0.51 PSF $12,476 yr 2010 @ $.068 PSF $16,635 yr $1040 mo. $1,386 mo. 2008 @ $0.52 PSF $12,721 yr 2011 @ $0.73 PSF $17, 858 yr $1,060 mo. $1,488 mo. 2009 @$0.53 $12,965 yr 2012 @ $0.78 PSF $19,081 yr $1,080 mo. $1,590 mo. The old lease increased about $20 per month each year. The new lease increases about $200 per month for the remainder of 2009 and about $100 per month per year thereafter. 61 WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT NO. 1 USE OF PREMISES AGREEMENT a 0 03 030/1--Z 2 BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND LUMMI COMMERCIAL COMPANY FOR 3 FERRY VEHICULAR TRAFFIC PARKING AREA 4 RENEWAL AND EXTENSION 9 6 This Use of Premises Agreement Renewal and Extension, is made and entered 7 into this the �i day of Z�/-,. 2009 by and between WHATCOM COUNTY, 8 A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION in the State of Washington, hereinafter called the 9 "County", and the LUMMI COMMERCIAL COMPANY, hereinafter called "LCC", which 10 operates with delegated authority from the LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL, the 11 governing body of the LUMMI NATION, a federally -recognized tribal entity, 12 WITNESSETH: 13 WHEREAS, the County and LCC entered into County Contract 200303018-1 on 14 April 17, 2006; and 15 WHEREAS, it is to the benefit of the County and LCC to renew and extend that 16 agreement; and 17 WHEREAS, the County operates a ferry carrying both vehicular and pedestrian 18 traffic between Gooseberry Point, at the southern tip of Lummi Peninsula and Lummi 19 Island; and 20 WHEREAS, some persons using the ferry park their vehicles on Gooseberry 21 Point prior to boarding the ferry for transport to the Island; and 22 WHEREAS, this occurs with frequency and regularity so as to necessitate 23 planning to accommodate the parking of these vehicles; and 24 WHEREAS, the County desires to provide an additional area for such parking 25 that is near the ferry terminal and is safely off the roadway; and 26 WHEREAS the Lummi Indian Business Council possesses such a parcel of 27 property, located north of Lummi View Drive, Bellingham, Washington, and described in 1 62 1 Exhibit A, and is willing to commit such parcel of property to the control and 2 management of LCC, so that LCC can enter into this agreement upon the terms and 3 conditions set forth herein; 4 NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by the parties hereto, that: 5 1. PROPERTY SUBJECT TO USE OF PREMISES AGREEMENT 6 The property subject to the Use of Premises Agreement between LCC and the 7 County, according to the terms and conditions set forth herein, is that parcel located 8 north of Lummi View Drive, Bellingham, Washington, and more precisely described and 9 identified in Exhibit A, attached hereto. 10 2. TERMS OF THE USE OF PREMISES AGREEMENT 11 This renewal and extension of term of the Use of Premises Agreement shall 12 commence on April 17, 2009 and shall be for a period of three years, expiring on April 13 16, 2012. The Use of Premises Agreement may thereafter be renewed upon the same 14 terms and conditions, except as they may be modified by mutual agreement, in writing, 15 of the parties. 16 17 3. TERMINATION 18 This renewal and extension of the Use of Premises Agreement shall terminate at 19 the end of the Agreement as heretofore agreed. Nothing, however, shall prevent LCC 20 from canceling this renewal and extension at any time during its term or during any 21 other extension of the term, subject to terms for such cancellation, which are more fully 22 set forth hereinafter. 23 If LCC chooses to exercise the right to termination reserved herein, it shall give 24 notice of its intent to do so no later than thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of the 25 termination. If this right of termination is exercised and effective prior to the end of this 26 renewal and extension, LCC shall reimburse the County for the undepreciated portion 27 of the value of the improvements the County has installed upon the property. For the 28 purpose of this Section 3, TERMINATION, the value of the improvements shall not 29 exceed $50,000 and may include security and or drainage improvements and their 30 maintenance, jointly designed and implemented with LCC:. 31 Depreciation shall be calculated on a straight-line basis over the term of this three-year 32 renewal and extension. The County shall have the right to continue to occupy and use K 63 1 the property per this agreement until it receives from LCC the reimbursement for 2 improvements referred to above, and refund of any rental amount paid for beyond the 3 period of occupancy. 4 5 The County may also terminate this agreement, by giving notice thirty (30) days in 6 advance of the effective date of termination, if it determines that such termination is in 7 the best interests of the County. In case of early cancellation, the County shall 8 nonetheless pay the rental amount proportionate to the period of its occupancy. The 9 disposition of improvements to the property shall in any event be governed by the 10 provisions of #5 below. 11 12 4. CONSIDERATION FOR LEASE 13 In payment for the use of the property identified herein, the County shall pay LCC 14 an annual amount of: $ 0.63 per square foot during the balance of 2009 15 (24,463.15 sq. ft. X $0.63 X 8.5 mos. _ $10,917); $0.68 per square foot ($16,635) 16 during 2010; $0.73 per square foot ($17,858) during 2011; and $0.78 per square foot 17 during the portion of 2012 from January 1 to April 16 ($5,565). *au dollar amounts are rounded. 18 A quarter of the annual sum of payment shall be paid, upon receipt of invoice from 19 LCC, by warrant no later than the 90t" day of each calendar quarter. This amount shall 20 not be adjusted except upon mutual agreement of the parties, and if the parties are not 21 able to agree to said adjustments, LCC may give notice of termination of the Use of 22 Premises Agreement renewal and extension as provided in #3 above. In no event shall 23 the termination become effective before the end of the term for which the County has 24 paid, except upon mutual agreement of the parties in writing. 25 5. ALTERATIONS TO THE PROPERTY 26 The County shall have the right to install various improvements upon the property, 27 including, but not limited to, fencing. Upon termination of the Use of Premises 28 Agreement renewal and extension, either by expiration or cancellation, LCC may, within 29 thirty (30) days thereafter, direct the County, in writing, to remove any such 30 improvements, which the County shall thereafter do within a period of thirty (30) days 31 after having received such notice. If no such notice for removal is timely given, after 32 passage of thirty (30) days from the termination of this agreement, LCC assumes full 33 responsibility, vis-a-vis the County, its employees and agents for any damages suffered 34 as a proximate result of the improvements. 3 M 1 6. SIGNAGE 2 The County shall post signage and monitor the use of the ferry vehicular parking 3 area. Signage shall put the public on notice that, among other things, the parking area 4 is maintained by the County for ferry passenger vehicle traffic parking only, that persons 5 using the parking area do so at their own risk and that no hazardous materials are 6 allowed within the parking area. 7 7. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS 8 The County agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless LCC, its appointed and 9 elected officers and employees, from and against all loss or expense, including but not 10 limited to, judgments, settlements, attorney's fees, and costs by reason of any and all 11 claims and demands upon LCC, its elected or appointed officers or employees, for 12 damages because of personal or bodily injury, including death at any time resulting 13 there from, sustained by any person or persons and on account of damage to property 14 including loss of use thereof, whether such injury to persons or damages is due to the 15 negligence of the County, its appointed or elected officials, its agents or its employees, 16 insofar as such damages result from the County's acts or omissions in the use of the 17 property described herein, except to the extent such injury or damage shall have been 18 occasioned by actions or omissions of LCC. 19 8. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING 20 The performance of all activities and responsibilities contemplated by this Use of 21 Premises Agreement Renewal/Extension shall be accomplished by the respective 22 parties hereto. No portion of the rights and responsibilities under this agreement may 23 be assigned to any other individual, firm or entity without the express and prior written 24 approval of the other party hereto. 25 9. ADMINISTRATION OF USE OF PREMISES AGREEMENT 26 The parties hereto hereby appoint and accept the appointment of the following 27 persons, hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Officers, for the purpose of 28 administering the provisions of the Use of Premises Agreement Renewal and 29 Extension, including each party's right to receive and act on all reports and documents, 30 and any auditing performed by either right to receive and act upon all reports and 31 documents, and any auditing performed by either party related to this Agreement. The 32 Administrative Officers for purposes of this agreement are: 33 S 65 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 For LCC Raynell Zuni, General Manager Lummi Commercial Company 2751 Haxton Way #1 Bellingham, WA 98226 Raynelliz(c lcc-lummi.com .For Whatcom County Frank M. Abart, Director Whatcom County Public Works. 322 Commercial Street, Suite 210 Bellingham, WA 98225-404 FAbart@co.whatcom.wa.us 10. NOTICE Except as set forth elsewhere in this agreement, for all purposes under this agreement except for purposes of process, notice shall be given by giving notice to the other party's Administrative Officer, identified in #9 above. Notice for all purposes under this agreement shall be given to the address provided by the other party in #9 above. Notice shall be provided in writing, by hand delivery or by deposit of same in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid. 11. MODIFICATIONS Either party may request changes in the Agreement. Any and all modifications, to be valid and binding upon either party, shall be in writing and signed by both of the parties. 12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This written agreement, comprised of the writings signed or otherwise identified and attached hereto, represents the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior oral statements, discussions or understandings between the parties. 5 99 1 Recommended for Approval 2 l Date: SI 3o 0 3 Frank M. Abart, Director, Public Works 4 5 6 ,. % C . rJ Date: 033 ol og 7 Daniel L. Gibson, 8 Senior Civil Deputy. Prosecuting Attorney 9 10 11 12 Approved and Accepted for Whatcom County: 13 14 15 16 ete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive 17 18 19 STATE OF WASHINGTON) 20 :ss 21 COUNTY OF WHATCOM) 22 23 On this day ofv`� 2009, before me personally 24 appeared Pete Kremen , to me known to be the Executive of Whatcom 25 County, a Municipal Corporation in the State of Washington, the public agency that 26 executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to 27 be the free and voluntary act and deed of said public agency, for the uses and 28 purposes herein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute 29 said instrument on behalf of said public agency. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. pTARY a***' . PUBL%G_ Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at:� My Commission Expires: -2.O1/ Z 67 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Approved and accepted for Lummi Commercial Company -F f�� -Z-t-4� Raynell uni, General Manager Lummi Indian Business Council STATE OF Wf%iAi bL (TNJ. ) :ss COUNTY OF%�\ On this �250' day of CYAP F'-C-H 2009, before me personally appeared Raynell Zuni, to me known to be the. General Manager of Lummi Commercial Company, who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of the LCC, for the uses and purposes herein mentioned, and on oath stated that she was authorized to execute said instrument on behalf of the LCC under authority delegated to her by the Lummi Indian Business Council. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. 24 ►uuilep N 25 +��E ..........26 ,. 27 •��Rr ��° :y^ 28 29 pusv,- Not Public in a' d for the State of Washington Residing at: -u 1�j t-CA,'K7— 3 i�Aj My Commission Expires: �c= 7 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009--194 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Of fice Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 3 ,& 1 Q? t� E � V E D 4/14/09 Finance/Council Division Head: Dept. Head: APR 0 7 2009 �NHAT COM COUNTY COUNCIL Prosecutor: - _ -3 (—Oq Purchasing/Budget: /i+:�� Executive: . 7 TITLE OF DO ENT: Amendment #2 Annual Maintenance Fee for Election Management System ATTACHMENTS: Contract Amendment & supporting memo SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Renews the contract with DFM Associates for professional services annual fee for the election management system in the amount of $48,000 per year (plus tax) for a total of $208,320 through June 30, 2013. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION.• Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. we WHATCOM COUNTY GOM CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE 311 Grand Ave. #103 3 ` < Bellingham, WA 98225 ' s MEMORANDUM P TO: Pete Kremen, County Executive FROM: Shirley Forslof, Auditor RE: Amendment #2 — Election Informa ion Managemen System DFM Associates DATE: March 31, 2009 Shirley Forslof Auditor Enclosed are two (2) originals of Amendment # 2 to the Election Information Management System with DFM Associates extending the term of the contract for four years. ■ Background and Purpose In 2004, the county entered into a contract with DFM Associates to provide the election information management system. The contract was approved through the normal council process. On -going annual maintenance fees were set for each of the years of the contract at $48,000 per year (plus tax). This amendment extends the contract for a four year period. ■ Funding Amount and Source Funding is from the General Fund and reimbursement made by the cities for the registration of voters. A portion of the fee is also chargeable to each election. ■ Differences from Previous Contract This amendment extends the term through June 30, 2013. It also allows for the contract to be extended by mutual agreement of the parties. Please contact Debbie Adelstein at extension 50065, if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this agreement. Encl Amendment #2 - Contract for Services Agreement DFM Associates, Inc. v 1.0 70 WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET Whatcom County Contract No. 200405003-2 Originating Department: Auditor Contact Person: Debbie Adelstein Contractor's Name: DFM Associates Is this a New Contract? If not, is this an Amendment to an Existing Contract? Yes No x Yes x No If an Amendment, previous number(s):_200405003 Is this a renewal? Yes x No Contract Amount: (sum of orig contract amt If a Professional Services Agreement is more than $15, 000 or a Bid is more than and any prior amendments) $35, 000, please submit an Agenda Bill for Council approval and a supporting $ 292, 970.00 memo. Any amendment that provides either a 10% increase in amount or more This Amendment Amount: than $10, 000, whichever is greater, must also go to Council and will need an $ 208, 320.00 agenda bill and supporting memo. If less than these thresholds, just submit to Total Amended Amount: Executive with supporting memo for approval. $ 501290.00 Scope of Services Extend term of contract through June 30, 2013 Nature of Contract Amt: ( Check one) Fixed Amount _x_ Not to Exceed _ Open Ended _ Term of Contract: Expiration Date: June 30, 2013 Renewal Option Yes x No Last Renewal Expires: Special Dates or clauses that require calendaring: Contract Routine Steps & Sienoff.• lsien or initial] %indicate date transmitted, 1. Prepared by: dadelstein Date 3131109 [electronic] 2. Attorney reviewed: `'� :_y Date - - -7E-o0 [electronic] 3. AS -Finance rewiewed.• Date > [electronic] 4. Corrections made: Date [electronic] hard copy printed 5. Attorney signoff.• 4 Date 3 - 3►-d q 6. Contractor signed: ,� Date 3-3(-(D 7. Submitted to Exec Office ✓ Date y-2 -o [summary via electronic; hardcopies] 8. Reviewed by DCA Date 9. Council approved (if necessary) Date 10. Executive signed: Date 11. Contractor Original Returned to dept; Date 12. County Original to Council Date this form may need to expand to more than one page Amendment #2 - Contract for Services Agreement DFM Associates, Inc. v 1.0 71 Whatcom County Contract No. 0-01 FAIGIw` AL 200405003-2 OU� AMENDMENT #2 CONTRACT FOR SERVICES AGREEMENT License Agreement for Election Information Management System DFM ASSOCIATES, INC. , hereinafter called Contractor, and Whatcom County, hereinafter referred to as County, agree, pursuant to Section 10.2 of Whatcom County Contract No. 200405003 previously entered into, desire to extend the term of this agreement for four (4) years through June 30, 2013. This agreement also substitutes the following for Sec.10.2 - Extension: "The duration of this Agreement may be extended by mutual written consent of the parties." All other terms of the contract remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement this.3% �y of /41"c fi 2009. CONTRACTOR: ;DFM A ATES, INC. a �2- mas G. Dieb resident STATEnOF CALIFORNIA ) ss. OF On this day of , 2009, before me personally appeared T me known to be the President of DFM ASSOC TES and who executed the above instrument and w c nowledged to me the act of sig ' g`nd sealing thereof. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of California, residing at My commission expires Amendment #2 - Contract for Services Agreement DFM Associates, Inc. Page 1 v 1.0 72 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Orange On031 20_0 before me, Lisa Kitadani Hoffman Notary Public personally appeared TH. bW S 60Lj who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persooK whose namkoa/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he she/they executed the sa ie in a/her/their authorized capacity(i , and that by�ler/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s{j; or the entity upon behalf of LIS�Ni HOFFMMAN t which the personK-acted, executed the instrument. Commission # 1628695 Notary Public - California Orange County I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws My Comm. Expires Jan8,2010 of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and,official seal. Signatur tc. OPTION Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: 111�6 9--e-6v6_rV -) Document Dater . 3l , ZOCY� Number of Pages Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: N ON& Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: TV1 OMA-t> G . V IF jl� I ❑ Individual U Corporate Office - Title(s). 'PR&5A )� ❑ Partner - ❑Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer is Representin, �U�}" 2) Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer Title(s): ❑ Partner - ❑Limited ❑ Ge6e] ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardi Cor ❑ Oth . is Representing: Attached document bears embossment. 73 WHATCOM COUNTY: Recommended for Approval: Department Dire or ate Approved as to form:/ Prosecuting Attorney Date Approved: Accepted for Whatcom County: By: Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) On this day of , 2009, before me personally appeared Pete Kremen, to me known to be the Executive of Whatcom County, who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at . My commission expires CONTRACTOR INFORMATION: DFM ASSOCIATES, INC. Thomas G. Diebolt, President Address: 10 Chrysler Irvine, CA 92618 Contact Phone: (949) 859-8700 Contact FAX: (949) 859-9512 Contact Email: TomD@dfmassociates.com Amendment #2 - Contract for Services Agreement DFM Associates, Inc. Page 2 v 1.0 74 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-195 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Agenda Date Assigned to: Office Originator: Chris Brueske, P.E. 3ko O E j� C V 4/14/09 Finance/Cou P/�M � / Division Head: Joe Rutan, P.E. Dept. Head: FrankAbart APR ®7 2009 Prosecutor: Dan Gibson d1g 03124109 HATCO COUNTY Purchasing/Budget: Brad Bennett Bb 3/25/09 COUNCIL Executive: Pete Kremen TITLE OF DOCUMENT.- Professional Services Contract for Scour Evaluation at Various County Bridges ATTACHMENTS: 1. Cover Memo 2. Contract Information Sheet 3. Contract for Services Agreement SERA review required? ( ) Yes ( X) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ?( ) Yes ( X) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARYSTATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you mustprovide the language for use in the requiredpublic notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Public Works requests that the County Executive be authorized to enter into a Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $18,862.00 with Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. for scour evaluation at various county bridges. COMMITTEE ACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION.• Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 2il 75 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FRANK M. ABART Director MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Pete Kremen, County Executive Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council THROUGH: Frank M. Abart, Director?01,41som FROM: Joseph P. Rutan, P.E., County Road Engineer/1 Chris C. Brueske, P.E., Engineering ManaTD DATE: March 20, 2009 JOSEPH P. RUTAN, P.E. County Engineer/Assistant Director 2011 Young St., Suite 201 Bellingham, WA 98225-4052 Phone: (360) 715-7450 Fax: (360) 715-7451 APR 2 - 2009 COUNTY EXcCUTIVE RE: Contract for Services — Scour Evaluation at Various County Bridges Enclosed are two (2) originals of the Contract for Services between Whatcom County and Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. Requested Action Public Works respectfully requests that the Executive, upon approval by the Whatcom County Council, sign the attached contracts with the selected engineering consultant, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC), for scour evaluation at various county bridges. Background and Purpose The Federal Highway Administration requires scour analyses be conducted for all bridges under a local agency's jurisdiction. This contract provides for scour analyses for Bridge Nos. 38, 252, and 332, located on Drayton Harbor Road, Hannegan Road, and Mosquito Lake Road, respectively. NHC was selected as the most qualified consultant for the proposed work based on submitted qualifications for the Engineering & Architectural Services Request for Qualifications (RFQ #09-01). Funding Amount and Source The not -to -exceed amount for this contract is $18,862.00. Budget authority exists in the approved 2009 Road Fund budget. Please contact Chris Brueske at extension 50617 if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this agreement. 76 WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET Whatcom County Contract No. Originating Department: Public Works — Engineering Contract Administrator: Chris C. Brueske Contractor's I Agency Name: Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. Is this a New Contract? If not, is this an Amendment or Renewal to an Existing Contract? Yes X No Yes _ No If yes, previous number(s): Is this a grant agreement? Yes _ No X If yes, grantor agency contract number(s) CFDA number Is this contract grant funded? Yes_ No X If yes, associated Whatcom County grant contract number(s) Is this contract the result of a RFP or Bid process? Yes X No If yes, RFP and Bid number(s) RFQ 09-01 Contract Amount: (sum of orig contract amt If a Professional Services Agreement is more than $1 S, 000 or a Bid is more than and any prior amendments) $35, 000, please submit an Agenda Bill for Council approval and a supporting $ 18.862.00 memo. Any amendment that provides either a 10% increase in amount or more than This Amendment Amount: $10, 000, whichever is greater, must also go to Council and will need an agenda bill $_NIA and supporting memo. If less than these thresholds, just submit to Executive with Total Amended Amount: supporting memo for approval. $ N/A Scope of Services Scour Evaluation at Various County Bridges Term of Contract: Expiration Date: 12131109 Contract Routing Steps & Sigoff, !sign or initial) [indicate date transmitted] 1. Prepared by: CB Date 0312012009 2. 3. 4. S. 6. z 8. 9. I 1 12 1 1 3. 4 Attorney reviewed: Daniel L. Gibson AS Finance reviewed bbennett IT reviewed if IT related N/A Corrections made: : N/A Attorney signoff. Daniel L. Gibson Contractor signedT X Submitted to Exec Office ,1-1 Reviewed by DCA 0. Council approved (if necessary) 1. Executive signed. . Contractor Original Returned to dept; . County Original to Council [electronic] Date 03124109 [electronic] Date 3125109 [electronic] Date [electronic] Date [electronic] hard copy Date03124109 Date_03126109 Date Z* y-Z-oq . [summary via electronic, Date Date Date Date printed hardcopies] Date this form may need to expand to more than one page 77 Whatcom County Contract No. UT1'GIN CONTRACT FOR SERVICES D Cg 50 gool 4dour Evaluation — Various County Bridges Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc., hereinafter called Contractor, and Whatcom County, hereinafter referred tows County, agree and contract as set forth in this Agreement, including: General Conditions, pp. 3 to 8 Exhibit A (Scope of Work), pp. 9 -10 , Exhibit B (Compensation), pp. 11 -12 , Exhibit C (Certificate of Insurance), pg.13, Copies of these items are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 20th day of April, 2009, and shall, unless terminated or renewed as elsewhere provided in the Agreement, terminate on the 31 st day of December, 2009. The general purpose or objective of this Agreement is:. Scour Evaluation at Various County Bridges, as more fully and definitively described in Exhibit A hereto. The language of Exhibit A controls in case of any conflict between it and that provided here. The maximum consideration for the initial term of this agreement or for any renewal term shall not exceed $ 18,862.00 . The Contract Number, set forth above, shall be included on all billings or correspondence in connection therewith. Contractor acknowledges and by signing this contract agrees that the Indemnification provisions set forth in Paragraphs 11.1, 21.1, 30.1, 31.2, 32.1, 34.2, and 34.3, if included, are totally and fully part of this contract and have been mutually negotiated by the parties, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement thisdk day of Mcr-c , 20 CONTRACTOR: Jeff Johnson, P.E., Principal 77777!Z----,, Jeff JoMf .E., Prth#al STATE OF WASHINGTON j ss 14+t,,t4WA��r�,= COUNTY OF K t V1�t ) On this�Way of March , 20�°i before me personally appeared) �C= . Ohns')Ato me known to be the Pr1M1 tJw 1 (title) of 4oH-hwe r" h " (Company) and who executed the above instrum nt an who acknowledged to me the act of signing d sealing thereof. CO r1 u l-kc►'�5 �j'iC... NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at 5eattle, WA. My commission expires B Contract for Services Agreement Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. Scour Evaluation at Various County Bridges Page 1 v 1.0 go WHATCOM COUNTY: Recommended for Approval: � Department Director Date Approved as to form: Prosecuting Attorney Date Approved: Accepted for Whatcom County: By: Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) On this day of , 20 _, before me personally appeared Pete Kremen, to me known to be the Executive of Whatcom County, who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at . My commission expires CONTRACTOR INFORMATION: Jeff Johnson, P.E. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. 16300 Christensen Road, Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98188-3418 (206)241-6000 jjohnson@nhc-sea.com Contract for Services Agreement Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. Scour Evaluation at Various County Bridges Page 2 v 1.0 79 GENERAL CONDITIONS Series 00-09: Provisions Related to Scope and Nature of Services 0.1 Scope of Services: The Contractor agrees to provide to the County services and any materials as set forth in the project narrative identified as Exhibit "A", during the agreement period. No material, labor, or facilities will be furnished by the County, unless otherwise provided for in the Agreement. Series 10.19: Provisions Related to Term and Termination 10.1 Term: Services provided by Contractor prior to or after the term of this contract shall be performed at the expense of Contractor and are not compensable under this contract unless both parties hereto agree to such provision in writing. The term of this Agreement may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties; provided, however, that the Agreement is in writing and signed by both parties. 10.2 Extension: The duration of this Agreement may be extended by mutual written consent of the parties, for a period of up to one year at a time, and for a total of no longer than three years. 11.1 Termination for Default: If the Contractor defaults by failing to perform any of the obligations of the contract or becomes insolvent or is declared bankrupt or commits any act of bankruptcy or insolvency or makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, the County may, by depositing written notice to the Contractor in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, terminate the contract, and at the County's option, obtain performance of the work elsewhere. Termination shall be effective upon Contractor's receipt of the written notice, or within three (3) days of the mailing of the notice, whichever occurs first. If the contract is terminated for default, the Contractor shall not.be entitled to receive any further payments under the contract until all work called for has been fully performed. Any extra cost or damage to the County resulting from such default(s) shall be deducted from any money due or coming due to the Contractor. 11.2 Termination for Reduction in Funding: In the event that funding from State, Federal or other sources is withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way after the effective date of this Agreement, and prior to its normal completion, the County may summarily terminate this Agreement as to the funds withdrawn, reduced, or limited, notwithstanding any other termination provisions of this Agreement. If the level of funding withdrawn, reduced or limited is so great that the County deems that the continuation of the programs covered by this Agreement is no longer in. the best interest of the County, the County may summarily terminate this Agreement in whole, notwithstanding any other termination provisions of this Agreement Termination under this section shall be effective upon receipt of written notice as specified herein, or within three days of the mailing of the notice, whichever occurs first. Whenever the Agreement is terminated in accordance with this paragraph, the Contractor shall be entitled to payment for actual work performed at unit contract prices for completed items of work. An equitable adjustment in the contract price for partially completed items of work will be made, but such adjustment shall not include provision for loss of anticipated profit on deleted or uncompleted work. 11.3 Termination for Public Convenience: The County may terminate the Agreement in whole or in part whenever the County determines, in its sole discretion, that such termination is in the interests of the County. Whenever the Agreement is terminated in accordance with this paragraph, the Contractor shall be entitled to payment for actual work performed at unit contract prices for completed items of work. An equitable adjustment in the contract price for partially completed items of work will be made, but such adjustment shall not include provision for loss of anticipated profit on deleted or uncompleted work. Termination of this Agreement by the County at any time during the term, whether for default or convenience, shall not constitute breach of contract by the County. Series 20-29. Provisions Related to Consideration and Payments 20.1 Accounting and Payment for Contractor Services: Payment to the Contractor for services rendered under this Agreement shall be as set forth in Exhibit "B." Where Exhibit "B" requires payments by the County, payment shall be based upon written claims supported, unless otherwise provided in Exhibit "B," by Contract for Services Agreement Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. Scour Evaluation at Various County Bridges Page 3 v 1.0 documentation of units of work actually performed and amounts earned, including, where appropriate, the actual number of days worked each month, total number of hours for the month, and the total dollar payment requested, so as to comply with municipal auditing requirements. Unless specifically stated in Exhibit "B" or approved in writing in advance by the official executing this Agreement for the County or his designee .(hereinafter referred to as the "Administrative Officer") the County will not reimburse the Contractor for any costs or expenses incurred by the Contractor in the performance of this contract. Where required, the County shall, upon receipt of appropriate documentation, compensate the Contractor, no more often than monthly, in accordance with the County's customary procedures, pursuant to the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit "B." 21.1 Taxes: The Contractor understands and acknowledges that the County will not withhold Federal or State income taxes. Where required by State or Federal law, the Contractor authorizes the County to withhold for any taxes other than income taxes (i.e., Medicare). All compensation received by the Contractor will be reported to the Internal Revenue Service at the end of the calendar year in accordance with the applicable IRS regulations. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to make the necessary estimated tax payments throughout the year, if any, and the Contractor is solely liable for any tax obligation arising from the Contractor's performance of this. Agreement. The Contractor hereby agrees to indemnify the County against any demand to pay taxes arising from the Contractor's failure to pay taxes on compensation earned pursuant to this Agreement. The County will pay sales and use taxes imposed on goods or services acquired hereunder as required by law. The Contractor must pay all other taxes, including, but not limited to, Business and Occupation Tax, taxes based on the Contractor's gross or net income, or personal property to which the County does not hold title. The County is exempt from Federal Excise Tax. 22.1 Withholding Payment: In the event the County's Administrative Officer determines that the Contractor has failed to perform any obligation under this Agreement within the times set forth in this Agreement, then the County may withhold from amounts otherwise due and payable to Contractor the amount determined by the County as necessary to cure the default, until the Administrative Officer determines that such failure to perform has been cured. Withholding under this clause shall not be deemed a breach entitling Contractor to termination or damages, provided that the County promptly gives notice in writing to the Contractor of the nature of the default or failure to perform, and in no case more than 10 days after it determines to withhold amounts otherwise due. A determination of the Administrative Officer set forth in a notice to the Contractor of the action required and/or the amount required to cure any alleged failure to perform shall be deemed conclusive, except to the extent that the Contractor acts within the times and in strict accord with the provisions of the Disputes clause of this Agreement. The County may act in accordance with any determination of the Administrative Officer which has.become conclusive under this clause, without prejudice to any other remedy under the Agreement, to take all or any of the following actions: (1) cure any failure or default, (2) to pay any amount so required to be paid and to charge the same to the account of the Contractor, (3) to set off any amount so paid or incurred from amounts due or to become due the Contractor. In the event the Contractor obtains relief upon a claim under the Disputes clause, no penalty or damages shall accrue to Contractor by reason of good faith withholding by the County under this clause. 23.1 Labor Standards:' The Contractor agrees to comply with state and federal requirements, as applicable, pertaining to payment of wages and working conditions, in accordance with RCW 39.12.040, the Prevailing Wage Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; the Davis -Bacon Act; and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act providing for weekly payment of prevailing wages, minimum overtime pay, and providing that no laborer or mechanic shall be required to work in surroundings or under conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to health and safety as determined by regulations promulgated by the Federal Secretary of Labor and the State of Washington. Series 30-39: Provisions Related to Administration of Agreement 30.1 Independent Contractor: The Contractor's services shall be furnished by the Contractor as an independent contractor, and nothing herein contained shall be construed to create a relationship of employer -employee or master -servant, but all payments made hereunder and all services performed shall be made and performed pursuant to this Agreement by the Contractor as an independent contractor. The Contractor acknowledges that the entire compensation for this Agreement is specified in Exhibit "B" and the Contractor is not entitled to any benefits including, but not limited to: vacation pay, holiday pay, sick leave pay, medical, dental, or other insurance benefits, or any other rights or privileges afforded to employees of the County. The Contractor represents that he/she/it maintains a Contract for Services Agreement Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. Scour Evaluation at Various County Bridges Page 4 v 1.0 i separate place of business; serves clients other than the County, will report all income and expense accrued under this contract to the Internal Revenue Service on a Schedule C, and has a tax account with the State of Washington Department of Revenue for payment of all sales and use and Business and Occupation taxes collected by the State of Washington. Contractor will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County, its officers, agents or employees from any loss or expense, including, but not limited to, settlements, judgments, setoffs, attorneys' fees or costs incurred by reason of claims or demands because of breach of the provisions of this paragraph. 30.2 Assignment, Subcontracting and Subcontractor Responsibility: The performance of all activities contemplated by this agreement shall be accomplished by the Contractor. No portion of this contract may be assigned or subcontracted to any other individual, firm or entity without the express and prior written approval of the County. If Contractor does use subcontractors in the performance of the work contracted hereunder, Contractor shall include the pertinent language of this section in each of its first tier subcontracts, and shall require each of its subcontractors to include substantially the same language of this section in each of their subcontracts, adjusting only as necessary the terms used for the contracting parties. The requirements of this section apply to all subcontractors regardless of tier. At the time of subcontract execution, the Contractor shall verify that each of its first tier subcontractors meets the following bidder responsibility criteria: a. At the time of subcontract bid submittal, have a certificate of registration in compliance with chapter 18,27 RCW; b. Have a current state unified business identifier number; c. If applicable, have: Industrial insurance coverage for the subcontractor's employees working in Washington as required in Title 51 RCW; An employment security department number as required in Title 50RCW; and A state excise tax registration number as required in Title 82 RCW; An electrical contractor license, if required by Chapter 19.28 RCW; An elevator contractor license, if required by Chapter 70.87 RCW. d. Not be disqualified from bidding on any public works contract under RCW 39.06.010 or 39.12.065 (3). 30.3- No Guarantee of Employment: The performance of all or part of this contract by the Contractor shall not operate to vest any employment rights whatsoever and shall not be deemed to guarantee any employment of the Contractor or any employee of the Contractor or any subcontractor or any employee of any subcontractor by the County at the present time or in the future. 31.1 Ownership of Items Produced: All writings, programs, data, public records or other materials prepared by the Contractor and/or its consultants or subcontractors, in connection with performance of this Agreement, shall be the sole and absolute property of the County. Whether the documents are submitted in electronic media or in tangible format, any use of the materials on another project or on extensions of this project beyond the use for which they were intended, or any modification of the materials or conversion of the materials to an alternate system or format will be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant. The County will assume all risk associated with such use, modifications, or conversions. 31.2 Patent/Copyright Infringement: Contractor will defend and indemnify the County from any claimed action, cause or demand brought against the County, to the extent such action is based on the claim that information supplied by the Contractor infringes any patent or copyright. The Contractor will pay those costs and damages attributable to any such claims that are finally awarded against the County in any action. Such defense and payments are conditioned upon the following: A. The Contractor shall be notified promptly in writing by the County of any notice of such claim. B. Contractor shall have the right, hereunder, at its option and expense, to obtain for the County the right to continue using the information, in the event such claim of infringement, is made, provided no reduction in performance or loss results to the County. 32.1 Confidentiality: The Contractor, its employees, subcontractors, and their employees shall maintain the confidentiality of all information provided by the County or acquired by the Contractor in performance of this Agreement, except upon the prior written consent of the County or an order entered by a court after having acquired jurisdiction over the County. Contractor shall immediately give to the County notice of any judicial proceeding seeking disclosure of such information. 33.1 Right to Review: Contract for Services Agreement Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. Scour Evaluation at Various County Bridges Page 5. v 1.0 i This contract is subject to review by any Federal, State or County auditor. The County or its designee shall have the right to review and monitor the financial and service components of this program by whatever means are deemed expedient by the Administrative Officer or by the County Auditor's Office. Such review may occur with or without notice and may include, but is not limited to, on -site inspection by County agents or employees, inspection of all records or other materials which the County deems pertinent to the Agreement and its performance, and any and all communications with or evaluations by service recipients under this Agreement. The Contractor shall preserve and maintain all financial records and records relating to the performance of work under this Agreement for three (3) years after contract termination, and shall make them available for such review, within Whatcom County, State of Washington, upon request. Contractor also agrees to notify the Administrative Officer in advance of any inspections, audits, or program review by any individual, agency, or governmental unit whose purpose is to review the services provided within the terms of this Agreement, If no advance notice is given to the Contractor, then the Contractor agrees to notify the Administrative Officer as soon as it is practical. 34.1 Proof of Insurance: The Contractor shall carry for the duration of this Agreement general liability and property damage insurance with the following minimums: Property Damage per occurrence - $500,000.00 General Liability & Property Damage for bodily injury- $1,000,000.00 A certificate of such insurance, that also identifies the County as an additional insured, is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". In addition, Contractor shall carry and provide proof of a standard error & omissions policy for not less than $1,000,000.00 coverage .against exposure to professional liability. 34.3 Defense & Indemnity Agreement: The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and save harmless the County, its appointed and elective officers and employees, from and against all loss or expense, including, but not limited to, judgments, settlements, attorneys' fees and costs by reason of any and all claims and demands upon the County, its elected or appointed officials or employees for damages because of personal or bodily injury, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by any person or persons and on account of damage to property, including loss of use thereof, to the extent such injury to persons or damage to property is due to the negligence of the Contractor, its subcontractors, its successor or assigns, or its agents, servants, or employees, It is further provided that no liability shall attach to the County by reason of entering into this contract, except as expressly provided herein. 35.1 Non -Discrimination in Employment: The County's policy is to provide equal opportunity in all terms, conditions and privileges of employment for all qualified applicants and employees without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, or veteran status. The Contractor shall comply with all laws prohibiting discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, disability, or veteran status, except where such constitutes a bona fide occupational qualification. Furthermore, in those cases in which the Contractor is governed by such laws, the Contractor shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed, and treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, or veteran status, except where such constitutes a bona fide occupational qualification. Such action shall include, but not be limited to: advertising, hiring, promotions, layoffs or terminations, rate of pay or other forms of compensation benefits, selection for training including apprenticeship, and participation in recreational and educational activities. In all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by them or on their behalf, the Contractor shall state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color religion, sex or national origin. The foregoing provisions shall also be binding upon any subcontractor, provided that the foregoing provision shall not apply to contracts or subcontractors for standard commercial supplies or raw materials, or to sole proprietorships with no employees, 35.2 Non -Discrimination in Client Services: The Contractor shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, or veteran status; or deny an individual or business any service or benefits under this Agreement; or subject an individual or business to segregation or separate treatment in any manner related to his/herrts receipt any service or services or other benefits provided under this Agreement; or deny an individual or business an opportunity to participate in any program provided by this Agreement. Contract for Services Agreement Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. Scour Evaluation at Various County Bridges Page 6 v 1.0 i 36.1 Waiver of Noncompetition: Not Applicable 36.2 Conflict of Interest: If at any time prior to commencement of, or during the term of this Agreement, Contractor or any of its employees involved in the performance of this Agreement shall have or develop an interest in the subject matter of this Agreement that is potentially in conflict with the County's interest, then Contractor shall immediately notify the County of the same. The notification of the County shall be made with sufficient specificity to enable the County to make an informed judgment as to whether or not the County's interest may be compromised in any manner by the existence of the conflict, actual or potential. Thereafter, the County may require the Contractor to take reasonable steps to remove the conflict of interest. The County may also terminate this contract according to the provisions herein for termination. 37.1 Administration of Contract: This Agreement shall be subject to all laws, rules, and regulations of the United States of America, the State of Washington, and political subdivisions of the State of Washington. The Contractor also agrees to comply with applicable federal, state, county or municipal standards for licensing, certification and operation of facilities and programs, and accreditation and licensing of individuals. The County hereby appoints, and the Contractor hereby accepts, the Whatcom County Executive, and his or her designee, as the County's representative, hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Officer, for the purposes of administering the provisions of this Agreement, including the County's right to receive and. act on all reports and documents, and any auditing performed by the County related to this Agreement. The Administrative Officer for purposes of this agreement is: Chris C, Brueske, P.E., Engineering Manager Whatcom County Public Works Engineering. 2011 Young Street, Suite 201 Bellingham, WA 98226-9098 37.2 Notice: Except as set forth elsewhere in the Agreement, for all purposes under this Agreement except service of process, notice shall be given by the Contractor to the County's Administrative Officer under this Agreement. Notice to the Contractor for all purposes under this Agreement shall be given to the address provided by the Contractor herein above in the "Contractor Information" section. Notice may be given by delivery or by depositing in the US Mail, first class, postage prepaid. 38.1 Status of Public Works Contractor: Contractor affirms that it has fully met the responsibility criteria required of public works contractors under RCW 39.04,350 (1), which include: (a) having a certificate of registration in compliance with RCW 18.27; (b) having a current state unified business identifier number; (c) if applicable, having industrial insurance coverage for its employees working in Washington as required in Title 51 RCW, an employment security department number as required in Title 50 RCW, and a state excise tax registration number as required in Title 82 RCW; and (d) not being disqualified from bidding on any public works contract under RCW 39.06.010 or 39.12.065(3). Series 40-49: Provisions Related to Interpretation of Agreement and Resolution of Disputes 40.1 Modifications: Either party may request changes in the Agreement. Any and all agreed modifications, to be valid and binding upon either party, shall be in writing and signed by both of the parties. 40.2 Contractor Commitments, Warranties and Representations: Not Applicable 41.1 Severability: If any term or condition of this contract or the application thereof to any person(s) or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other terms, conditions or applications which can be given effect without the invalid term, condition or application. To this end, the terms and conditions of this contract are declared severable. 41.2 Waiver: Waiver of any breach or condition of this contract shall not be deemed a waiver of any prior or subsequent breach. No term or condition of this contract shall be held to be waived, modified or deleted except by an instrument, in writing, signed by the parties Contract for Services Agreement Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. Scour Evaluation at Various County Bridges Page 7 v 1.0 on hereto. The failure of the County to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements of this Agreement, or to exercise any option herein conferred in any one or more instances, shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of any such, or any other covenants or agreements, but the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. 42.1 Disputes: a. General: Differences between the Contractor and the County, arising under and by virtue of the Contract Documents, shall be brought to the attention of the County at the earliest possible time in order that such matters may be settled or other appropriate action promptly taken. Except for such objections as are made of record in the manner hereinafter specified and within the time limits stated, the records, orders, rulings, instructions, and decisions of the Administrative Officer shall be final and conclusive. b. Notice of Potential Claims: The Contractor shall not be entitled to additional compensation which otherwise may be payable, or to extension of time for (1) any act or failure to act by the Administrative Officer or the County, or (2) the happening of any event or occurrence, unless the Contractor has given the County a written Notice of Potential Claim within ten (10) days of the commencement of the act, failure, or event giving rise to the claim, and before final payment by the County. The written Notice of Potential Claim shall set forth the reasons for which the Contractor believes additional compensation or extension of time is due, the nature of the cost involved, and insofar as possible, the amount of the potential claim. Contractor shall keep full and complete daily records of the work performed, labor and material used, and all costs and additional time claimed to be additional. c. Detailed Claim: The Contractor shall not be entitled to claim any such additional compensation, or extension of time, unless within thirty (30) days of the accomplishment of the portion of the work from which the claim arose, and before final payment by the County, the Contractor has given the County a detailed written statement of each element of cost or other compensation requested and of all elements of additional time required, and copies of any supporting documents evidencing the amount or the extension of time claimed to be due. d. Arbitration: Not Applicable 43.1 Venue and Choice of Law: In the event that any litigation should arise concerning the construction or interpretation of any of the terms of this Agreement, the venue of such action of litigation shall be in the courts of the State of Washington in and for the County of Whatcom. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. 44.1 Survival: The provisions of paragraphs 11.1, 11.2, 11.3 , 21.1, 22.1, 30.1, 31.1, 31.2, 32.1, 33.1, 34.2, 34.3, 36.1, 40.2, 41.2, 42.1, and 43.1, if utilized, shall survive, notwithstanding the termination or invalidity of this Agreement for any reason. 45.1 Entire Agreement: This written Agreement, comprised of the writings signed or otherwise identified and attached hereto, represents the entire Agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior oral statements, discussions or understandings between the parties. Contract for Services Agreement Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. Scour Evaluation at Various County Bridges Page 8 v 1.0 i EXHIBIT "A" (SCOPE OF WORK) Scour Evaluation - Various County Bridges Scour Evaluation Services for Whatcom County Bridges Public Works Department Engineering Division Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (nhc) has been asked by the Whatcom County Public Works to conduct scour evaluations for two county road bridge crossings and to update one scour evaluation for a bridge examined previously. They are: Bridge No. Stream 38 California Creek 252 Nooksack River 332 N. Fk. Nooksack River Road or Bridge Name Drayton Harbor Road (see photo below) Hannagen Road (see photo below) Welcome Bridge (examined previously) nhc will follow FHWA scour guidelines to evaluate each crossing. A report will be prepared for each structure to summarize the results of the evaluation and to assign the appropriate FHWA scour code, and to suggest possible scour mitigation (counter measures). The goal of each report will be to provide Whatcom County with a realistic assessment of the potential for scour and erosion damage at the bridge. The tasks that nhc will complete for each bridge are described below in their approximate order of execution. Data Collection and Review. nhc will gather materials needed to conduct the evaluations. The County will provide existing information (if available) that may be pertinent to the project, such as: • Bridge plan (plan / elevation and pier foundation detail sheets) • Bridge maintenance / inspection records with cross section sounding information • Pile driving records • Historical and current aerial photographs • Soil log information • Review between nhc and Whatcom County to insure all data and information needed has been gathered before continuing with the field work Field Reconnaissance. nhe's principal -in -charge and staff engineer will travel to and examine each bridge crossing and stream. During this trip he will stop by for a brief meeting with the Whatcom County project manager. Stream Surveys. Whatcom County will conduct surveys at each crossing as instructed by nhc. At both Bridge 38 and 252, the county will complete a survey of the stream bed and river banks in the vicinity of the crossing. They will also survey the elevation of a few points on the bridge structure to confirm that the elevations and dimensions shown on the bridge plans are "as- builts". For each site, the County will process the survey data and provide nhc with an Autocad generated contour map of the stream bed and channel banks. During the field reconnaissance nhc will measure a sounding along the upstream side of Bridge 332. A summary of the recommended surveys are provided below. Bridge No. Stream Road Surveys Party Responsible 38 California Creek Drayton Harbor Bathymetry County 252 Nooksack River Hannegan Road Bathymetry County 332 N. Fk. Nooksack River Welcome Bridge Soundings nhc Hydrology. nhc will estimate the instantaneous peak discharge for the 100-year flood for California Creek (Bridge 38). In addition we will estimate tidal prism storage volumes upstream from the bridge. Flood frequency discharge estimates already exist for the Nooksack River (Bridge 252) and will be used. No new hydrology work will be completed for Bridge 332. Hydraulics. Simple hydraulic computations will be completed for Bridge 38 to examine velocities during maximum ebb flow conditions. The existing FEQ model will be utilized for Bridge 252. No hydraulic analyses will be completed for Bridge 332. Contract for Services Agreement Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. Scour Evaluation at Various County Bridges Page 9 v 1.0 LRI•111111 Scour Depth Calculations and FHWA Scour Code. nhc will use procedures recommended by the Federal Highway Administration to estimate scour and erosion potential at Bridges 38 and 252. This information will then be used to assign the appropriate FHWA scour code to both bridges. nhc will update the scour code for Bridge 332 based upon a review of pier construction records recently found by Whatcom County. Evaluation of Existing Countermeasures. It appears rock riprap revetments cover the banks under both Bridge 38 and 252. nhc will examine the condition of the protection, comment on its reliability and if necessary recommend improvements. (Note: Detailed designs will not be developed as part of this task order.) Unless obvious changes are observed to the revetment at Bridge 332, nhc will not conduct a detailed examination of the existing countermeasures. Report. nhc will prepare a report for each bridge which will summarize the results of the investigation. Whatcom County will review the draft reports with nhc before final reports are delivered. Deliverables. A summary report will be provided for each bridge. The report will include standard study information including scour information, field reconnaissance photographs, and survey data, FHWA scour code, and possible counter measure concepts. In addition to hard copy items enumerated, all drawing, details, specifications, reports and other data will be delivered to the County in electronic format in a CD for County use and ownership. All text files need to be in Microsoft Word or Excel. All drawings need to be in AutoCad format using an agreed upon version. Schedule. nhc will complete the scour evaluations by a date mutually agreed to between the County and nhc. Contract for Services Agreement Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. Scour Evaluation at Various County Bridges Page 10 v 1.0 i EXHIBIT "B" (Compensation) Scour Evaluation — Various County Bridges As consideration for services provided pursuant to Exhibit A, Scope of Work, the County agrees to compensate the Contractor according to the hourly rates provided below in the compensation summary. Reasonable direct expenses incurred in the course of performing the duties herein, shall be reimbursed at the cost or rate listed below; other reasonable direct expenses not specified below shall be reimbursed at actual cost as documented on receipts submitted by the Contractor. Subcontractor costs shall be paid based on subcontractor invoices. Any work performed prior to the effective date of this contract or continuing after the completion date of same, unless approved in writing, will be at the Consultant's expense. The not -to -exceed amount for this contract is $18,862.00. Contract for Services Agreement Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. Scour Evaluation at Various County Bridges Page 11 v 1.0 MM nhc -- Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. 16300 Christensen Road, Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98188-3418 Tel. (206) 241-6000 Fax (206) 439-2420 Estimate of Professional Services Prepared for: Whatcorn County Project: Bridge Scour Services Date: 20-Mar-09 Project #; Prepared By: Jeff Johnson TASK DESCRIPTION PrIn.1 Sr. Eng Eng. Staff Hours Jr. Eng. I Tech. Clerical l Totals General.Tasks Data Collection and Review 1 4 $651 Field Reconnaissance a 8 $2,672 Stream Channel Surveys & Data Processing 1 4 $651 Hydrology 1 4 $661 Hydraulics 2 2 8 $1,648 Scour Analysis / Calculations 4 8 $1,759 Evaluation of Existing Countermeasures 4 2 $1.125 Reports 20 3 20 6 $7,599 Other Tasks Administration 2 S457 Meeting 6 $1,370 TotalHours and bir,ec"t 'Labor' Cost (DL) 65.0 Rate ($1hr) -- based upon 185.51% overhead and 12% profit. 1 228.351 172.90 1 128.08 1 105.67 (2008 WSDOT approved rates) TOTAL LABOR COST ............. ..... ....... .... .................. ....... ..... ...... $18,582 Direct Expense Detail Units Rate Cost 7 Mileage 350 0.585 $205 Reproduction & Communication $75 280 it Summary Total Labor $18,582 Tots Direct Expenses $280 TOTAL COST Contract for Services Agreement Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. Scour Evaluation at Various County Bridges Page 12 v 1.0 89 OP ID AL DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) .Q'COI U CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE NOR4000 03 25 09 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE Griffith Insurance Group, Inc. HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR 3841 Aurora Ave N Suite 100 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Seattle WA 98103 Phone: 206-632-1433 Fax:206-632-0878 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # INSURED INSURER A: Hartford Casualty Ins. Co INSURER B: Northwest Hydraulic INSURER C: Consultants Inc. 16300 Christensen Rd #350 INSURERD: Tukwila WA 98188 INSURER E: CnVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. LTR NSR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE DATE MWDD/YY POLICY EXPIRATION DATE MWDD/YY LIMITS GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY, 52UUNUS3744 06/30/08 06/30/09 PREMISES(Ea occurence) $ 300,000 CLAIMS MADE FX� OCCUR MED EXP (Any one person) $ 10 , 000 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $1,000,000 X WA Stop Gap GENERAL AGGREGATE $2,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG s2,000,000 X POLICY PROECT El LOC J A AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANY AUTO 52UUNUS3744 06/30/08 06/30/09 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Ea accident) $1,000,000 X BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ HIRED AUTOS NON -OWNED AUTOS PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per accident) $ GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $ OTHER THAN EA ACC $ ANY AUTO $ AUTO ONLY: AGG EXCESS/UMBRELLA LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $5,000,000 A X OCCUR E�CLAIMSMADE 52XHUUS3412 06/30/08 06/30/09 AGGREGATE $5,000,000 $ $ DEDUCTIBLE $ X RETENTION $10 000 WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE I TORY LIMITS ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ OFFICERIMEMBER EXCLUDED? If yes, describe under SPECIAL PROVISIONS below E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES I EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT I SPECIAL PROVISIONS Re: Whatcom County Bridge Scour Evaluations Whatcom County, its employees, officers, agents and representatives are listed as additional insured as pertains to the work and services performed by the named insured only. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION WHATC01 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION Whatcom County DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN Public Works Department NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL Attn : Chris Brueske IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR 2011 Young Street, Ste 201 Bellingham WA 98225 REPRESENTATIVES. I R NTATWE ACORD 25 (2001108) © ACORD CORPORATION998B WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Ain 2009-196 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator 4/02/09 1T11 E C C `� V E D � 4/14/09 Finance/Coup Division Head: APR — 7 2009 WHATCOM COUNTY Dept Head. Prosecutor., Purchasin /Bud et: 4/02/09 COUNCIL Executive: TITLE OF DOC M T.• Ap roval o Award Bid 09-28, On -Call Contractor/Equipment List ATTACHMENTS: Memos from Finance SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (x) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( x) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes (x ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (if this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Public Works River Flood Division is requesting County Council and Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors approval to award Bid 09-28, the On -Call Contractor/Equipment List. The intent of this bid is to obtain firm pricing and ensure prevailing wages are paid on all on -call projects. Public Works is requesting approval to award to all 32 names on the list and obtain approval to enter into contracts with each of the responsive bidders. The Contractors would only be used if a specific need arose. It is possible that more than $35,000 could be spent with a single vendor. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #. Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at. www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. it 91 WHATCOM COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 108 Bellingham, WA 98225-4083 DDesler@co.whatcom.wa.us DEWEY G. DESLER Director �GOM CO` P ti J, `LgSyI NG.10 DATE: 2 April 2009 TO: Pete Kremen, County Executive FROM: Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Finance Manager SUBJECT: Award of Bid 09-28, On -Call Contractor/Equipment List FINANCE/ACCOUNTING Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 503 Bellingham, WA 98225-4038 Finance@co.whatcom.wa.us BRAD BENNETT Manager BACKGROUND The purpose of this bid is to establish prices and identify firms and individuals that are interested in providing labor and rental of construction equipment to the County on an on -call basis, and to ensure prevailing wages will be paid in accordance with State law. It is intended that this list will be used for various Public Works River & Flood Division projects and be available in a flood emergency. The following list is of the responsive and responsible bids that were submitted on Tuesday March 24. A list of available equipment and labor rates is attached. Public Works is requesting approval to enter into contracts with each of the firms in order to obtain firm labor and equipment rental rates for the period of April 2009 through March 31, 2010. Firms will only be used'on an as needed basis. When a need arises, the County will select an appropriate firm from the list, based on equipment availability and suitability, with preference to low bidders. Aggregates West BDZ Construction CB Construction Cascade Clearing Columbia Valley MG & Ex Courtney Excavating Granite. NW (Wilder Const) Haines Tree & Spray Haner Road Construction Harkness Contracting Drake Harkness Trucking Frank Harkness Trucking Iverson Earthworks JTI Commercial Services Kemp West Knutzen Land & Timber Lummi Island Construction P&P Excavating Pacific Brush Cutting Peterson Repair &. Trucking Al Pratt Trucking (Kirbys Trkg) Sawtooth Trucking & Exc. Shelterbelt Inc Siper Quarry DL Sorenson Const Soto & Sons Construction Stremler Gravel Strider Construction Tiger Construction Trillium Corporation Western Refinery Services Mark White Enterprise It is possible that more than $35,000 could be spent with a single vendor. Public Works is requesting award to the multiple bidders as listed, upon approval by the County Council and Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors. Public Works is also requesting approval at this time to enter, into contracts with each of the above vendors. I concur with the recommendation. Approved as Recommended: County Executive Date of Council Action Administration Facilities Management (360) 676-6717 (360) 676-6746 Fax (360) 676-6775 Fax (360) 676-6789 Administrative Services Finance Manager Finance/Accounting Human Resources Information Technology County Residents (360) 676-6734 (360) 676-6802 (360) 676-7684 (360) 398-1310 Fax (360) 738-4553 Fax (360) 738-2521 Fax (360) 676-7727 M (360) 738-4592 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR GROUP 1. GRAVEL DUMP TRUCKS WITH OPERATOR f0 l'AfD 3 AXLyE UUIiAPTRUCk(S HOURLY BIDDERx RHQNE YARDAGE , Legal Tonnage .,, UNITS,; , , MOBILIZ. _ , l:qulp,lNLQp HOURLY Q Aggregates West 966-3641 1410-1238 Cell Location: Everson, WA 10 13 1 $90.00 $90.00 $105.00 C&B Construction 503-351-3557 Cell Location: Hillsboro, OR 11 13 1 $350.00 $85.00 $105.00 Haner Rd Const. 595-2497 / 661-6372 Cell Location: Wickersham, WA 10 50000 Ibs 1 $40.00 $80.00 $100.00 Harkness Contracting 595-1128 1815-4525 Cell Location: Acme, WA 10 2 $88.00 $110.00 Drake Harkness Trucking 592-2790 / 961-4022 Cell Location: Deming, WA 10 48000 1 $90.00 $105.00 Frank Harkness Trucking & Logging 826-6087 / 815-5128 Cell Location: Acme, WA 10 22 1 $60.00 $95.00 $104.66 P&P Excavating LLC 592-5374 / 815-4473 Cell Location: B'ham, WA 10 12 2 $85.00 Siper Quarry 592-3500 / 410-8625 Cell Location: Everson, WA 9 12 2 $85.00 $85.00 Sorenson Const. 966-2628 / 508-1490 Cell 10 14 2 $90.00 $105.00 Location: Everson, WA 10 12 3 $85.00 $100.00 Tiger Construction 966-7252 / 815-6203 Cell Location: Everson, WA 10 3 $140.00 $86.00 $99.50 Western Refinery Services 366-3303 / 815-3306 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA 10 11 2 $90.00 $100.00 iZ; J'C�� � .a ie•H�4 1 .......... � d�\ '64 � ,r.�1 i �Et• `L'5��'STl'l.� ♦�� 1"•,�y C 6. } t > ... h 5� U{ �`u �`w. 't•m? ts'.+.1 'ice t i� r%, Y � �Sj .; 4 kt `tl `, l i ;`.l�\f�!`'SY yL�' �..� J�.\M1,,,�y, �.n� i�'�� `.S ;� L11-! T -' � 15 LH AA 'n.t�' j � � Cp E. F?.0 `�I7�U�L�" 1 �, . Y -��` �. i. 7.�a1 v> +fi�v a411, d �BIO DER, P[Nn,. y :.ti x UNIS sRHfIZrqu1pVIQR xv,<4 ,fin ... ,' - .ARDAGELegalTor�tiagea Aggregates West 966-3641 / 410-1238 Cell Location: Everson, WA 12 15 8 $95.00 $95.00 $115.00 Columbia Valley 988-8592 Location: Sumas, WA 3 $95.00 Granite Northwest 676-2450 Location: Whatcom Co., WA 12 14 $150.50 $126.45 $154.00 Harkness Contracting 595-1128 / 815-4525 Cell Location: Acme, WA 12 1 $89.00 $115.00 Page 1 93 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPFRATOR 12 YARD: 4 AXLE DUMP TRUCKS HOUi#LY ,., �BIDDE�2,,PHQN�_,,,,' _ „ , ,,. YARDAGE.: Legal Tonnage,, ,_ UNITS`; MOBILIz , ,. Eguip,WCbp, ._HOURI.IF_RT Frank Harkness Trucking & Logging 826-6087 / 815-5128 Cell Location: Acme, WA 12 31 1 $65.00 $110.00 $119.66 Iverson Earthworks 366-3476 / 739-2446 Cell Location: Custer, WA 12 55500 5 $90.00 P&P Excavating LLC 592-53741815-4473 Cell Location: B'ham, WA 12 15.5 5 $90.00 Peterson Repair & Trucking 733-1843 / 739-0766 Cell Location: B'ham, WA 12 105500 5 $100.00 Al Pratt Trucking 966-1150 / 815-7584 Cell Location: Everson, WA 12 15500 1 $80.00 Sawtooth Trucking & Excavating 425-508-4444 Cell Location: Camano Is, WA 15 1 $105.00 $115.00 Siper Quarry 592-3500 / 410-8625 Cell Location: Everson, WA 10.5 15 3 $90.00 $90.00 Sorenson Const. 966-2628 / 508-1490 Cell 12 15 2 $85.00 $100.00 Location: Everson, WA 12 16 2 $90.00 $105.00 12 17 2 $95.00 $110.00 12 17 2 $90.00 $105.00 Soto & Sons Construction 966-9999 / 815-4660 Cell Location: Everson, WA 55500 2 $100.00 $120.00 $140.00 Stremler Gravel 354-8585 / 815-1060 Cell Location: L nden, WA 12-14 15-16 9 $95.00 $110.00 Tiger Construction 966-7252 / 815-6203 Cell Location: Everson, WA 12 3 $160.00 $92.50 $105.00 Western Refinery Services 366-3303 / 815-3306 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA 12 15 3 $100.00 $115.00 ... v . - Y� a tC \ � ,sti��e ,5 3 �, ,18,� /t►�D�S AXLE D��f1�P'-�'C,'titJCK'&`" OL�Y�T t�ER��.�'�� � � ,� "� �k: � �` ��;,��� L; ° . � .:. z '� �� � :, � ; j�ARDAG�' Legaf �Qi1►1a9e�, ���N.4T_.5���� N(QBrZ�1Z� ������4 � ' � .R �Q'� Granite Northwest 676-2450 Location: Whatcom Co., WA 18 6 $166.95 $183.45 Harkness Contracting 595-1128 / 8154525 Cell Location: Acme, WA 18 1 $95.00 $125.00 Tiger Construction 966-7252 / 815-6203 Cell Location: Everson, WA 18 3 $150.00 $98.00 $112.00 Page 2 94 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR ;` '' -� Z� YARD 7�AX�E TRUCK &PONY TRAILER i HOURLY BIDDER, PHONE , ., :?, YARDAGE,;, Legal Tonnage, ' UNITS: , , M,OBIU,Z ,_Egwp,WLOp, ,HQURLY,OT Aggregates West 966-3641 / 410-1238 Cell Location: Everson, WA 22 29 1 $110.00 $110.00 $125.00 Harkness Contracting 595-1128 / 815-4525 Cell Location: Acme, WA 22 1 $99.00 $130.00 Iverson Earthworks 366-3476 / 739-2446 Cell Location: Custer, WA 22 98000 2 $105.00 P&P Excavating LLC 592-5374/815-4473 Cell Location: B'ham, WA 22 3 $110.00 Peterson Repair & Trucking 733-1843 / 739-0766 Cell Location: B'ham, WA 22-24 105500 5 $115.00 Al Pratt Trucking 966-1150 / 815-7584 Cell Location: Everson, WA 22 99000 1 $95.00 Sawtooth Trucking & Excavating 425-508-4444 Cell Location: Camano Is, WA 30 1 $120.00 $130.00 Siper Quarry 592-3500 / 410-8625 Cell Location: Everson, WA 22 30.5 3 $115.00 $115.00 Sorenson Const. 22 31 2 $100.00 $115.00 966-2628 / 508-1490 Cell 22 31 2 $105.00 $120.00 Location: Everson, WA 24 33 2 $110.00 $125.00 24 33 1 2 $105.00 $120.00 Soto & Sons Construction 966-9999 / 815-4660 Cell Location: Everson, WA 98500 2 $100.00 $130.00 $150.00 Stremler Gravel 354-8585 / 815-1060 Cell Location: Lynden, WA 24-28 29-31 9 $105.00 $120.00 Tiger Construction 966-7252 / 815-6203 Cell Location: Everson, WA 22 1 $160.00 $103.50 $117.00 Western Refinery Services 366-3303 / 815-3306 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA 24 33 2 $108.00 $125.00 � K �� ��' �, � f �A Hq� '�9 �Yp►RD3)� �. ,Yu �� � � t� a � t� , ��, � 'Ts 3i � # W. ,'C,-y", 'i`' __ a\5 t. ; '. F. �1'l � 4 : F 4.L 'k��'u . � G �• ; .�` - Y1, � � �� � a� t � \`r �7 2y. �E/i S k c 3 1 c ` ''`` BIDDER'' �ONE)w� � ' 'j a L:e�al'Tonna �_ '= tIN T�'S, � �NCOB�IL�Zn�4 � YIIRDE�GE; ;�,�quip�WlOp �'HQIIRCY OT Harkness Contracting 595-1128 / 815-4525 Cell Location: Acme, WA 50 1 $105.00 $125.00 Stremler Gravel 354-8585 / 815-1060 Cell Location: Lynden, WA 30 1 $105.00 $120.00 Page 3 95 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR Aggregates West 966-3641 / 410-1238 Cell Location: Everson, WA 24 d 8 Axle Dump Truck & Trailer 24 32 2 $115.00 $115.00 $130.00 Iverson Earthworks 366-3476 / 739-2446 Cell Location: Custer, WA 8 Axle Truck & Transfer 24 105500 3 $115.00 P&P Excavating LLC 592-5374/815-4473 Cell Location: B'ham, WA 24yd 8-Axle Transfer 24 33 2 $115.00 F700 5 7 1 $80.00 Morooka Track Dump Trk 5 1 $100.00 $85.00 95.00 Peterson Repair & Trucking 733-1843 / 739-0766 Cell Location: B'ham, WA 22 yds Transfer Units 22 105500 3 $117.00 Siper Quarry 592-3500 / 410-8625 Cell Location: Everson, WA 22 d 8 Axle Dump Truck & Transfer Trailer 22 30.5 3 $115.00 $115.00 Stremler Gravel 354-8585 / 815-1060 Cell Location: Lynden, WA Transfer Truck & Trailer 30 32 4 $110.00 $125.00 Western Refinery Services 366-3303 / 815-33.06 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA 24 yd Dumptruck & Transfer 24 33.5 1 $112.00 $135:00 GROUP 2. ROCK DUMP TRUCKS WITH OPERATOR Lf IVIR RUC PHC�N� BIU„LEER, . r°. YARI�AG� ;SLegal Tdnnag,, . UNIT$ INOBILIZ , :Epuip;W(CJp' s N(�l1RLY QT Haner Rd Const. 595-2497 / 661-6372 Cell Location: Wickersham, WA 10 50000lbs 1 $40.00 $85.00 $100.00 Harkness Contracting 595-1128 / 815-4525 Cell Location: Acme, WA 10 2 $93.00 $110.00 Drake Harkness Trucking 592-2790 / 961-4022 Cell Location: Deming, WA 10 48000 1 $95.00 $110.00 P&P Excavating LLC 592-5374/815-4473 Cell Location: B'ham, WA 10 12 2 $85.00 Siper Quarry 592-3500 / 410-8625 Cell Location: Everson, WA 9 12 2 $85.00 $85.00 Sorenson Const. 966-2628 / 508-1490 Cell Location: Everson', WA 10 12 1 $85.00 $100.00 Qy� Y 96 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR 12 YARp 4 AXLE DUMP.TRUGK HOURLY BIDDER, PHONE YARDAGE:' Legal Tonnage : ' UNITS; MOBILIZ Equip WIOp HOURLY,OT.. Columbia Valley 988-8592 Location: Sumas, WA 2 $95.00 Harkness Contracting 595-1128 / 815-4525 Cell Location: Acme, WA 12 1 $94.00 $115.00 Iverson Earthworks 366-3476 / 739-2446 Cell Location: Custer, WA 12 55500 2 $90.00 P&P Excavating LLC 592-5374/815-4473 Cell Location: B'ham, WA 12 5.5 3 $90.00 Peterson Repair & Trucking 733-1843 / 739-0766 Cell Location: B'ham, WA 12 105500 5 $100.00 Al Pratt Trucking 966-1150 / 815-7584 Cell Location: Everson, WA 12 55500 1 $80.00 Sawtooth Trucking & Excavating 425-508-4444 Cell Location: Camano Is, WA. 15 1 $105.00 $115.00 Siper Quarry 592-3500 / 410-8625 Cell Location: Everson, WA 10.5 15 2 $90.00 $90.00 Sorenson Const. 966-2628 / 508-1490 Cell 12 15 2 $90.00 $105.00 Location: Everson, WA 12 15 1 $95.00 $110.00 Stremler Gravel 354-8585 / 815-1060 Cell Location: Lynden, WA 12 15 4 $95.00 $110.00 AND D UMP Ft1BS (GREATEK THAN 15 YARFI$) SHONE, ' YARDAGE Legal Tonnage UNITS MOBILIZ„ Eguip WfOp, „BIDDER; ._ .._ _ ,t,.. , ` .;,. ;.` ,,,, , _HOURLY,O' Harkness Contracting 595-1128 / 8154525 Cell Location: Acme, WA 50 1 $110.00 $125.00 z j 3 � � � ` « , {L E;L L�► E auS� YARELegal,Tonnage; ::.. UNIT,S.;,1081L1 ..g�iipWlQp,_;NORC�fOT Aggregates West 966-3641 / 410-1238 Cell Location: Everson, WA Terex 2766C Articulated 30 45 2 $120.00 $150.00 $165.00 Peterson Repair & Trucking 733-1843 / 739-0766 Cell Location: B'ham, WA 22yd 8-axle Dump Truck & Pony Trailer 22 105500 2 $115.00 Page 5 97 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR GROUP 3, SIDE DUMP TRUCK WITH OPERATOR P&P Excavating LLC 592-5374/815-4473 Cell Location: B'ham, WA Truck & Side Dump Trailers: 1-3axle, 1-4 axle 22 31.5 2 $115.00 $115.00 $135.00 Siper Quarry 592-3500 / 410-8625 Cell Location: Everson, WA 4 Axle Truck; 4 Axle Sidedump 22 30.5 2 $115.00 $115.00 Western Refinery 366-3303 / 815-3306 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA 4 Axle Truck with 3 Axle Side Dump 22 27.5 1 $114.00 $135.00 GROUP 4, SEMI -BOTTOM DUMP TRUCKS WITH OPERATOR NO VENDORS AVAILABLE Siper Quarry 592-3500 / 410-8625 Cell Location: Everson, WA 1 22 30.5 1 $115.00 $115.00 Harkness Contracting 595-1128 / 8154525 Cell Location: Acme, WA 50 $1.00 $105.00 $125.00 ,, �IfAISCELLANEOUSr HOURLY ;, , .BIDpER,,I?HQNE „,.. ': ,, �,YARDAGE� LegahTonnage,,,., U�11T5,'; M0131LIZ E uipWltJp, HQURLYOT Q NO VENDORS AVAILABLE Page 6 98 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR GROUP 5, FRONT END LOADER WITH OPERATOR Sorenson Const. 966-2628 1508-1490 Cell Location: Everson, WA Deere 444 Tire 1 $95.00/hr $115.00 Soto & Sons Construction 966-9999 / 815-4660 Cell Location: Everson, WA IT28 - Forks - Sweeper Tire 1 $100.00/hr $125.00 $150.00 Strider Construction 380-1234 / 319-7308 Cell Location: B'ham, WA IT28 Tire 3 $800.00 $95.00 $145.00 Western Refinery 366-3303 / 815-3306 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA J. Deere 444 -J 2.5yd Tire 24,000 8V 2 $100.00/hr $110.00 $130.00 cubic yard BIRDER, PHONE TRACkill WHEEL HOURLY TIREBASE"UNITS , MOBILIZATION BATE , .:Equip W/Op , . HOURLY OT BDZ Developers, Inc. 425-259-2290/425-754-1127 Cell Location: Everett, WA CAT 938G Tire 30000 919" 1 $115.00/hr $165.40 $200.00 Drake Harkness Trucking 592-2790 / 961-4022 Cell Location: Deming, WA CAT 966 Tire 30000 8' 1 $95.00/hr $110.00 $125.00 Frank Harkness Trucking & Logging 826-6087 / 815-5128 Cell Location: Deming, WA CAT 950 Tire 28000 8' 1 $60.00 $95.00 $1.18.96 Peterson Repair & Trucking 733-1843 / 739-0766 Cell Location: B'ham, WA CAT 950B 31/2 cu yds Tire 1 $90.00 Sorenson Const. 966-2628 / 508-1490 Cell Location: Everson, WA Fiat - Allis 645E w/GP BKT w/teeth Tire 1 $95.00/hr $100.00 Stremler Gravel 354-8585 / 815-1060 Cell Location: Lynden, WA 950 Tire 8 1 $125.00 $110.00 $130.00 Construction (Strider 380-1234 / 319-7308 Cell Location: B'ham, WA IT28 Tire 1 $1,000.00 $105.00 $155.00 Tiger Construction 966-7252 / 815-6203 Cell Location: Everson, WA CAT 950E Loader Tire 1 $180.00 $119.00 $148.00 Page 7 99 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR 3— cub- BIDDER; PHONE TRACKI WHEEL HOURLY MAKE &MODEL,. , TIRE'' WEIGHT BASE, ., UNITS . , . MOBILIZI�TtQN,RITE.., , Equip WIOp , . HOURLY' OT Western Refinery 366-3303 / 815-3306 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA Kawasaki 3.5yd Tire 26,000 9' 1 $100.00/hr $120.00 $140.00 4cubc yard BIDDER, PHONE TRACKI WHEEL HOURLY WEIGHT , , :BASE UNITS MOBILIZATION,R --T „ ;Equip WIOp , ,IiOURlY OT Aggregates West 966-3641 / 410-1238 Cell Location: Everson, WA 966C & 450 KOMATSU Tire 50000 8' 3 $120.00/hr $135.00 $155.00 Iverson Earthworks 366-3476 / 739-2446 Cell Location: Custer, WA JD 644 E Tire 40000 10'8" 2 $200.00 $115.00 Sorenson Const. 966-2628 / 508-1490 Cell Location: Everson, WA $115.00/hr+ Hyundai 760 w/GP BKT & Forks Tire 1 Permits/Pilots $125.00 Stremler Gravel 354-8585 / 815-1060 Cell Location: Lynden, WA 950E Tire 9 2 $150.00 $120.00 $140.00 Aggregates West 966-3641 / 410-1238 Cell Location: Everson, WA 980 CAT Tire 68000 11' 10 $120.00/hr $185.00 $205.00 Siper Quarry 592-3500 / 410-8625 Cell Location: Everson, WA CAT 980G Tire 75000 10, 1 $400.00 $175.00 $175.00 Sorenson Const. 966-2628 / 508-1490 Cell Location: Everson, WA $115.00/hr+ Deere 744 Tire 1 Permits/Pilots $170.00 Trillium Corporation 676-9400 / 739-6681 Cell Location: B'Ham, WA $115.00/hr+ CAT 966H, Ride Control, Strobe Tire 54000 9.5' 1 $550.00 $203.67 $227.38 Page 8 100 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR Aggregates West 966-3641 / 410-1238 Cell Location: Everson, WA 10 cu yd - 988 CAT Tire 96000 12' 3 $150.00/hr $275.00 $295.00 Granite Northwest 676-2450 Location: Whatcom Co., WA Deere 533J w/ forks, bucket, sweeper - 3 cud Tire 29000 77" 1 $155.50 $136.25 $163.55 P&P Excavating LLC 592-5374/815-4473 Cell Location: B'ham, WA CAT 277-C 67rack 1 6' 1 $60.00 $95.00 $110.00 Siper Quarry 592-3500 / 410-8625 Cell Location: Everson, WA CAT 988 7cy Tire 100000 11' 1 $500.00 $185.00 $185.00 Sorenson Const. 966-2628 / 508-1490 Cell Location: Everson, WA Deere 824 - 6 cu yd Tire 1 $115.00/hr + Permits/Pilots $185.00 Deere 844 - 7.5 cu yd Tire 1 $115.001hr + Permits/pilots $210.00 Komatsu WA 700 -11 cu yd Tire 1 $150/hr+pilot,setup,teardown $275.00 GROUP 6. DOZERS WITH OPERATOR 319-9737 Location: Deming WA John Deere 550 w/ winch & brush rake 1 No $100.00/hr $90.00 $90.00 Granite Northwest 676-2450 Location: Whatcom Co., WA John Deere 650H 1 No $155.50 $138.45 $165.80 Frank Harkness Trucking & Logging 826-6087 / 815-5128 Cell Location: Deming, WA CAT 5 DMX 1 Yes $50.00 $85.00 $108.50 CAT D6C 1 No $55.00 $80.00 $103.50 P&P Excavating LLC 592-5374/815-4473 Cell Location: B'ham, WA CAT D-3XL 1 No $110.00 $95.00 $110.00 Siper Quarry 592-3500 / 410-8625 Cell Location: Everson, WA John Deere 450 1 Yes $250.00 $80.00 $80.00 Page 9 101 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR Sorenson Const. 966-2628 / 508-1490 Cell Location: Everson, WA CAT D-3 w/Brush Rake 1 No $95.00/hr $85.00 $108.00 CAT D-3 w/Brush Rake 1 No $95.00/hr $90.00 $113.00 CAT D-3C LGP w/ pyramid drousers 2 No $95.00/hr $100.00 $123.00 Stremler Gravel 354-8585 / 815-1060 Cell Location: Lynden, WA JD 650 4 Yes 1 unit $125.00 $100.00 $120.00 Tiger Construction 966-7252 / 815-6203 Cell Location: Everson, WA D-3-C CAT Dozer 1 No $160.00 $100.00 $130.00 D 6:ROZeR RIDDER,'PHQNE HOU LY <. M,AKE &MODEL,,. UNITS RIPPERS MOBILIZAfION,I4TE , .,EguIR WIOp ,HQURLX OT BDZ Developers, Inc. 425-259-2290/425-754-1127 Cell Location: Everett, WA CAT D61V1 LGP 1 No $115.00/hr $213.10 $250.00 Cascade Clearing 9664182 / 815-0351 Location: Bellingham, WA D6H 2GP 1 1 $300.00 $110.00 $110.00 Haner Rd Const. 595-2497 / 661-6372 Cell Location: Wickersham, WA JD-750 1 No $11 0/hr + Permits $100.00 $115.00 Harkness Contracting 595-1128 / 815-4525 Cell Location: Acme, WA Case 1150 1 Yes $100.00/hr $105.00 $125.00 Sorenson Const. 966-2628 / 508-1490 Cell Location: Everson, WA CAT D-6HLGP w/ pyramid grousers -1 No $175.00/hr $135.00 $158.00 CAT D-6NXL 1 Yes $175.00/hr $145.00 $168.00 CAT D-6NLGP 1 No $175.00/hr $155.00 $178.00 Strider Construction 380-1234 / 319-7308 Cell Location: B'ham, WA John Deere 650 2 Yes $800.00 $145.00 $185.00 Tiger Construction 966-7252 / 815-6203 Cell Location: Everson, WA D-6-D CAT LGP 1 No $240.00 $121.00 $151.00 Page 10 102 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR Aggregates West 966-3641 / 410-1238 Cell Location: Everson, WA CAT D8H 1 No $150.00/hr $180.00 $200.00 Cascade Clearing 966-4182 / 815-0351 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA D8N 1 Yes $450.00 $180.00 $180.00 Knutzen Land & Timber 595-2375 / 739-2513 Cell Location: Deming, WA D8K CAT 1 Winch $300.00 $175.00 $175.00 P&P Excavating LLC 592-5374/815-4473 Cell Location: B'ham, WA CAT D-3XL 1 No $110.00 $155.00 $165.00 Sorenson Const. 966-2628 / 508-1490 Cell Location: Everson, WA CATD-8H 1 Yes $150/hr + pilots/permits $150.00 $173.00 MI SCELLANE BIDpER 0�10NE HQURLY ;.UNITS ," RIPRERS ,"" _ MOBILt2i4`TION RATE ", , :Equip, WIQp , HOII[rLY QT BDZ Developers, Inc. 425-259-2290/425-754-1127 Cell Location: Everett, WA D5 CAT D5G LGP 1 No $115.00/hr $149.50 $185.00 D5 John Deere JD650JXLT 1 No $115.00/hr $149.50 $185.00 Cascade Clearing 966-4182 / 815-0351 Location: Bellingham, WA D5 TSR D5H Grapple 1 No $250.00 $110.00 $110.00 Iverson Earthworks 366-3476 / 739-2446 Cell Location: Custer, WA JD 550 G 1 Yes $150.00 $90.00 JD 650 G w/ winch & Brush Rake 1 No $150.00 $95.00 Knutzen Land & Timber 595-2375 / 739-2513 Cell Location: Deming, WA D7 CAT 1 Winch $300.00 $150.00 $150.00 P&P Excavating LLC 592-5374/815-4473 Cell Location: B'ham, WA John Deere 450G 1 Yes $110.00 $95.00 $110.00 CAT D-9 1 Yes $140.00 $185.00 $195.00 Sawtooth Trucking & Excavating 425-508-4444 Cell Location: Camano Is, WA Yes w/ Case 850 1 Brush Rake $120.00/hr $120.00 $130.00 Siper Quarry 592-3500 / 410-8625 Cell Location: Everson, WA CAT D-9N 1 Yes $500.00 $185.00 $185.00 age 103 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR MISCELLANEOUS_ BIDDER, PH )NE HOURLY NtAKE & MOQEL, UNITS , RIPPERS MOBILIZATION. RATE _;Equip WIOp ,HOURLY OT Sorenson Const. 966-2628 / 508-1490 Cell Location: Everson, WA Mitsubishi BD2G w/ rubber track D-2 1 No $95/hr $90.00 $113.00 CAT D-4C 1 No $95/hr $95,00 $118.00 CAT D-4CXLIII 1 No $95/hr $100.00 $123.00 CATD-5NXL 1 Yes $175/hr + pilots/permits $135.00 $158.00 CAT D-5NLGP 1 No $175/hr + pilots/permits $145.00 $168.00 John Deere 8508LGP D-7 1 No $100/hr + pilots/permits $140.00 $163.00 John Deere 1050 D-8 1 Yes $150/hr + pilots/permits $205.00 $228.00 Komatsu D275AX D-9 1 Yes 150/hr + pilots,setup,teardolh $290.00 $313.00 Komatsu D375AX D-10 1 Yes 1150/hr + pilots,setup,teardo% $330.00 $353.00 Trillium Corporation 676-9400 / 739-6681 Cell Location: B'Ham, WA JD650J, 6-Way Blade, Rippers, LPG Track 1 Yes $250.00 $97.00 $120.50 Western Refinery 366-3303 / 815-3306 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA D-4 LGP CAT Low Ground Pressure Pyramid Track 1 No $100.00/hr $105.00 $125.00 Mark White 592-2923 / 815-4331 Cell Location: Deming, WA Dresser TD8G 1 No $100.00 $95.00 Page 12 104 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR GROUP 7. EXCAVATOR WITH OPERATOR BIDDEN, PHONE LIFT MAX DIG HOURLY MAKE & MQOEL WEIGHT UNITS THUMB BUCKET CAP AGITY bEPTH MOBILIZ , Equip W/Op tCQ,URLY Oi Aggregates West 966-3641 / 410-1238 Cell Location: Everson, WA Hitachi 300 76,000 1 Yes 60" 46000 $120.00/hr $180.00 $205.00 Hitachi 700 140,000 1 Yes 96" $385.00 $405.00 BDZ Developers, Inc. 425-259-2290 425-754-1127 Cell Location: Everett, WA CAT 330 CL & DL 77,400 2 Yes varies 46700 21'8" $115.00/hr $239.60 $275.00 CAT 320 DL 44,200 1 Yes varies 29950 20'8" $115.00/hr $191.90 $225.00 John Deere 120C 29,100 1 Yes varies 18000 187 $115.00/hr $149.50 $185.00, Komatsu Pc228 50,000 1 Yes varies 29000 34'0" $115.00/hr $207.80 $250.00 C&B Construction 503-351-3557 Cell Location: Hillsboro, OR Hyundai LC-7 40,000 2 Yes 24", 60" 7000 20' $1,200.00 $125.00 $155.00 Cascade Clearing 966-4182 / 815-0351 Location: B'ham, WA Hitachi 230 55,000 2 Yes 1 1/4-21/4 22000 25' $250.00 $130.00 $130.00 Hitachi 220-65'long Reach 55,000 1 No 3/4 55' $250.00 $180.00 $180.00 Courtenay Excavating 319-9737 Location: Deming, WA Hitachi EX120 28,000 1 Yes 2',3',4.5' varies $100.00 $110.00 $110.00 Kubota KX121 55,000 1 Yes 1',2',3' varies 11.5' $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 Hitachi EX120 28,000 1 Yes 5.5' tilt varies $100.00 $120.00 $120.00 Granite Northwest 676-2450 Location: Whatcom Co, WA Hitachi EX150LG5 34,000 1 Yes 36", 60" 8000 20' $155.50 $136.25 $162.95 Haines Tree & Spray Svc 733-6680/961-6758 Cell Location: B'ham, WA Kubota KX41 2,500 1 No 18",24" 500 6' $135.00 $135.00 $155.00 Harkness Contracting_ 595-1128/815-4525 Cell Location: Acme, WA Kobelco 210 60,000 2 No 6'-42" 20000 25' $120.00 $134.00 $160.00 Kobelco 200 47,000 1 Yes 5'-36" 22' $120.00 $124.00 $150.00 Kobelco 160 42,000 1 Yes 5'-36" 20' $100.00 $120.00 $150.00 Kobelco 135 27,000 1 Yes 4'-30" 16' $100.00 $118.00 $130.00 Kubota 121-3 9,000 1 Yes 1',2',3' 12' $80.00 $95.00 $105.00 Drake Harkness Trucking 592-2790 / 9614022 Cell Location: Deming, WA Kebelco 115 32000 1 Yes 32', 4' $110.00 $125.00 $135.00 CAT 320 45000 1 Yes 3', 4' $130.00 $140.00 $150.00 Frank Harkness Trucking 826-6087 / 815-5128 Cell Location: Acme, WA 200 Kobelco 65000 1 Yes 3/4-1.5 18000 . 18, $80.00 $120.00 $143.96 300 Kobelco 90000 1 1 clam 1.5 23000 22' $95.00 $135.00 $158.96 Page 13 105 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR GROUP 7" EXCAVATOR WITH OPERATOR BIDDER RHONE LIFT MAX DIG HOURLY MAKE, &, MQDEL , WEIGHT UNITS THUMB BUCKET CAPACITY DEtTH MOBILIZ Equtp W(Op , HOURLY OT Iverson Earthworks 366-34761739-2446 Cell Location: Custer, WA JD 200 CLC 44,000 1 Yes 44"-66" 14000 21' $250.00 $125.00 JD 690 CLC 44,000 1 Yes 44"-66" 14000 21' $250.00 $125.00 JD 160 36,000 2 Yes 36"-60" 11300 21' $150.00 $110.00 Kubota 161 12,000 1 Yes 12"-24"-36" 12' $150.00 $90.00 Knutzen Land & Timber 595-2375 / 739-2513 Cell Location: Deming, WA 300 Kam 84,000 1 Yes 24", 48", 54" 20000 30' $300.00 $175.00 $175.00 Kubota 161 94,000 1 Yes 42" 25000 35' $400.00 $175.00 $175.00 P&P Excavating LLC 592-5374/815-4473 Cell Location: B'ham, WA CAT 320-B 46,000 1 Yes 2cy 22' $110.00 $125.00 $130.00 Hitachi Ex200 44,000 1 Yes various 22' $110.00 $125.00 $130.00 Hitachi 330 60,000 1 Yes 3cy $110.00 $165.00 $175.00 Kobelco 115 32,000 1 Yes various $110.00 $100.00 $110.00 Kobelco 100 30,000 1 No various 23' $110.00 $100.00 $110.00 CAT 304 12,000 1 Yes various $60.00 $85.00 $95.00 Sawtooth Trucking 425-5084444 Cell Location: Camano Is, WA Hitachi EX140 28,600 1 Yes 36", 5' 19, $120.00 $120.00 $130.00 Siper Quarry 592-3500/410-8625 Cell Location: Everson, WA Hitachi 330 73,000 1 1 Yes 2.5 d 20000 25' $400.00 $165.00 $165.00 Sorenson Const. 966-2628/508-1490 Cell Location: Everson, WA CAT 305.5 w/tilt bkt/blade 15,000 1 Yes 1/4-1/2 yd $95/hr $95.00 $118.00 CAT 110E w/tilt bkt 26,000 3 Yes 3/4-1 yd $95/hr $110.00 $133.00 CAT 205LC w/ tilt bkt 34,000 1 Yes 3/4-1 yd $95/hr $110.00 $133.00 Daewoo DH-20OLC w/ Brush Rake & Bkt. Lid 51,000 1 Yes 1- 2 yd $100/hr $120.00 $143.00 Hitachi EX210 Long Reach 44,000 1 No 1 yd $125/hr $185.00 $208.00 Hyundai R210 46,200 1 Yes 1- 2 yd $115/hr+ $135.00 $158.00 Hitachi EX200 44,000 1 No 1- 2 yd $115/hr + $135.00 $158.00 Komatcu PC228US 61,600 1 Yes 3 yd $115/hr+ $145.00 $168.00 Hyundai R320 70,400 1 Yes 3 yd $115/hr+ $155.00 $178.00 Hitachi EX300 66,000 1 Yes 3 yd $115/hr + $155.00 $178.00 Hitachi EX370 81,400 1 Yes No $125/hr+ $165.00 $188.00 Deere 450 98,000 1 Yes No $150/hr + $215.00 $238.00 Deere550 129,000 1 Yes Yes $150/hr+ $250.00 $273.00 Deere750 170,000 1 Yes No $150/hr+ $295.00 $318.00 Deere 160w/ brush cutter 37,200 1 Yes 1-1.5 yd $125/hr + $165.00 $188.00 Soto & Sons Construction 966-99991815-4660 Cell Location: Everson, WA EX 120 27000 1 Yes 1/2-3/4 $100/hr . $125.00 $150.00 Page 14 106 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR GROUP 7, EXCAVATOR WITH OPERATOR BIDDER, PHQNE LIFT MAX DIG HOURLY MAKE & MOQEC WEIGHT UNITS THUMB BUCKET > CAPACITY DEPTH` MOBILIZ Egwp W/Op ,.HOURLY QT Stremler Gravel 354-8585/815-1060 Cell Location: Lynden, WA Kobelco SK135 30,000 1 Yes Various 11K 18' $125.00 $120.00 $140.00 Kobelco SK160 36,000 1 Yes Various 15K 21' $125.00 $130.00 $150.00 Kobelco SK210 46,000 1 Yes Various 22K 22' V50.00 $145.00 $165.00 Kobelco SK300 73,000 1 Yes Various 32K 1 24' $150.00 $155.00 $175.00 Strider Construction 380-1234 / 319-7308 Cell Location: B'ham, WA Hitachi 135 Excay. 23,000 4 Yes 0.65CY 16'10" $500.00 $95.00 $145.00 Hitachi 225 Excay. 43,000 2 Yes 1.50CY 197" $1,000.00 $145.00 $185.00 Hitachi 400 Excay. 97,200 3 Yes 3 CY 25'11" $2,000.00 $210.00 $225.00 Tiger Construction 966-7252 / 815-6203 Cell Location: Everson, WA EX 400 Hitachi 90,000 1 No 36"/72" $980.00 $117.20 $207.00 EX 300 Hitachi 70,000 1 No 36"/72" $800.00 $153.00 $183.00 EX 200 Hitachi 45,000 2 Yes/No 36"/60" $650.00 $128.75 $158.75 EX 120 Hitachi 27,000 1 Yes 30"/48" 1 $240.00 $116.60 $146.65 Trillium Corporation 676-9400 / 739-6681 Cell Location: B'Ham, WA CAT 315L 36,000 1 Yes 36", 64" 20' $350.00 $112.42 $136.13 CAT 345CL 110,000 1 Yes 56", 66" 28' $1,200.00 $234.03 $258.53 Western Refinery 366-3303/815-3306 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA Kubota KX 121-3 w/blade 9,100 5 Yes 1,2,3 3000 11' $100/hr $85.00 $110.00 Kobelco 135 30,000 1 Yes 3', 5' 11000 20' $100/hr $100.00 $125.00 Kobelco 290 66,000 1 Yes 3', 6' 32000 24' $100/hr $130.00 $155.00 LBX-350 Exc. Road Builder 95,000 1 No 1-4 yd 32000 27' $100/hr $160.00 $180.00 Mark White 592-2923/815-4331 Cell Location: Deming, WA Hitachi 160-3 40000 1 Yes 18-36-60 15000 15' $100/hr $120.00 60" tilt bucket Add $10.00/hr Kobelco 50 I 11000 1 Yes 12/24/1948 4000 10, $100/hr $90.00 48" tilt bucket Add $10.00/hr Page 15 107 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR GROUP 8" EXCAVATOR WITH CLAMSHELL AND OPERATOR BIDDER, PHONE ? LIFT' �IAXaDIG HOURLY MgKE & MQDEL WEIGHT_ ,UNITSCLAMSHELL, CAPACITY DEPT( MQBILIZ ,, , Egoip,IN10p. HQ:URLY O,T: Haner Rd Const. 595-2497 / 661-6372 Cell Location: Wickersham, WA $110/hr+ Kobelco SK-290 84,000 1 1 1/4cy 25,000 23' Permits $165.00 $185.00 Harkness Contracting 595-1128/815-4525 Cell Location: Acme, WA Kobelco SK210 60,000 2 1 d 20,000 25' $120.00 $165.00 $185.00 Frank Harkness Trucking 826-6087 / 815-5128 Cell Location: Acme, WA 300 Kobelco 90000 1 10, 22000 20' $95.00 $135.00 $158.96 Sorenson Const. 966-2628/508-1490 Cell Location: Everson, WA Volvo 140 30,000 1 3/4 $110.00/hr $130.00 $153.00 Mark White 592-29231815-4331 Cell Location: Deming, WA Hitachi 160-3 40000 1 5/8 cy 15000 $18.00 $100.00 $145.00 GROUP 9. WALKING/ARTICULATED LEG EXCAVATOR WITH OPERATOR BIDDER, P(iQNE LIFT HOURLY �MA(4E&;MODEh ., ,,,. ,` WEIGHT, ,,.;UNITS CAPACITY ,. ` M�BILIZATIdN IZA'fE_ ,,,;Egilip�,I1/0p „HOURL.YOT C&B Construction 503-351-3557 Cell Location: Hillsboro, OR Terex HS 41M 19000 2 3000 $1,200.00 $225.00 $250.00 Kemp West 425-334-55721425-508-4609 Cell Location: Snohomish, WA 2002 Kaiser S2 44 23000 1 13300-9'8" Reach / $500 $225.00 $240.00 2006 Kaiser S2 4x4 23000 1 13300-9'8" Reach / $500 $225.00 $240.00 Page 16 E WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR GROUP 10 LOG LOADER WITH HYDRAULIC GRAPPLE WITH OPERATOR BIDDER, PHONE LIFT HOURLY MAKE &MOREL , WEIGHT UNITSiMOBILIZ4TI0N RATE Equip WIOp HOURLY OT Cascade Clearing 966-4182 / 815-0351 Location: B'ham, WA Hitachi 55000 1 22000 $250.00 $140.00 $140.00 Harkness Contracting 595-1128/815-4525 Cell Location: Acme, WA Kobelco SK210 60,000 2 20,000 $120.00/hr $165.00 $185.00 Frank Harkness Trucking 826-6087 / 815-5128 Cell Location: Acme, WA 220 Kobelco 80000 4 15000 $85.00 $130.00 $154.23 330 Kobelco 115000 1 25,000 $100.00 $145.00 $169.23 Knutzen Land & Timber 595-2375 / 739-2513 Cell Location: Deming, WA 300 Kam 84000 1 20000 $300.00 $175.00 $175.00 P&P Excavating LLC 592-5374/815-4473 Cell Location: B'ham, WA Hitachi 200 44000 1 $110.00/hr $140.00 $150.00 Sorenson Coost. 966-2628/508-1490 Cell Location: Everson, WA Deere 2054 55,000 1 $125.00/hr $165.00 $188.00 Western Refinery 366-3303/815-3306 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA Linkbelt 350 Road Builder 95,000 1 32,000 $200.00/hr $160.00 $180.00 GROUP 11. SCRAPER WITH OPERATOR "" BIRQER�PONF� `,\ 2 y V s 1i0�lRY t MIViAt& MO,a WE(GIiT`, YAR�i4GE RA1E. pYIIV�OpY, 'HOU�tLIr .. .. ; .NlT&, , ,. , . ,M091CrZATION , „,.,Equ QT Haines Tree & Spray Svc 733-6680/961-6758 Cell Location: B'ham, WA Kubota M8030 1 2 $150.00/hr $150.00 $175.00 Stremler Gravel 354-8585/815-1060 Cell Location: Lynden, WA 9380 Case W/ Tandem 17yd 1 34 $200.00 $160.00 $180.00 9380 Case W/ Single 17 d 1 17 $200.00 $140.00 $160.00 Western Refinery 366-3303/815-3306 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA JD 9400/9520 6 15-17 $250.00 $150.00 $170.00 Volvo 710A MotorGrader 4 30-36 $250.00 $185.00 $205.00 Page 17 109 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR GROUP 12, SWEEPER WITH OPERATOR Granite Northwest 676-2450 Location: Whatcom Co., WA Rosco RB-48 1 $155.50 $140.15 $166.50 P&P Excavating LLC 592-5374/815-4473 Cell Location: B'ham, WA CAT 277-C 1 $60.00 $95.00 $105.00 Sorenson Const. 966-2628/508-1490 Cell Location: Everson, WA Bobcat 763 Bucket Sweeper 1 $100.00 $105.00 $128.00 Western Refinery 366-3303/815-3306 Cell Location: Femdale, WA 2008 Crosswinds J+(Elgin) 8cy Hopper 1 $100.00/hr $140.00 $165.00 GROUP 13, MOBILE CRANE WITH OPERATOR HOURLY 91DDER, Rt01�E .;UNITS, ;, REACH MOB�ILIZA'[(ON RATE :Equip WIOP� , HOURCY Ol NO VENDORS AVAILABLE GROUP 14, PILE DRIVERS WITH OPERATOR GROUP 15, DRAG LINES OR CLAMS WITH OPERATOR GROUP 16 HYDROSEEDER WITH OPERATOR Page 18 110 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR GROUP 17, BACKHOE WITH OPERATOR BIQDER; PMONE HOURLY MAKE,& MODEL UNITS MOBILIZI£FION RATE Equ1P WIOp , HO.URLY OT BDZ Developers, Inc. 425-259-2290/425-754-1127 Cell Location: Everett, WA CAT 580 Super L 1 $115.00/hr $117.70 $155.00 CAT 420D 1 $115.00/hr $117.70 $155.00 Granite Northwest 676-2450 Location: Whatcom Co., WA John Deere 310 SE 2 $155.50 $118.20 $145.55 John Deere 410 E 1 Haines Tree & Spray Svc 733-66801961-6758 Cell Location: B'ham, WA Kubota M8030 1 $150.00/hr $150.00 $175.00 Harkness Contracting 595-1128/815-4525 Cell Location: Acme, WA Case 580 44 1 $100.00hr $98.00 $115.00 Drake Harkness Trucking 592-2790 / 961-4022 Cell Location: Deming, WA Case 580 44 1 $100.00hr $100.00 $110.00 Iverson Earthworks 366-3416/739-2446 Cell Location: Custer, WA JD 310 SG w/ Plate Compactor 1 $150.00/hr $95.00 Knutzen Land & Timber 595-2375 / 739-2513 Cell Location: Deming, WA 416 44 CAT Backhoe 1 $200.00 $95.00 $95.00 P&P Excavating LLC 592-5374/815-4473 Cell Location: B'ham, WA CAT 420-D 44 Extendahoe 1 $115.00/hr $85.00 $95.00 Sorenson Const. 966-2628/508-1490 Cell Location: Everson, WA JCB 214B 4x4x4 1 $100/hr $95.00 $118.00 New Holland 575E 44 1 $100/hr $95.00 $118.00 Ford 555D 44 1 $100/hr $95.00 $118.00 Ford 555B 44 1 $100/hr $95.00 $118.00 Soto & Sons Construction 966-9999 / 815-4660 Cell Location: Everson, WA John Deere 310 1 $100/hr $100.00 $120.00 Stremler Gravel 354-8585/815-1060 Cell Location: Lynden, WA JD 410 Extend Hoe 4 $125.00 $110.00 $130.00 Page 19 111 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR GROUP 17, BACKHOE WITH OPERATOR B(pDER, PHONE HOURLY MAKE &MODEL •, UNITS MOBILIZATION;RATE Egwp VIIIOp HOURLY OT Tiger Construction 966-7252 / 815-6203 Cell Location: Everson, WA John Deere 710 Loader Backhoe 2 $240.00 $109.00 $139.00 John Deere 510 Loader Bakhoe 1 $180.00 $103.60 $133.15 Trillium Corporation 676-9400 / 739-6681 Cell Location: B'Ham, WA JD 420J, 44, 4 in 1 bucket, Thumb, E-Stick 1 $150.00 $97.42 $121.13 GROUP 18 TRACTOR -MOUNTED MOWERS & BRUSH CUTTERS WITH OPERATOR Drake Harkness Trucking 592-2790 / 961-4022 Cell Location: Deming, WA New Holland 7740 44 1 $100.00 $95.00 $115.00 UNT N \ �LAIL� REAR.11�10 ,. MAKE $,?MQDFL.. _ ;, .. ,...., � ;, .. _ . _...:.� ....`,.: �' ,�.....; � ....� U�II�,Sx......', MOBIL1ZpTI0N,RATE... ,..�9urp•WIOp .. HO;URLY Q' NO VENDORS [A]VAILABLE .._ R FLAIL H LDE F .1 Y l f Vll NO VENDORS AVAILABLE Lummi Island Construction 758-2568/739-6315 Cell Location: Lummi Island, WA 7840 Long Arm 1 $0.00 $85.00 $0.00 Pacific Brush Cutting 354-3797 / 815-0230 Cell Location: Lynden, WA Ford 8610 w/ Bomford 20' reach 1 $0.00 $95.00 $95.00 Page 20 112 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR GROUP 19, SKID -STEER MOUNTED MOWER & BRUSH CUTTER WITH OPERATOR ROTARY FRONT MOUNT BIDDER,% PHONE , .,<„ MOWING : HOURLY MAKE &MODEL, ;; QECK, UNITS MOBILIZATfON ;RATE, :Equip IN/Op , HOURLY OT JTI Commercial Services 815-0693/815-0693 Cell Location: Everson, WA BobcatT250 60" 3 $0.00 $120.00 $142.50 Bobcat T250 90" 1 $0.00 $135.00 $157.50 Kemp West 425-334-5572/425-5084609 Cell Location: Snohomish, WA 2005 Bobcat T300 48" 1 $350.00 $135.00 $150.00 P&P Excavating LLC 592-5374/8154473 Cell Location: B'ham, WA CAT 277C 5' 1 $100.00/hr $100.00 $110.00 ROTARY SIDE MOUNT PRON MAKE &,MODELEI�G, ; „ , UNITS• MOBILiZATIQN RATE .EHOp WlY q Op HOURLY OT NO VENDORS AVAILABLE FLAIL FRQNT MOUNT BIDDER, PFkON� yIOW�NG Y _HOURLY °, „ MAKE & N(OOEL ; QEGK UNITS MO BILIZATfON,RATE. , _ •qmq Vyl,Op ,HOURLY O7 JTI Commercial Services 815-0693/815-0693 Cell Location: Everson, WA Bobcat T250 72" 1 $0.00 $120.00 $142.50 FLAIL SIDE MOUNT `: BIQDER,`PHONE = MOWING ' ` HOURLY MgKE,� MODEL t . , ,, yDECK . ; ,, �1HkT5 • •.;MOBILIZATION`RATE •„ ,Equip WiOp r,HOURLY 0T JTI Commercial Services 815-0693/815-0693 Cell Location: Everson, WA Bobcat T250 48" 1 $0.00 $120.00 $142.50 GROUP 20, WALKING LEG -TYPE HEAVY-DUTY BRUSH CUTTER WITH OPERATOR BIWDER,1?HO�IE HOURLY N `MAWMODEL?, , , = .., , UNITS+ M081L17A1I00,RpTE —.-,.A- uip WrQp.. NQwLY QT C&B Construction 503-351-3557 Cell Location: Hillsboro, OR Terex HS 41M 2 $1,200.00 $250.00 $275.00 Kemp West 425-334-5572/425-5084609 Cell Location: Snohomish, WA 2002 Kaiser S2 44 1 $500.00 $235.00 $250.00 2002 Kaiser S2 4x4 1 $500.00 $235.00 $250.00 Page 21 113 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR GROUP 21, WATER TRUCK WITH OPERATOR BIDDER, PHONE HOURLY MAKE &,MODEL UNITS MOBILIZATION RAT E° VIf/0 HOURLY OT , E, u� Aggregates West 966-3641 / 410-1238 Cell Location: Everson, WA Ford Tanker 1 $120.00 $120.00 $140.00 GMC Fire Pumper Truck 1 $120.00 $120.00 $140.00 Granite Northwest 676-2450 Location: Whatcom Co, WA Peterbilt 377 3000 Gallon 2 $131.45 $158.80 Frank Harkness Trucking 826-6087 / 815-5128 Cell Location: Acme, WA KW 1500 Gallon 2 $80.00 $105.00 $112.24 Sawtooth Trucking 425-508-4444 Cell Location: Camano Is, WA Ford 9000 2500 Gal 1 $100.00 $100.00 $110.00 Sorenson Const. 966-2628/508-1490 Cell Location: Everson, WA Ford 9000 1 $90.00 $102.00 Soto & Sons Construction 966-9999 / 815-4660 Cell Location: Everson, WA INT 2500 Gal 1 $100/hr $100.00 $120.00 Western Refinery 366-3303/815-3306 Cell Location: Femdale, WA 2500 Gallon Water Truck 1 $100/hr $90.00 $105.00 Page 22 114 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR GROUP 22, SNOW/ICE REMOVAL EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR PIER, PHONE HOURLY MAKE,& MQDEL. LOCATION UNITS MOBILITATION RATE , . ':Equip W.fOp , HQURLY OT. Courtenay Excavating 319-9737 Location: Deming, WA John Deere 550 Whatcom Co. 1 $100.00/hr $90.00 $90.00 Hitachi EX120 Whatcom Co. 1 $100.00/hr $110.00 $110.00 Kubota KX121 Whatcom Co. 1 $100.00/hr $100.00 $100.00 Haines Tree & Spray Svc 733-6680/961-6758 Cell Location: B'ham, WA Kubota M8030 Whatcom Co. 1 $150.00/hr $150.00 $175.00 Kawasaki 44 w/blade Whatcom Co. 1 $90.00/hr $90.00 $110.00 Iverson Earthworks 366-3476/739-2446 Cell Location: Custer, WA JD 644E Whatcom Co. 1 $150.00 $115.00 JD 31OSG Whatcom Co. 1 $150.00 $95.00 Stremler Gravel 354-8585/815-1060 Cell Location: Lynden, WA JD 672 Grader/Ice Chains Whatcom Co. 1 $125.00 $125.00 $150.00 CAT 950 Wheel Loader Whatcom Co. 3 $125.00 $125.00 $150.00 Western Refinery 366-3303/815-3306 Cell Location: Femdale, WA Volvo 710 Blade Grader/ 12ft Angle Front Whatcom Co. 1 $100.00/hr $125.00 $150.00 JD 444J Loader Whatcom Co. 2 $100.00/hr $110.00 $130.00 Kawasaki 65Z 12ft Angle Blade Whatcom Co. 1 $100.00/hr $125.00 $150.00 GROUP 23, TRUCK MOUNTED SPRAYER WITH OPERATOR BIDDER, PHONE HOSE SPIUIYER, r _' E HQURLY >`N�1KE&1NQ,1)EL _ .LENGTH , ,,CAPgCITY, , UNITS. , ..,,, , Costof behyery„ , .,.'fEqulp,WLQp „ ,tiOU�tLY 0T Haines Tree & Spray 733-6680/961-6758 Cell Location: B'ham, WA Ford F350 Boom Sprayer 600 ft 500 gal 1 $85.00 $85.00 $115.00 Isuzu NPR 300 ft 100/200 1 $85.00 $85.00 $115.00 Trillium Corporation 676-9400 / 739-6681 Cell Location: B'Ham, WA 95 Dodge 44, Demco Sprayer 300 ft 200 Gal 1 $50.00 $58.12 $77.18 Page 23 115 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR GROUP 24, BACKPACK SPRAYER WITH OPERATOR BIDDER, RHONE ;SPRAYER: HOURLY MkKE & MQDEU , , . `_ CAPACITY: UNITS Cost of Delivery . Egwp WfOp. HOURLY_OT. Haines Tree & Spray 733-66801961-6758 Cell Location: B'ham, WA Solo Backpack 3 gal 6 $45.00 $55.00 $55.00 Stihl Powered Blower 2 gal 1 1 $45.00 $55.00 $55.00 Shelterbelt 920-1902 Cell Location: B'ham, WA Solo Backpack 4 gal 2 $65.00 $70.00 $100.00 Trillium Corporation 676-9400 / 739-6681 Cell Location: B'Ham, WA Solo Backpack 2.5 Gal 3 $25.00 $48.12 $67.18 GROUP 25 ROCK DRILL WITH OPERATOR Granite Northwest 676-2450 Location: Whatcom Co, WA Gardner Denver DH123J PR123 1 $155.50 $95.00 $120.70 Siper Quarry 592-3500/410-8625 Cell Location: Everson, WA Atlas Copco Track Mounted Hyraulic Drill 1 $350.00 $190.00 $210.00 GROUP 26, MISCELLANEOUS BIDDER, t?HQNE. ? ; HOURL,X ;: „ MAKE, MQDE,L.. , UNITS.._, , MQ61LtZAT10N,RAT� , EgmplN/Op , HOURLY 0T: Aggregates West 966-3641 / 410-1238 Cell Location: Everson, WA 2000 Stoneslin er 1 $120.00 $120.00 $140.00 BDZ Developers, Inc. 425-259-2290/425-754-1127 Cell Location: Everett, WA Moxy MT36 Articulated Truck 2 $115.00/hr $239.60 $295.00 Moxy MT31 Articulated Truck 2 $115.00/hr $229.00 $285.00 IHI IC100 Crawler Dump Truck 5 $115.00/hr $217.00 $262.00 IHI IC70 Crawler Dump Truck 1 $115.001hr $238.00 $283.00 IHI IC45 Crawler Dump Truck 2 $115.00/hr $252.00 $297.00 C&B Construction 503-351-3557 Cell Location: Hillsboro, OR Hyundai LC-7 2 $1,200.00 $150.00 $175.00 Cascade Clearing 966-4182 / 815-0351 Location: B'ham, WA Rayco Roller 84" Smooth 1 $200.00 $85.00 $85.00 Hitachi 230 50001b breaker 1 $250.00 $185.00 $185.00 Page 24 116 WC BID #09-28 RENTAL RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH OPERATOR GROUP 26, MISCELLANEOUS ;, BIDDER, PHONE HOURLY MAKE & MQDEL, UNITS „ MOBII:IZATION RATE Equip VYl©p HOURLY. OT Columbia Valley 988-8592 Location: Sumas, WA 4 Axel Dump Truck, 2 Axel Belly Dump 1 $95.00 Haines Tree & Spray 733-6680/961-6758 Cell Location: B'ham, WA Kubota M8030 Skidder 1 $150.00/hr $150.00 $175.00 Kubota M8030 Rotary Mower 1 $150.00/hr $150.00 $175.00 Kubota M8030 Rototiller 1 $150.00/hr $150.00 $175.00 Frank Harkness Trucking 826-6087 / 815-5128 Cell Location: Acme, WA CAT R Grader 2 $75.00 $90.00 $113.50 Sawtooth Trucking 425-508-4444 Cell Location: Camano Is, WA Eager Beaver 30T Equipment Trailer 1 $120.00 $130.00 Soto & Sons Construction 966-9999 / 815-4660 Cell Location: Everson, WA CAT 130 Grader 1 $100/hr $125.00 $150.00 Strider Construction 380-1234 / 319-7308 Cell Location: B'ham, WA Ford F550 Tool Truck 10 $100.00 $30.00 $40.00 Trillium Corporation 676-9400 / 739-6681 Cell Location: B'Ham, WA JD 8430 Farm Tractor, 260 HP, 4WD 1 $350.00 $94.92 $118.63 6" Diesel Water Pump, 1,100 GPM 1 $250.00 $50.00 1000 HP Horizontal Grinder 1 $750.00 $897.91 $921.87 3000 Gallon Fire Tank 1 $250.00 $35.00 500 Gallon Fire Tank 1 $250.00 $30.00 4,500 Gallon Water Wagon 1 $600.00 $35.00 65 Yard Chip Wagon 1 $250.00 $25.00 Western Refinery 366-3303/815-3306 Cell Location: Femda►e, WA Linkbelt 350 w/ Laboutny shear Demo-concrete/steel 1 $250.00 $200.00 $220.00 Mark White 592-2923/815-4331 Cell Location: Deming, WA Morooka Track Dumper 1 $100.00 $95.00 Page 25 117 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-197 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 4/02/09 RE C EWED 4/ 14/09 Finance/Coup Division Head. APR - a 2009 WHATCU COUNTY Dept Head: Prosecutor. Purchasin /Bud et: 4/02/09 COUNCIL Executive: ^� TITL 'OFf)OCVXIEAfT. Approval fo Award Bid 09-29, On -Call Rental Equipment ATTACHMENTS: Memo from Finance and Public Works SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (x) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes (x ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (if this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Public Works is requesting approval to award Bid 09-29, On -Call Rental Equipment. They would like to award to all bidders. The intent of this bid is to obtain firm pricing on rental equipment that could be used by Public Works and any other department that may need to rent equipment for regular projects or emergencies. When equipment is needed, the County will select it for rental from the list, based on equipment availability and suitability, with preference to low bidders. It is possible that more than $35,000 could be spent with a single vendor. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION. Related County Contract #. Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. ii 118 WHATCOM COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 108 Bellingham, WA 98225-4083 DDesler@co.whatcom.wa.us DEWEY G. DESLER Director DATE: 2 April 2009 TO: Pete Kremen, County Executive FROM: Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Finance Manager SUBJECT: Award of Bid 09-29, On -Call Rental Equipment FINANCE/ACCOUNTING Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 503 Bellingham, WA 98225-4038 Finance@co.whatcom.wa.us BRAD BENNETT Manager BACKGROUND The purpose of this bid is to establish prices and identify firms that are interested in providing construction equipment for rent to the County on an on -call basis. Public Works will select equipment for rent from the list, The selection will be based on equipment availability and suitability, with preference to the low bidder. The following companies submitted bids on Tuesday March 24. A list of available equipment and labor rates is attached. Aggregates West -Birch Equipment Rentals Bomag Northwest BSR Heavy Equipment Courtney Excavating Farmers Equipment Godwin Pumps Hertz Equipment Rental NC Machinery Rental Store Pape' Material Handling United Rentals Volvo Rents Rentals will be made on an as -needed basis. It is possible that more than $35,000 could be spent with a single vendor. Public Works is requesting approval to award to all bidders. I concur with the recommendation. A ministrative Services Finance Manager Approved as Recommended: County Executive Date of Council Action Administration Facilities Management Finance/Accounting Human Resources Information Technology County Residents (360) 676-6717 (360) 676-6746 (360) 676-6734 (360) 676-6802 (360) 676-7684 (360) 398-1310 Fax (360) 676-6775 Fax (360) 676-6789 Fax (360) 738-4553 Fax (360) 738-2521 Fax (360) 676-7727 M (360) 738-46569 EQUIPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FRANK M..ABART Director MEMORANDUM 901 W. Smith Road Bellingham, WA 98226 Phone (360) 676-6759 Fax (360) 380-8115 Eric L. Schlehuber, Division Manager TO: Brad Bennett, AS Finance Manager THROUGH: Frank M. Abart, PW Director FROM: Eric L. Schlehuber, PW Equipment Services Manage Mary A. Green, PW Maintenance & Operations Superintendent RE: Bid #09-29, Rental Rates for Maintenance & Construction Equipment without Operators DATE: April 2, 2009 ■ Requested Action I am requesting Executive and Council approval to rent maintenance and construction equipment without operators as needed during 2009 from any of the following .vendors: Aggregates West, Birch Equipment Rentals, Bomag Northwest, BSR Heavy Equipment, Courtney Excavating, Farmers Equipment, Godwin Pumps, Hertz Equipment Rental, NC Machinery Rental Store, Pape' Material Handling, United Rentals, and Volvo Rents. I further request and recommend that Whatcom County reserve the right to utilize vendors based upon the location of the project, equipment availability., suitability, and rental rate, with the possibility that more than $35,000.00 could be spent with a single vendor. ■ Background and Purpose Bids were duly advertised for on -call rental rates for maintenance and construction equipment. The purpose of this bid is to establish firm prices for on -call equipment rental for use on various Public Works and other department projects or emergencies as needed during 2009. The Public Works Maintenance & Operations Division will rent equipment as needed to be used on various county road projects as part of the annual road maintenance and repair program and durind. emergencies. Twelve bids were received Tuesday, March 24, 2009. We received good responses from all twelve vendors. ■ Funding Amount and Source These are regularly budgeted expenditures for on -call equipment rental without operators, which is used on an annual basis as needed and has been budgeted during the 2009-2010 Budget process. Based on prior and estimated usage it is anticipated total expenditures will approximately exceed $35,000.00 and therefore requires Whatcom County Council approval. Please approve this purchase and forward to the Executive and the Whatcom County Council for approval at the April 14, 2009 Whatcom County Council Meeting. Please contact Eric L. Schlehuber at extension 50607, if you have any questions or concerns. Encl. 120 WC BID #09-29 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 1 GRAVEL DUMP TRUCKS WITHOUT OPERATOR Aggregates West 11966-3641 1410-1238 Cell Location: Everson, WA Mobilization: $120.00/hr 1 $78.00 $584.00 $2,920.00 $11,680.00 Hertz Equipment Rental Corp// 734-2900 / 754-6074 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $65/hr 12 $425.00 $1,595.00 $4,495.00 Volvo Rents// 383-02381410-0924 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA Mobilization: $65/hr - 2 $450.00 $1,600.00 $4,200.00 12 YARD 4 AXLE DUMP TRUCKS 1310�ERt RHO„NE , Ul�I7S.. HOURLY , ,; DAILY , WEEKLY MONTHLY; , Aggregates West // 966-36411410-1238 Cell Location: Everson, WA Mobilization: $120.00/hr 9 $90.00 $720.00 $3,600.00 $14,400.00 NO VENDORS AVAILABLE Aggregates West // 966-3641 / 410-1238 Cell Location: Everson, WA Mobilization: $120.00/hr 1 $120.00 1 $960.00 $4,800.00 1 $19,200.00 Aggregates West // 966-3641 / 410-1238 Cell Location: Everson, WA Mobilization: $120.00/hr End Dump Tubs (greater than 15 yards) 1 $110.00 $880.00 $4,400.00 $17,600.00 GROUP 2, ROCK DUMP TRUCKS WITHOUT OPERATOR 1QEY/fiR$3tAXC Ctt�Mf T1I�CFK , t y zs NO VENDORS AVAILABLE fit. 3 T2iFAtF4¢XL[�UI(AP�7�UfsK� 7, E (1RLYSMON1SHLelC`.._ NO VENDORS AVAILABLE a^l5 �C ( B +� ';.Cf �� i-'a..t �,'2n-r�"S`� ?��'� 1 \ T\ -'L311,r4 l:f� \ il(i. .•£h \1 y CN� IJrV ` �g��.tu,,I �, �A ET�7 Y RDM.)y �, S.J!¢"7<p "wE vns: 7rY ?�i'rL..w,. ?.y - ! r '�4. ��:''�.,� lxmS3_.caJ,v tea, - ������ti���:�,�k��e�'.�oo����lo��� �.T�r����.m,�iur�g�ie�►lr�o��.�,.l�s`��:�,���",z;Ho;�R�Y��,�" NO VENDORS AVAILABLE `'ve+ .= va,•.-,,�,,.i� �. .x w.. ';R - i`l"acnt .-uq.`. �.� a •� - s4 `�'� 'X r _5 S - `. ,.;: n'v g V C�O * �'--taC=iS''a�S•' : e`'"-'ixiC , $�`c FE•t? ,4'�:`�.>a".Ch.'?c w E.t '.;;G-;�. ,�"'� "'e' t� r .•t ��, . a t -.�f Nf I�►, *'a :�,�u�'� t?(�.7iq h,`, ,, .� .a>y. p.•, p.� yt.wua :: ti i�v=�s r��rsax�. a+,:.: �t �. E . f.= 5 N 3 rR. S •�_`�� h'�-�t�; ��B�DDE '. {,�ON �> �,`,�`a�,�,-�r �.} OB�ILI�i 'i�� U1111`5�����FIOUR�� ,e;,... .0 " F.,t...... -S`'. .._._c.,..,..- . ..-!�RFcLh'a._ ��`{,:...,...•... "�.i'1,... ,k �. .n,..��._ ,.. ..--..�.�...rs.��i.,.. 4. ..�1.25.x. .t...i-_..,. _ _ NO VENDORS AVAILABLE Page 1 121 WC BID #09-29 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 3 SIDE DUMP TRUCK WITHOUT OPERATOR 1;0 YARD 3-AXLE DUMB TRUCK` MOBILIZATION UNITS:,HOURLY dbDAILY NO VENDORS AVAILABLE 72 YARD.4-AXLE DUMP?TRUCK, ' MQBILIZATlON UNITS- HOURLY DAILY NO VENDORS AVAILABLE 18=YARD 5 AXLEDUMP TRUCK &PONY TRAILER MQBILIZATI'ON UNITS . HOU.RLY., >, DAILY NO VENDORS AVAILABLE t2-YARD_7 AXLE.DUMP TRUCK& PONY TRAILER MOBILIZATION . UNITS HOURLY DAILY NO VENDORS AVAILABLE END DUMP TUBS (GREATER THAN 45YARDS) MOBILIZAT:10� ;UNITS . HOURLY - NO VENDORS AVAILABLE GROUP 4 LOWBOY & PUP TRAILERS WITHOUT OPERATOR Aggregates West 1/966-3641 / 410-1238 Cell Location: Everson, WA NO VENDORS AVAILABLE PUP -TRAILER' ZAT�Oi1 UNITS .' HOU_RL` NO VENDORS AVAILABLE NO VENDORS AVAILABLE NO VENDORS AVAILABLE ATfOh ':f1NITS NO VENDORS AVAILABLE GROUP 5. SEMI -BOTTOM DUMP TRUCKS WITHOUT OPERATORS s U `� 1k8�YAb; fEL'L'Y�Df1MP 2 AXLE TRAfLERl3 *r w NO VENDORS AVAILABLE '5 '�; 3 Z(i 1(ARDBELLY bUMf� 3 AXLE TRAILER` HOURLY-1 My", r �` ' flilEETfLIFr MQ 4�m ... NC Machinery 11424-4292 / 425-508-1665 Cell Location: Mount Vernon, WA Mobilization: $85/hr 4 $325.00 $925.00 $2,875.00 ti G r�r _ a MISOELLANEOUS sta NO VENDORS AVAILABLE Page 2 122 WC BID #09-29 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 6 FRONT END LOADER WITHOUT OPERATOR 2 cubic. yard BIDDER,,PHONE . ,- ,, • ,, , . UNITS ` HOURLY DAILY ;WEEKLY MONTHLY.. Farmers Equip Co 11354-4451 / 815-7244 Cell Location: Lynden, WA Mobilization: $100/hr 1 $250.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.0.0 NC Machinery 11424-4292 / 425-508-1665 Cell Location: Mount Vernon, WA Mobilization: $40 flat rate each way 6 $250.00 $800.00 $2,400.00 United Rentals 11647-78001815-1288 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $30.00/hr 2 $350.00 $1,350.00 $3,450.00 cubic yard B(DDER, QkONE; MAKE &•MODEL `,, UNITS , (10URLY. , ; DAILY • WEAKLY , • M_ ONTfiLY_ , Birch Equip 11734-5717 / 815-6256 Cell Location: Whatcom, Skagit, Island Counties Mobilization: $80.00/hr Komatxu 250-5 w/cab $300.00 $300.00 $1,180.00 $3,500.00 Hertz Equipment Rental Corp 11734-29001754-6074 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $65/hr 10 $350.00 $1,200.00 $3,600.00 NC Machinery H 424-4292 / 425-508-1665 Cell Location: Mount Vernon, WA Mobilization: $40 flat rate each way 12 $275.00 $900.00 . $2,700.00 Volvo Rents /1383-0238 / 410-0924 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA Mobilization: $50/hr 1 $300.00 $1,100.00 $3,400.00 4�ubic{yard ; BIDDER,,pHQ�iE . ,•:, , .. ..., , ... UNITS , HOURLY DAILY „•; WEEKLY MONTI�LYs . Aggregates West11966-3641 / 410-1238 Cell Location: Whatcom County, WA Mobilization: $120.00/hr+Pilots, Permits 3 $125.00 $1,000.00 $5,000.00 $20,000.00 Hertz Equipment Rental Corp H 734-2900 / 754-6074 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $65/hr 8 $550.00 $2,000.00 $5,400.00 NC Machinery H 424-4292 / 425-508-1665 Cell Location: Mount Vernon, WA Mobilization: $40 flat rate each way 12 $375.00 $1,200.00 $3,600.00 'wip yard' _VyEE•KLIf _ s.. ,r MO�ITFILIf Aggregates West 11966-36411410-1238 Cell Location: Whatcom County, WA Mobilization: $120.00/hr+Pilots, Permits 10 $165.00 $1,320.00 $6,600.00 $26,400.00 NC Machinery 11424-4292 / 425-508-1665 Cell Location: Mount Vernon, WA Mobilization: $125.001hr 6 $1,250.00 $3,750.00 $11,250.00 Volvo Rents 11383-0238 / 410-0924 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA Mobilization: $110/hr+permits 1 $1,000.00 $3,500.00 $9,500.00 q -vx L. � (i `ln �ISCIGLL.�'�I�a.�CiQaS "s t �F \ 1` fy < .� f •Af !� 7 ,i14 `i U d r . P v BIDDERP�lOP1EsVIIi�CE8y�IVIODEL ° `f(N�TS l�RLY ' \�OAIL1fr WEEIKIY;011`1H�(; ^ti;s '^"' v.., c.•.\,-14 ..... .,�.,.a.! ,..........-_!. �, ,,r,. .. ,.�. .:,7F .,.. ,Y•1'?f ...Y ., 1;S..v ,�5-_4.., .h._ .,. fZ ka,. .r�r. �`��.. _ `. ., Aggregates West 11966-3641 ! 410-1238 Cell Location: Whatcom County, WA Mobilization: $150.00/hr+Pilots, Permits 10-cubic yard 2 $275.00- $2,200.00 $11,000.00 $44,000.00 12-cubic yard 1 $325.00 $2,600.00 $13,000.00 $52,000.00 Farmers Equip Co 9354-4451 / 815-7244 Cell Location: Lynden, WA Mobilization: $100/hr 2.5 Cubic yard 1 $300.00 $1,200.00 $3,500.00 Page 3 123 WC BID #09-29 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 7. ROAD GRADER WITHOUT OPERATOR MISCELLANEOUS BIDDER, PHONE, MAKE,& MODEL UNIT$ ',_„ SIZE,BY 1NT; HOURLY „ . DAILIF WEEKLY MONTHLY Aggregates West // 966-3641/410-1238 Cell Location: Everson, WA Mobilization: $120/hr + permits & pilots Champion 760 1 $125.00 $1,000.00 $5,000.00 $20,000.00 Bomag Northwest 1/ 253-863-12351206-293-8777 Cell Location: Pacific, WA Mobilization: $100/hr Huber M850-D 9950 $250.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 BSR Heavy Equip 1/ 425-303-3403/206-605-5180 Cell Location: Everett, WA Mobilization: $115/hr Komatsu GS655 1+ 33000 Ibs $87.50 $700.00 $2,400.00 $7,000.00 NC Machinery// 424-42921425-508-1665 Cell Location: Mount Vernon, WA Mobilization:140 - $85/hr; 685 - $40 each way CAT 140H 4 320001b $800.00 $2,650.00 $7,500.00 685-Leeboy 12 150001b $295.00 $975 $2,900.00 GROUP 8 DOZERS WITHOUT OPERATOR D 3`DQGER a _ ,;,, BIDpEIt,.PI{ONE,MAKE&,MODEL UNIFS,. „RIPPERS ,.: HOURLY+ ,: DAILY, WEEKLX MONTHLY_, Birch Equip 1/ 734-5717 / 815-6256 Cell Location: Whatcom, Skagit, Island Counties Mobilization: $80.00/hr 450 JD Dozer No $220.00 $220.00 $950.00 .$2,200.00 Courtenay Excavating Inc 11319-9737 Location: Deming WA Mobilization: $100.00 John Deere 550 w/winch & brush rake 1 No $40.00 $320.00 $1,600.00 $7,040.00 Farmers Equip Co 11354-4451 / 815-7244 Cell Location: Lynden, WA Mobilization: $100/hr New Holland D75 2 Yes $175.00 $750.00 $2,000.00 Hertz Equipment Rental Corp 11734-2900 / 754-6074 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $65/hr JD 450 11 Yes $225.00 $700.00 $2,400.00 NC Machinery// 424-4292 / 425-508-1665 Cell Location: Mount Vernon, WA Mobilization: $40 each way CAT D3G/KXL 24 Yes $150.00 $450.00 $1,300.00 Pape Material Handling 11756-6572 / 815-6415 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $60/hr JD 450J Dozer 2 No $200.00 $800.00 $2,400.00 United Rentals 1/ 647-7800 / 815-1288 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $30.00/hr JD 450 4 No $205.00 $580.00 $1,710.00 Volvo Rents // 383-0238 / 410.0924 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA Mobilization: $50.00/hr JD 450 J 1 No $200.00 $670.00 $2,390.00 Page 4 124 WC BID #09-29 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 8. DOZERS WITHOUT OPERATOR - D 6 DOZER WEEKL. MONTHLY .; BIQDER, PHQNE, MAKE 8f MO,DEL . UNITS ;` RIPPER$ , ; HQURLY DAILY Y, Farmers Equip Co 11354-4451 / 815-7244 Cell Location: Lynden, WA Mobilization: $100/hr New Holland D95 2 No $200.00 $875.00 $2,300.00 Hertz Equipment Rental Corp 11734-2900 / 754-6074 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $65/hr JD 650 7 No $325.00 $1,000.00 $3,345.00 NC Machinery// 424-42921425-508-1665 Cell Location: Mount Vernon, WA Mobilization: $40 each way CAT D6K 20 Yes $225.00 $900.00 $2,700.00 Pape Material Handling // 756-6572 1815-6415 Cell Location: Bellingham; WA Mobilization: $60/hr JD 650 J Dozer 2 No $250.00 $900.00 $2,700.00 United Rentals /1647-7800 / 815-1288 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $30.00/hr JD 650, JD 650LGP 4 No $225.00 $720.00 $1,980.00 Volvo Rents 11383-0238 / 410.0924 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA Mobilization: $50.00/hr JD 650 J 1 Yes $250.00 $995.00 $2,995.00 D Z DOZER or BIR4)R,,PHONE, MAKE,&MODEL „ „ _,' UNIIIS RIPPERS , HOURLY DAILY , , ,., _, ; WE1_KLY „MONTHLY , .0 NC Machinery// 424-4292 / 425-508-1665 Cell Location: Mount Vernon, WA Mobilization: $105/hr CAT D7RXL 2 Yes $1,700.00 $4,700.00 $13,500.00 1 � D 8 DOZE�2 F, BIDDERi IHORt1=, MAKE,B� MODEL „ UNITSRIPPERS,,. Aggregates West 11966-3641 / 410-1238 Cell Location:Everson, WA Mobilization: $150.00/hr + permits & pilots CAT D8H 1 No $185.00 $1,480.00 $7,400.00 $29,600.00 NC Machinery// 424-4292 / 425-508-1665 Cell Location: Mount Vernon, WA Mobilization: $105/hr CAT D8T 2 Yes $2,050.00 $6,000.00 $16,500.00 MISCELLANEOUS j s ,' Birch Equip // 734-5717 / 815-6256 Cell Location: Whatcom, Skagit, Island Counties Mobilization: $80.00/hr 650 JD Dozer Yes $285.00 $285.00 $1,150.00 $3,400.00 650 Komatsu Yes $285.00 $285.00 $1,150.00 $3,400.00 Page 5 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oo o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 Q- M vi c c o 0 o c c c c c c v) 0 0 v) 0 0 0 v) CD, O v) O O v) 1` V: m v) I� !M c c c O O O O N c c O c0 O c0 N c c o 0 o O O O O O CD-W) O v) m c ui vi c c c c c o O m N O v) O O O O 47 U tD O V_ .,_rL-: N N N m M M V' I- M M Vi PA 69 fH fA fA EA fR !A V3 to M V� i� b9 H} ER O v) O ER Ni N M V' GO b9 f9 vP EA 6-> N N c+7 V' a0 b4 V> E9 to t9 fA to ER j. p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O o 0 O O O O O O O O O o ui 0 0 0 :Y' W c o 0 0 o c c c o c c c c 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 D. o c 0 0 0 c c c cco 0 o c c c o 0 0 o c vi vi vi c 0 0 0 0 O V N W O O N M v) tD N M v) �- vJ m O N 'V;• N cD O tH fA fA EA fR y} y9 69 N'N'lt V} ER b9 Al d4 fR b4 G9 6% M G9 b? EH J c O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O - O O 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..oy G: vi c c c 0 0 vi v) v) c vi c cr m u'� M W C v) Ln Lo N N O c c O V' O c vi w) O O O m V• O O G vi O vi vi vI O vi Mi P v) M. O 1- N O m m N N M V• I� M V• V' 6% .1% fR fA G9 EH M fR fA H} f9 !A m v') m EH fR fR Vr N V• fR Vi fR N N M V' I- fA fR V} fA 69 N N M V• v) I` EA H9 lH fH tfJ fR b9 fA fR �,. o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r` colo 05 0 vi vi c c c c c u'i vi vi c Sri c MC6 cO0 w)M co Z'' 69 V• fH b9 V} V} fR Vi 69 ER b9 Vi 69 69 V3 EA y� V3 ER EH ~- + + + N N M M Cl)N cM r V' O N N I- M M m Z s m. Ir N N r O N N N G) N N N N N N N z r r r r r r r r r r r N N N r r r N N N r r r N . N N r r r r z G) N G) N N N N 4) 0) N r r r r r r r r r r a a o 0 0 0 0 O J� C. W r- m O O o vpi LO m O O VO' fOD N N V cD N V N N N N (V Cl N N _ M V' M V' C C <o 0 0 0 0 �Ci /OD cn, cOD (00 (00 > > > O O O th a v_ v in iD N V' V. V. v0 V' d• eV' go N N N � v> v) v) v) fOD N N N N _ _ _ _ _ _ _ to co CV w CD fD N N N N ch a- m M i'7 CM _ N c0 c0 `a0 V- CO c0 GO c0 Q _ _ M M V• V• Cl) M V• m > > > vi CV c- c- M <t V;• V, V;, :� U cN- tD 6 6 co M C? M CM ni V• sv a' d' N N N N I N a K N o W O O q M ro a O d a a a 0 O N a E N a S , V 0 0 0 0 0 0- N a 0 0 m m v) M O O N M rn y w a .G a a a d O O 0 0 0 0 0 •_ u M LO f- : m N I� m tD .0 .0 L U U U O O O 0 0 O O O f0 v) v) N W O C {O W M I� NM N 1� N M V' 00 s- rn N .�. ,yp ..0.. d d 0 O v) cO m Cl) co Il 3 O fh to cd' _M co N O tOD O N M O O O O 7 O O 0 Ir 0 O_ O w N v) v) O N roi V• � a y L m O O O m O O. N U U U `) N y a Y{ Of Yi N f3 ^ 9 N N N cV o Y Y Y m m m m mt S O 2 0 0 I- h l O O X X x a a a CL d O O y (O N {6 f� iri E x X X W Y W v) Cn co Cn L L L L L L L r� .LS .R- m N m m N Q Q Q vE fin v� 4j m L SR- L p p p O O coi $ O U U > > > > > Lo O W O O U U l�O O O O C C C E E E E E L L L~ c l0 C fy0 U F- U F- U U O U Ip a N N Q) N G7 s ,O a a a y y N y N M O N V' vY Y Y Y Y Y N N N M 2 O O O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y-o>> Q Q Q U U U O 2 Y= O O O O O Y Y Y Y Y f0 l0 f6 {6 {C Q Q Q Q Q F- F- F- I- 1- > lf;} z i I .' O T* pl LLlf M N 0.0 - O co C ID cl O m m' t U O f0 O O n, U O O a0 M Q �I m C) 00 l�0 .: 173•r S. m U N p oo o �,H N C D) o c c �► C cl O � -ti S EH fIY BE Q W A (D O �, O. J C m p m M O O C W o .� O � o w O O ?, •d-. N �. 7 O N C O N C ja jr ,+O= N cr W O N w 3 N = W u O = etOi d u a d W u aco O O J L O O Y `2 J rL O .O J m C O O 3 J rL O O J 0 0 _A m U m ti S O N d 126 F- Z CW G V W Z O U ND LL NN LJ. ZO Og °6 W UO Z H Q :3 ZO W = H CZ F_ G ry O LL U) W J O o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �ci o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N' O O O O O p 0 0 0 0 0 4T N O N O M M t0 O fC M O O O o 0 0 0 0 N Iq aD N A M lc O 0� N M M^ N M M 4 N N — — C-4 C14 Cl) ID ID � fA 69 69 69 69 69 M, VT 69 fA 6:i 69 t!� 69 (A HiIAI — j, o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p O O O O O O o O 0 0 0 0 0 o o S 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o^ c c o 0 0 0 0 0 vi ri ui 1� aD O p ti � 0 0 0 0 0 p � of O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 �[] O O N N O W O �:. CM Lo O E9 E9 69 69 69 V3 6M9 E9 E9 67> Z; T, V O^ O 69 b9 6'i 69 6 Z; N E9 E9 69 64 b9 E9 E9 E9 O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O o o O o O O O O O O O O O p p O o o O O O o ui ui u'i o o ui o o ui vi o o Ln ui Q p N ! I.• � O2 N O Um') O u7 I-N aO CDI� MN NN O N M M � 4`9 E9 Vi !A Vi 69 N N N M � fFT Ni 69 69 N N V' E9 6H 6H Hi 69 fA N N M t0 M 69 69 E9 fR Ni 6R 69 69 J 7 Z: N N N M M M N N N N N N N N — — N N m �. CD N N N N N N N N CD (D a) N N N (D N N N N N N N N N N c Cl O O t/� t� a) IDfvM7 M nj N JCo coN > > > > > O O N N i CD O W O O O N <") t'7 V' it i0 O O O U U O O O U C.a O O M V O O d N^ N N c t0 co t0 fV N N N N U U N V' 1' V' C at N mVi CV a0 V' V'V' f0 - iM CM c'7 a0 c0 M M VN' M O cO- N N t i � y � a � Y ai v N Y tLoi W a n y o a o o o C7 V! n a a a a a a iri a .G a s O O O O O O O y a 0 Y 0 '� N M pOj O O O O m m O p 0 0 0 0 0 .0 O O O O O O Y Z' O O O O p c�7 p p N I'� U U O O o m O Q f ate- v N M IN O ` ` fO0 -a 1� aOo tO0 M st ep Ln in m Q' U U U U S S S M M �j �j Y L L N N N U Y U U U U U U _ U U U U ��pp V p p p c,� ci o y y U W W W W W W W O o O O O O 0 0 M O CO N )O O O U a a L .G .. c'Ci t'ci � 2 Ski .�. +�_ O 7 O O O O O O ''T = M M M m M M M m m > > > Y i-- F- = S S > Y > > > > > > a"; r ti� r Ln co cm �• � tt) M O M O t2 't uji ao Q "Lz� % O y m f♦ N E O 3> M /0 O C O n Eco O d 0 N f6 :; C (00 v aI M O O O N 7 C 69 IvN <o c va E N cL c) m O m M LL o O o o O N N O N j L O N L O N O o O o V J p o J rL y p J p t`,t'.•'1.: ;.3: O� 2 6g E9 r N d 127 WC BID #08-25 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 10, LOG LOADER WITH HYDRAULIC GRAPPLE WITHOUT OPERATOR $I DDIRPHONE,;;MAKE RIPPERS UNITS HOURLY DAILY ;WEEKLY MQNTHLY, NO VENDORS AVAILABLE GROUP 11, TRACK -TYPE DITCHING EXCAVATOR WITHOUT OPERATOR BSR Heavy Equip /1425-303-3403/206-605-5180 Cell Location: Everett, WA Mobilization: $115/hr Takeuchi T6125; 3000 Ibs 2+ $16.00 $125.00 $450.00 $1,300.00 Courtenay Excavating 11319-9737 Location: Deming, WA Mobilization: $100.00/hr Hitachi EX120 1 $50.00 $400.00 $2,000.00 $ 8,800.00 BSR Heavy Equip 1/ 425-303-3403/206-605-5180 Cell Location: Everett, WA Mobilization: $115/hr Kubota KX161;11000lbs 2+ $32.00 $250.00 $1,000.00 $2,800.00 Courtenay Excavating H 319-9737 Location: Deming, WA Mobilization: $100.00/hr Hitachi EX120 (w/5.5 tilt bucket) 1 $60.00 $480.00 $2,400.00 $ 10,560.00 GROUP 12, SCRAPER WITHOUT OPERATOR SC2APE42 BIDbE1t;PHENE;MAKIIiMQDEE, UNITS,,, HOURLY ,,,, DAILY W�EKEY,; MONTHLY NO VENDORS AVAILABLE GROUP 13, SHOULDER SPREADER WITHOUT OPERATOR Aggregates West 11966-3641 / 410-1238 Cell Location: Everson, WA Mobilization: $120.00/hr Stoneslinger 31,000 12 1 $120.00 $960.00 $4,800.00 $19,200 Page 8 128 WC BID #08-25 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 14, BROOMS, REGENERATIVE AIR SWEEPER VACUUM TRUCK SWEEPER & SELF-PROPELLED BROOM WITHOUT OPERATOR Birch Equip /1734-5717 / 815-6256 Cell Location: Whatcom, Skagit, Island, Snohomish Counties Mobilization: $60.00/hr Skidsteer with Sweeper Gehl 4640 $200.00 $200.00 $700.00 $1,650.00 Bomag Northwest II 253-863-1235/206-293-8777 Cell Location: Pacific, WA Mobilization: $100/hr La more 8C 2 $2,800.00 Hertz Equip Rental H 734-2900 / 754-6074 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $65/hr La more 8HC - 8' Broom Sweeper 5 $200.00 $600.00 $1,500.00 NC Machinery H 424-4292 / 425-508-1665 Cell Location: Mount Vernon, WA Mobilization: $40 each way 8HC La morSweeper 12 $150.00 $400.00 $1,100.00 United Rentals 11647-7800 / 815-1288 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $30.00/hr La moor 8HC 3Wheel 3 $215.00 $725.00 $1,600.00 Volvo Rents H 383-0238 / 410-0924 Cell Location: Femdale, WA Mobilization: $50.00/hr Laymoor8' Broom HC 1 $150.00 $600.00 $1,495.00 Skidsteer with broom attached 1 $180.00 $720,00 $1,800.00 Page 9 129 WC BID #08-25 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 15A, ROLLERS WITHOUT OPERATOR BIpDER"PHQNE;,MAKEBINODEL . WT. WIDTH .VIBRATORY; UNITS HOURLY , DAILY; WEEKLY;, MONTHLY,; Aggregates West 11966-3641 / 410-1238 Cell Location: Everson, WA Mobilization: $120.00/hr Rex SP1000 17,000 60" Yes $ 1.00 $85.00 $680.00 $3,400.00 $13,600.00 Birch Equip 1/ 734-5717 / 815-6256 Cell Location: Whatcom, Skagit, Island Counties Mobilization: $60.00/hr 30" Double Drum 75AD Bomag 1,200 30" Yes $96.00 $96.00 $360.00 $1,120.00 Double Drum CC122 D napoe 5,732 47" Yes $160.00 $160.00 $630.00 $1,650.00 Bomag Northwest 11253-863-1235/206-293-8777 Cell Location: Pacific, WA Mobilization: $50/hr Bomag BW900-2 2924 35.4 Yes 10+ $71.00 $283.00 $850.00 Bomag BW120-AD-4 6000 47.2 Yes 10+ $125.00 $500.00 $1,500.00 Hypac 754B 9300 54.3 Yes 10+ $208.00 $833.00 $2,500.00 BSR Heavy Equip 11425-303-3403/206-605-5180 Cell Location: Everett, WA Mobilization: $115/hr Ingersoll-Rand SD100 24500lbs 84" Yes 2+ $40.00 $325.00 $1,300.00 $3,800.00 Hertz Equip Rental 11734-2900 / 754-6074 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $65/hr IR DD-12 2900 36" Yes 13 $135.00 $445.00 $1,225.00 IR DD-24 6600 48" Yes 7 1 $155.00 $500.00 $1,500.00 NC Machinery 11424-4292 / 425-508-1665 Cell Location: Mount Vernon, WA Mobilization: $40 each way CB224 CAT 5800 47" Yes 12 $120.00 $360.00 $975.00 CB334 CAT 8800 51" Yes 12 1 $150.00 $450.00 $1,150.00 Pape' Material Handling /1756-6572 / 815-6415 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $50.00/hr I R DD-24 6,500 48" Yes 2 $150.00 $500.00 $1,500.00 United Rentals 11647-7800 / 815-1288 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $30.00/hr Bomag BW900 4,000 36" Yes 2 $150.00 $525.00 $1,150.00 Volvo Rents H 383-0238 / 410-0924 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA Mobilization: $50.00/hr Bomag BW120 2 Tons 48" Yes 1 $150.00 $500.00 $1,500.00 Page 10 130 WC BID #08-25 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 1513, ROLLERS WITHOUT OPERATOR PNEUMAfi1C ROLLER ` ,BIDDER, PHONE MAK€ & MQDEL, ;, WT WIDTH UNITS; HOl1RLY RAILY WEEKLY .=„ ,MONTHLY .. Birch Equip 11734-5717 1815-6256 Cell Location: Whatcom, Skagit, Island Counties Mobilization: $80.00/hr CA151 66' Roller D na ac 17200 66" $200.00 $200.00 $825.00 $2,400.00 Bomag Northwest 11253-863-1235/206-293-8777 Cell Location: Pacific, WA Mobilization: $100/hr Hy-pxC530AH 27000 68" 4 $292.00 $1,167.00 $3,500.00 Bomag BW27RH 52911 80.4 2 $583.00 $2,333.00 $7,000.00 Farmers Equip Co /1354-4451 / 815-7244 Cell Location: Lynden, WA Mobilization: Stone 6900 54" $1.00 $200.00 $800.00 $2,500.00 Hertz Equip Rental /1734-2900 / 754-6074 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $65/hr IR SD-25 5,900 42" 4 $175.00 $525.00 $1,400.00 IR SD45 10,600 54" 3 $225.00 $800.00 $2,400.00 IR SD-70 15,750 66" 12 $275.00 $950.00 $2,700.00 IR SD-100 23,700 84" 12 1 $365.00 $1,400.00 $4,200.00 NC Machinery 11424-4292 / 425-508-1665 Cell Location: Mount Vernon, WA Mobilization: $40 each way CS-423 CAT 15000 66" 12 $225.00 $675.00 $1,800.00 CS-533 CAT 24000 84" 12 $300.00 $900.00 $2,400.00 Pape' Material Handling 11756-6572 / 815-6415 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $60.00/hr Dynapac CA152 16,800 66" 2 $250.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 United Rentals 1/ 647-7800 / 815-1288 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $30.00/hr Bomag BW177D 66" 2 $405.00 $1,650.00 $3,960.00 Bomag BW211D 84" 4 $425.00 $1,700.00 $4,250.00 Volvo Rents H 383-0238 / 410-0924 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA Mobilization: $50.00/hr Bomag BW177 8 Tons 66" 1 $250.00 $1,200.00 $2,700.00 Bomag BW211 13 Tons 84" 1 $280.00 1 $1,300.00 $4,000.00 Page 11 131 WC BID #08-25 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 15C SHEEPSFOOT ROLLERS WITHOUT OPERATOR Bomag Northwest 11253-863-1235/206-293-8777 Cell Location: Pacific, WA Mobilization: $100/hr Bomag BW177 PDH-40 16115 66.4" 3 $417.00 $1,667.00 $5,000.00 Bomag BW211 PD40 25785 83.9" 4 $417.00 $1,667.00 $5,000.00 Bomag BW213 PDH-3 27975 83.9" 1 $5,000.00 $2,000.00 $6,000.00 BSR Heavy Equip 11425-303-3403/206-605-5180 Cell Location: Everett, WA Mobilization: $115/hr Ingersoll-Rand SD100 25000lbs Yes 2+ $55.00 $450.00 $1,600.00 $3,800.00 Hertz Equip Rental 11734-2900 / 754-6074 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $65/hr IR SD-25 6,200 42" 4 $225.00 $625.00 $1,600.00 IR SD-45 11,200 54" 4 $285.00 $920.00 $2,650.00 IRSD-70 16,500 66" 11 $346.00 $1,090.00 $3,000.00 IR SD-100 25,000 84" 16 1 $445.00 $1,560.00 $4,600.00 NC Machinery 114244292 / 425-508-1665 Cell Location: Mount Vernon, WA Mobilization: $40 each way CP-563 CAT 30000 84" 6 $350..00 $1,050.00 $3,000.00 Volvo Rents 11383-0238 / 410-0924 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA Mobilization: $50.00/hr Bomag BW177 15,000 66" 1 $375.00 $1,325.00 $3,500.00 GROUP 16, MOBILE CRANES WITHOUT OPERATOR y `` tSIIf�OBILE'CRANE�Sfi \ BIDDER, 00 MODEL TbNS �ObM HOURLY.. WEEKLY MONTHLY . -00, ., . , : _ ,DAILY Birch Equip 11734-5717 / 815-6256 Cell Location: Whatcom, Skagit, Island Counties Mobilization: $60.00/hr LCD150 Loraine 15 Tons 68' $425.00 $425.00 $1,175.00 $3,400.00 Hertz Equip Rental 11734-2900 / 754-6074 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $65/hr IH 4200 CR 18 71" $435.00 $1,415.00 $3,800.00 United Rentals II 647-7800 / 815-1288 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $60.00/hr Ford F75019Ton w/crane 19 80, $350.00 $1,400.00 $4,200.00 GROUP 17, PILE DRIVERS WITHOUT OPERATOR =f�'��.�.� �.`..�BIRDER��-..��ib[�EMIV�,►KEM�`I�I,CQ�R�,I.:w ,..7� _t : x� �. f �:_.... � :. �: ,,.� ', ���?IZ�� �w� � �t��ll'FS„ � UOUR�Y^�! ,K-, DA(Llt�, l � VIIEE�(LY-�� �?" ,�.�OUTHLYz. NO VENDORS AVAILABLE GROUP 18, DRAG LINES OR CLAMS WITHOUT OPERATOR �S�gL?DR7�GkL��i✓�7Q1:`'v�'..yy .,;c•, .s,:;_'�.r5 - Sri. i. ., `. ',L .tiy5a .?q a�. Sri',. a -u . i'.. _�4....c1 ~we:aS:>�.rea- �a\�z;� r r, 61QDEG2;HbNE MA4E & I�IUDEI�_. 1,;... � �.\ �. � ����� � . �._ SI�Ek .r'M a�tlV�1"S NO VENDORS AVAILABLE Page 12 132 WC BID #08-25 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 19 LAYTON BOXES WITHOUT OPERATOR Bomag Northwest H 253-863-1235/206-293-8777 Cell Location: Pacific, WA Mobilization: $100/hr Bomag 413 Tow Type Paver 4'-13' 1 $1,666.00 $5,000.00 Bomag BF814 Self Propelled Paver 8'-14' 3 $2,167.00 $6,500.00 Bomag BF815 Self Propelled Paver 8'-15' 3 $2,333.00 $7,000.00 GROUP 20 PAVEMENT PULVERIZER WITHOUT OPERATOR Location: Whatcom, Skagit, Island Counties Mobilization: Edco Air Scabbler/Walk Behind $150.00 $150.00 $520.00 $1,270.00 Bomag Northwest 9 253-863-1235/206-293-8777 Cell Location: Pacific, WA Mobilization: $100/hr Bomag MPH 122-2 Recycler 1 $7,000.00 $20,000.00 Bomag MPH 364-2 1 $5,000.00 $15,000.00 Bomag BM1000-30 Cold Planer 2 $7,000.00 $20,000.00 Bomag BM2000-60 1 $8,500.00 $25,000.00 GROUP 21 SELF -LOADING DITCH CLEANER WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 22 HYDROSEEDER WITHOUT OPERATOR Page 13 133 WC BID #08-25 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 23, BACKHOE WITHOUT OPERATOR BACFCHOE ' BIDDER, PHONE,, HIKE &MOREL ; , , UNITS HOURLY DAILY; WEEKLY` MONTHLY '. Birch Equip H 734-5717 / 815-6256 Cell Location: Whatcom, Skagit, Island Counties Mobilization: $80.00/hr JD 310 44 76HP $190.00 $190.00 $720.00 $1,875.00 JD 410 44 85HP $200.00 $200.00 $800.00 $1,900.00 580 Case 4x4 86HP $200.00 $200.00 $800.00 $1,900.00 Kubota B21 w. Backhoe $160.00 $160.00 $490.00 $1,575.00 Farmers Equip Co 9 354-4451 / 815-7244 Cell Location: Lynden, WA Mobilization: New Holland 895 1 $195.00 $750.00 $1,900.00 Hertz Equip Rental H 734-2900 / 754-6074 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $65/hr JD310/Case 580 4x4 ext 60 $175.00 $625.00 $1,695.00 Case 590 44 ext cab 3 $250.00 $800.00 $2,400.00 NC Machinery /1424-4292 1425-508-1665 Cell Location: Mount Vernon, WA Mobilization: $40 each way CAT 416 D/E 4x4 E-Stick 12 $150.00 $450.00 $1,300.00 CAT 420 D/E 4x4 E-Stick 12 $175.00 $500.00 $1,500.00 Pape' Material Handling /1756-6572 1815-6415 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $60.00/hr JD 310G 4X4 2 $150.00 $600.00 $1,800.00 United Rentals //647-7800 / 815-1288 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $30.00/hr JD 310 John Deere 2 $175.00 $500.00 $1,200.00 Volvo Rents /1383-0238 / 410-0924 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA Mobilization: $50.00/hr Volvo BL70 1 $170.00 $650.00 $1,700.00 JD 310E 1 $170.00 $650.00 $1,700.00 Page 14 134 WC BID #08-25 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 24 TRACTOR -MOUNTED MOWERS & BRUSH CUTTERS WITHOUT OPERATOR Location: Whatcom, Skagit, Island Counties Mobilization: $60.00/hr Woods Brush 48" $50.00 $50.00 $200.00 $330.00 Pape' Material Handling 11756-6572 / 815-6415 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $50.00/hr Bobcat CT440 41 HP w/ loader w/ 5' Rear mount mower 5' $175.00 $450.00 $1,350.00 Location: Ferndale, WA Mobilization: $50.00/hr JD 3320 $800.00 I $1,500.00 GROUP 25 SKID -STEER MOUNTED MOWER & BRUSH CUTTER WITHOUT OPERATOR SKID STEER MOUNTED�M,OVILER�& 1 t 'V BRUSH C,rUTTERT `'" � � �, g \ Hertz Equip Rental H 734-2900 / 754-6074 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $65/hr Bobcat S220H w/5' brushcut 5 $250.00 $750.00 $2,100.00 Takeuchi TL130 w/ 5' brushcut 5 $325.00 $975.00 $2,600.00 Takeuchi TU50 w/ 5' brushcut 5 $370.00 $1,100.00 $3,000.00 NC Machinery 1/ 424-4292 / 425-508-1665 Cell Location: Mount Vernon, WA Mobilization: $40 each way CAT 287 w/mower 84" 6 $225.00 $675.00 $2,000.00 Pape' Material Handling 11756-6572 / 815-6415 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $50.00/hr S-250 w/ 6' Brush Mower $350.00 1 $1,400.00 .$4,000.00 GROUP 26, ROADSIDE MOWER Page 15 135 WC BID #08-25 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 27 WALKING LEG -TYPE HEAVY-DUTY BRUSH CUTTER WITHOUT OPERATOR zt:WALKING LEG TYPE HEAVY DUTY BRUSH CUTTER BIDDER;'PHONE,,,MAKE&,MODEL: 11KITS , ktOC1EtLY DAILY; ;WEEKLY MONTHLY NO VENDORS AVAILABLE GROUP 28. SEWER JET WITHOUT OPERATOR Location: Whatcom, Skagit, Island Counties Mobilization: $60.00/hr CWT 500 Towable 500 Gallon Towable Water Trailer $60.00 $60.00 $190.00 $500.00 Hertz Equip Rental 11734-2900 / 754-6074 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $65/hr Wylie 500 Gallon Water Trailer 22 $60.00 $200.00 $500.00 IH 4200 - WT (2000 Gallons) 18 $300.00 $900.00 $2,300.00 IH 7400 - WT 3700 Gallons) 10 1 $425.00 $1,400.00 $4,000.00 NC Machinery 11424-4292 / 425-508-1665 Cell Location: Mount Vernon, WA Mobilization: $40 each way Kenworth/FL 2000 gallon 12 $225.00 $700.00 $2,000.00 Kenworth/FL 4000 gallon 12 $350.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 United Rentals 9 647-7800 / 815-1288 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $30.00/hr Water Truck 2,000 gals - Ford F750 2 $305.00 $1,235.00 $2,950.00 Volvo Rents 11383-0238 / 410-0924 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA Mobilization: 500 Gal. Water Trailer 1 2 1 $75.00 1 $250.00 1 $800.00 GROUP 30 DUST RETARDANT TRUCK WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 31 UTILITY BORING MACHINE WITHOUT OPERATOR UTILtT�I(£BORINt;'MACHINE,E�x s Q1�4ER;.PHONE; f�IAKE,&INOpEL; ....... `.. :, . :. �, } t v S} }=II�IITS fi ,",O�1RLY DAILY NIEEKLX IIIlC1NTHLYs, _ _..._ Birch Equip 11734-5717 1815-6256 Cell Location: Whatcom, Skagit, Island Counties Mobilization: 3" TT Technologies P75 $200.00 $200.00 $675.00 $1,800.00 Volvo Rents /1383-0238 / 410-0924 Cell Location: Ferndale, WA Mobilization: $50/hr Vermeer (3" Pneumatic Boring Tool) 1 $145.00 $550.00 $1,800.00 Page 16 136 WC BID #08-25 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 32, UNDER BRIDGE INSPECTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR UNDER BRIDGE INSPECTtON EQUIP1fAENT ,,, ,BIDDER, PkIONE,, MAKE &,MODEL ; .. ;._ ', UNITS H(�URLIr; , RAILY ,IhIEEKLY MONTHLY ; Birch Equip 11734-5717 / 815-6256 Cell Location: Whatcom, Skagit, Island Counties Mobilization: TK66 Skyjack Boom $335.00 $335.00 $1,190.00 $3,145.00 GROUP 33, SNOW REMOVAL EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR Location: Whatcom, Skagit, Island Counties Mobilization: $60.00/hr Gehl 4640 Skidsteer Tracked Gehl CTL60 $150.00 $225.00 $150.00 $225.00 $600.00 $750.00 $1,360.00 $2,050.00 Courtenay Excavating 1/319-9737 Location: Deming, WA Mobilization: $100.00/hr Hitachi EX120 1 $50.00 $400.00 $2,000.00 $8,800.00 Kubota KX121 1 $30.00 $240.00 $1,200.00 $5,280.00 John Deere 550 1 $45.00 $360.00 $1,800.00 $7,920.00 NC Machinery 11424-4292 / 425-508-1665 Cell Location: Mount Vernon, WA Mobilization: $40 each way CAT 904 Wheel loader w/ snowblade 4 $400.00 $1,200.00 $3,600.00 CAT 287 w/ snow blower 4 $300.00 $900.00 $2,700.00 Page 17 137 WC BID #08-25 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 34, MISCELLANEOUS WITHOUT OPERATOR MISCELLANEOUS . , BIDDER t PHONE ` ;MAKE& MODEL; , , , , UNITS HQURLY, , ` DAILY: WEEKLY; MONTHLIF , Birch Equip 11734-5717 / 815-6256 Cell JD 200 Excavator $550.00 $550.00 $1,695.00 $4,875.00 Location: Whatcom, Skagit, Island Counties 30" Walkbehind Roller $100.00 $100.00 $380.00 $1,190.00 Mobilization: $60.00-$80.00/hr 185 Air Compressor $100.00 $100.00 $285.00 $800.00 Bomag NW 11253-863-1235/206-293-8777 Cell Bomag BW785 Dbl Drm Asphalt Roller 3 $542.00 $2,167.00 $6,500.00 Location: Pacific, WA Almond Night light Pro Light Towler 2 $100.00 $285.00 $850.00 Mobilization: $100/hr BSR Heavy Equip 11425-303-3403/206-605-5180 Cell IHI IC100-2; 29040 Ibs $ 130.00 $1,050.00 $4,200.00 $8,800.00 Location: Everett, WA IHI IC70-2; 20680lbs $ 120.00 $960.00 $3,840.00 $8,000.00 Mobilization: $115/hr IHI IC45-2;13230 Ibs $ 105.00 $840.00 $3,360.00 $6,500.00 MOXY MT36; 58500 Ibs 3 $120.00 $950.00 $3,700.00 $9,500.00 MOXY MT31; 50500 Ibs 4 $105.00 $835.00 $3,340.00 $8,000.00 Godwin Pumps of America, Inc// 354-9933 / CD80M Diesel pump 3"x3" 8 $88.00 $264.00 $792.00 300-7013 Cell CD100M Diesel pump 4"x4" 8 $128.00 $381.00 $1,152.00 Location: Lynden WA CD150M Diesel pump 6"x6" 12 $199.00 $597.00 $1,791.00 Mobilization: $75.00/hr GTP50HX Gas Trash Pump 2"x2" 6 $38.00 $114.00 $342.00 GTP80HX Gas Trash Pump 3"x3" 6 $51.00 $153.00 $459.00 GTP100HX Gas Trash Pump 4"x4" 4 $76.00 $228.00 $684.00 GSP60SL Electric pump 3" 18 $68.00 $204.00 $612.00 GSP130HV Electric pump 4" 6 $104.00 $312.00 $936.00 GSP160HV Electric pump 6" 4 $121.00 $363.00 $1,089.00 20KW Generator diesel 6 $117.00 $351.00 $1,053.00 26KW Generator diesel 6 $133.00 $399.00 $1,197.00 45KW Generator diesel 4 $183.00 $549.00 $1,647.00 100KW Generator diesel 8 $289.00 $867.00 $2,601.00 4000 Watt Light Tower 4 $80.00 $240.00 $720.00 Hertz Equip Rental H 734-2900 / 754-6074 Cell Genie 4000 Watt light tower 30 $80.00 $235.00 $675.00 Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $65/hr *see attachment for pump pricing NC Machinery /1424-4292 / 425-508-1665 Cell 185 CFM Air Compressor 12 $80.00 $240.00 $600.00 Location: Mount Vernon, WA 500 gallon Water Trailer 12 $60.00 $180.00 $550.00 Mobilization: $40 each way 40' Genie Manlift 12 $150.00 $450.00 $1,100.00 60' Genie Manlift 12 $200.00 $600.00 $1,500.00 6" Sykes Trash Pump 12 $150.00 $450.00 $1,200.00 19'-20' Genie Scissorift 40 $65.00 $125.00 $200.00 26' Genie Scissorlift 20 $75.00 $150.00 $350.00 Light Towers 100 $50.00 $150.00 $350.00 3" Mole 4 $100.00 $300.00 $900.00 Pape' Material HandlingY 756-6572 / 815-6415 Cell Finn B-40 Sraw Blower 2 $125.00 $500.00 $1,500.00 Location: Bellingham, WA Genie TML 4000 Light Tower 12 $50.00 $200.00 $500.00 Mobilization: United Rentals H 647-7800 / 815-1288 Cell Straw Blower, Trailer Mt. 2 $200.00 $650.00 $1,650.00 Location: Bellingham, WA Vactrailer500Gallon 2 $310.00 $1,100.00 $3,290.00 Mobilization: $30/hr Volvo Rents 11383-0238 / 410-0924 Cell Light Towers 4 $50.00 $210.00 $475.00 Location: Ferndale, WA 40' Boom Manlifts Unlimited $225.00 $500.00 $1,700.00 Mobilization: $50.00/hr 60' Boom Manlifts Unlimited $275.00 $800.00 $2,200.00 85' Boom Manlifts 1 $700.00 $2,150.00 $5,700.00 120' Boom Manlifts 1 $1,200.00 $3,100.00 $9,000.00 **Many other items- please call 35 Ton Off Road Dump Truck 3 $1,200.00 $4,165.00 $11,800.00 30 Ton Off Road Dump Truck 2 $1,000.00 $3,650.00 $10,000.00 Page 18 138 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-198 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: rlr�f, py� 04114109 Finance, Council Paula Cooper J �/- It p i7 E D � i (� � U v D Divisionn Head: � Jon Hutchins A�i3 -7 2®®9 9 � [! Dept. Head: FrankAbart �� �Q p ( Prosecutor: Daniel Gibson dl- 03119109 q; O � NTY h� l! HATCO�, }g Purchasing/Budget: Brad Bennett 71 7��' Executive: -7 , _ Pete Kremen TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Amendment JVo. 3 to Contract for Services Agreement — Acme Early Chinook Restoration ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memorandum from Frank Abart 2. Contract Amendment SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( x ) SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) The contract amendment revises the scope of work and budget to include necessary modifications to the project design needed after the January 2009 flood due to significant erosion at the project site. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION.• Related County Contract #. Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at. www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 139 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 322 North Commercial, Suite 120 Bellingham, WA 98225-4042 4GOM CO q`Skl NGt 4T,D*1Ce7I_1 kl Bill IT, RECEIVEDtorart APR 0 3 2009 PETE KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO: Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors THROUGH: Frank Abart, Public Works Director �'1101 FROM: Paula J. Cooper, River and Flood Manager*/ John Hutchings, Assistant Director( RE: Amendment No. 3 to Wilson Engineering Contract for Services Agreement — Acme Early Chinook Restoration Project DATE: March 16, 2009 Enclosed are two (2) originals of Amendment No. 3 to the Contract for Services Agreement between Whatcom County and Wilson Engineering, LLC for your review and signature. ■ Requested Action Public Works respectfully requests that the County Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) Board of Supervisors authorize the Executive to amend the existing contract with Wilson Engineering, LLC, for the Acme Early Chinook Restoration Project. ■ Background and Purpose In 2007 the FCZD initiated the Acme Early Chinook Restoration Project to address the multiple objectives of slowing lateral channel migration along the South Fork Nooksack River and restoring fish habitat. The project was originally scheduled for construction during the summer of 2008, but was delayed due to problems in obtaining easements. The Nooksack Tribe had obtained $150,000 of grant funding for the project, but that funding was reallocated when the project was delayed. This necessitated redesign of the project to adjust the scope to available funding and to account for any changes at the site over the 2008/09 flood season. . The project site suffered significant erosion during the January 2009 flood and as a result, significant design modifications are needed of a greater scope than originally anticipated. The enclosed contract amendment revises the scope of work and budget to include necessary modifications to the project design and a geomorphic analysis of the reach to better understand the potential consequences of this redesign. ■ Funding Amount and Source The increase in the agreement amount proposed by this amendment is $33,000 resulting in a total contract amount of $159,000. This agreement, including the amendment, is being funded through the Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) with a 15% local match from the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District. 140 Please contact Paula Cooper at extension 50625, if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this agreement. Encl. 141 WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET Whatcom County Contract No. ac38-7030-1-1-3 Originating Department: Public Works Contract Administrator: Paula J. Cooper Contractor's /Agency Name: Wilson Engineering, LLC Is this a New Contract? If not, is this an Amendment or Renewal to an Existing Contract? Yes _ No X Yes X No If yes, previous number(s): _200703044 Is this a grant agreement? Yes _ No X If yes, grantor agency contract number(s) CFDA number Is this contract grant funded? Yes X No Ifyes, associated Whatcom County grant contract number(s) 200702002 and 200805039 Is this contract the result of a RFP or Bid process? Yes _ No If yes, RFP and Bid number(s) Contract Amount: (sum of orig contract amt If a Professional Services Agreement is more than $15, 000 or a Bid is more than and any prior amendments) $35, 000, please submit an Agenda Bill for Council approval and a supporting $ 126,000 memo. Any amendment that provides either a 10% increase in amount or more than This Amendment Amount: $10,000, whichever is greater, must also go to Council and will need an agenda bill $ 33,00 and supporting memo. If less than these thresholds, just submit to Executive with Total Amended Amount: supporting memo for approval. $ 159.000 Scope of Services The contract amendment. revises the scope of work and budget to include necessary modifications to the project design needed after the January 2009 flood due to significant erosion at the project site. Term of Contract: Expiration Date: November 31, 2009 Contract Routing Steps & Signoff [sign or initial/ [indicate date transmitted 1. Prepared by: Christina Schoenfelder Date 03-16-09 [electronic] 2. Attorney reviewed: Daniel L. Gibson_ Date 03/ 9/09 [electronic] 3. AS Finance reviewed: �rs Date_2 electronic] 4. IT reviewed if IT related Date [electronic] 5. Corrections made: Date 6. Attorney approved: Daniel L. Gibson Date 03119109 [electronic] 7. Contractor signed: i Date 4 /i / a 9 8. Submitted to Exec Office i Date W.3 a i [summary via electronic, hardcopies] 9. Reviewed by DCA Date 10. Council approved (if necessary) Date 11. Executive signed: Date 12. Contractor Original 13. Returned to dept, Date 14. County Original to Council Date this form may need to expand to more than one page 142 Whatcom County Contract No. WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT ATTORNEY REVIEW [submit via electronic transmittal] Originating Department: Public Works Contact Person: Paula J. Cooper Contractor's Name: Wilson Engineering, LLC First Review: H Approved As Is; Prepare Hardcopy for Signoff O Needs Revision; Attorney Comments for suggested changes: Second Review: Olmplemented Attorney Corrections as Indicated OApproved; Prepare Hardcopy for Signoff OAdditional Corrections Needed; Attorney Comments for suggested changes: Please indicate any Special Dates or clauses that require calendaring: Leave this page attached to summary coversheet until final signoff by attorney. Do not leave attached when routing to Contractor for signature. v.1.0 143 COUNTY ORIGINAL Whatcom County Contract No. AMENDMENT NO. 3 02 OD -7 0,3,,D `%Y'3 TO CONTRACT FOR SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WILSON ENGINEERING, LLC FOR ACME EARLY CHINOOK RESTORATION PROJECT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on the day of 2009, by and between Whatcom County, hereinafter referred to as the "County" and Wilson Engineering, LLC, a consulting company hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor." WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the County entered into an agreement with the Contractor commencing on April 11, 2007, to provide professional consulting services to evaluate alternatives and provide preliminary design for a project to limit lateral channel migration and restore fish habitat on the South Fork Nooksack River; and WHEREAS, Amendment No. 1 extended the contract duration from December 31, 2007 to December 31, 2008 due to the need for additional modifications/refinements to the bank stabilization design after the 2007/2008 flood season; and WHEREAS, the Contractor delivered an acceptable design for the project for use in a 2008 construction project; and WHEREAS, the Project construction was delayed due to our inability to obtain easements, and $150,000 of grant funding to be provided by the Nooksack Tribe was no longer available for the project; and WHEREAS, Amendment No. 2 revised the scope of work and increased the contract amount by $40,000 to provide for modifications to the design due to the lost funding and potential site changes during the 2008/09 flood season, and to provide assistance in construction oversight; and WHEREAS, the Contractor delivered a revised design that could be implemented with the reduced budget for the County's use in obtaining permits and reserved some design budget for revisions to address changes in the site during the rest of the flood season; and WHEREAS, the January 2009 flood caused extensive erosion damage to the site which resulted in the need for significant modifications to the project plans and additional geomorphic analysis to ensure no adverse impacts result from the revised project; and WHEREAS, County has requested the Contractor provide additional design and geomorphologic analysis, modify the project plans, and produce a final report stamped by a Professional Engineer; 'and` NOW, THEREFORE, County and Contractor agree to modify the Agreement as follows: 1. SCOPE OF CONTRACTOR'S SERVICES The Scope of Contractor's Services is amended to include the additional Scope of Services described in Exhibit A-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Exhibit A-2 to this Amendment replaces Exhibit A-1 to Amendment No. 2. 2. PERFORMANCE As consideration for the additional services to be provided by the Contractor, the County agrees to reimburse the Contractor for services rendered under this amendment at a total sum not to exceed SEVENTY THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($73,000) which includes the additional budget of $40,000 provided previously by Amendment No. 2 and is based on the cost breakdown detailed in Exhibit B-2, which replaces Exhibit B-1 in Amendment No. 1 and is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. This amendment increases the contract amount by $33,000; the revised contract amount is $159,000. Amendment No. 2 to Contract for Services Agreement Whatcom County Contract No. 200703044 Page 1 144 APPROVED BY THE CONTRACTOR: Wilson Engineering, LLC GL� ��-G•r7 l S Margaijt Curtis, P.E. Managing Member STATE OF WASHINGTON l COUNTY OF \A (�\�t^VV') ) ss. Wilson Engineering, LLC 805 Dupont Street, Suite 7 Bellingham, WA 98225 On this � day of r1 2009, before me personally appeared A!5. to me known to be the beNc (title) of W v\SclYl ),(� (CompMy) and who executed the above instrument n ho acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington jesiding at My commission expires 14.j -13- aU 10 oved as to form: Daniel L. Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney Date Approved: Accepted for Whatcom County: By: Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) On this day of . 2009, before me personally appeared Pete Kremen, to me known to be the Executive of Whatcom County, who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires Amendment No. 2 to Contract for Services Agreement Whatcom County Contract No. 200703044 Page 2 145 CONTRACTOR INFORMATION: Wilson Engineering, LLC Margaret Curtis, P.E. Managing Member Address: 805 Dupont Street, Suite 7 Bellingham, WA 98225 Mailing Address: 805 Dupont Street, Suite 7 Bellingham, WA 98225 Contact Name: _Andy Law Contact Phone: (360) 733-6100 Contact FAX: (360) 647-9061 Contact Email: alaw()wilsonengineering.com Amendment No. 2 to Contract for Services Agreement Whatcom County Contract No. 200703044 Page 3 146 EXHIBIT "A-2" (SCOPE OF WORK) Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. (nhc) has been assisting Whatcom County with the design of a bank protection / habitat enhancement project along the South Fork of the Nooksack River just upstream from the town of Acme. In 2008 nhc completed a design for the project, however, it is no longer viable because conditions along the project reach changed significantly during a flood in January 2009. Between January 6 and 9 the river experienced a moderate flood which caused significant bank erosion and sediment deposition along the project reach. Whatcom County has now asked nhc to complete two additional investigations — a geomorphic evaluation and a revised bank protection / habitat plan. The geomorphic investigation will examine historic river behavior and use this information to attempt to predict future planform conditions if certain bank protection features are installed and / or removed. The existing bank protection/habitat plan will be scaled back and revised to accommodate the new site conditions. The specific tasks that nhc will complete as part of this contract amendment are described below. This includes descriptions of Project Management requirements, the Geomorphic Investigation, the Bank Protection / Habitat Design, and Construction Guidance services. TASK 1 — PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1.1 Progress Reports, Billings, and Coordination nhc will prepare monthly invoices that will include a brief progress report that describes major activities, anticipated actions, and any outstanding issues that need to be resolved. nhc will coordinate work activities with Whatcom County and Wilson Engineering. 1.2 Quality Assurance Reviews nhc will provide Quality Assurance (QA) review of all memos, reports, and other significant work products. County personnel will be encouraged to comment on draft products. nhc will review the comments and refine the documents before preparing final documents. TASK 2 -- GEOMORPHOLOGY INVESTIGATION Our broad approach to the geomorphic evaluation is to evaluate long-term river behavior from historic maps and air photos in order to understand the channel migration processes at work. nhc will then use this understanding to predict the migration processes that might result if new bank protection / habitat features are installed or existing features are removed. The predictions will be for the short term, a few years into the future, and for the longer -term (several decades from now). These predictions will focus on the "project reach" which is immediately upstream of the Highway- 9 crossing at Acme upstream to the Williams Pipeline crossing. 2.1 Data Collection and Review nhc will work with County staff and others to collect and organize the data and information needed for the investigation. This will include current and historical aerial photographs and maps, existing studies that document long-term channel changes along the S.F. Nooksack, FEMA FIS, or other river analyses, LiDAR [Nooksack Tribe has new S. Fk. LiDAR] or other topographic contour data, and any anecdotal information on river behavior or levee or riprap maintenance. 2.2 Field Reconnaissance & Project Kick -Off Meeting nhc staff will travel to and examine the site and then meet with Whatcom County to discuss the project. One of the goals of this meeting will be to define the detailed study area, the revetments or levees to be evaluated for removal, and areas of erosion concern for the County. 2.3 Aerial Photo Interpretation nhc will examine, digitize and overlay the historical aerial photographs and maps to gain an understanding of how the river has responded in the past, before construction of levees or revetments, and how the river now responds where revetment has not been placed. Part of the analysis will consist of measurements of bend shifting rates, bend behavior, and erosion and deposition rates. These observations will provide insight into the short and long-term behavior of the river in response to both installing and / or removing levees or revetments. 2.4 Surficial Geology Review nhc will examine surficial geologic or soils maps of the project reach to determine if there are erosion resistant materials or other features that may influence the river's response to the alternative. Amendment No. 2 to Contract for Services Agreement Whatcom County Contract No. 200703044 Page 4 147 2.5 Longitudinal River Profile & Hydraulic Characteristics nhc will examine the river's longitudinal bed profile and HEC-RAS water surface profiles to help predict future responses to proposed project features. 2.6 Sediment Transport and Deposition nhc will interpret minimum bedload transport volumes from the historic measurements of erosion and deposition along the reach. This information will be used to predict likely future lateral shifting rates, direction, and planform changes. 2.7 Report and Presentation nhC will prepare a brief report that describes the findings of the geomorphic investigation. This scope includes an allowance for nhc to attend one meeting to present the investigation to County staff and key stakeholders. TASK 3 —DESIGN REFINEMENT nhc will modify the existing bank protection / habitat design as described below: 3.1 Site Visit & Survey Key members of nhc's design team will meet with County staff to inspect the site and perform a one day survey of the current channel conditions. The survey will document the current location and alignment of the left bank along the project reach, the width of the remaining isthmus that separates the South Fork main channel from Landing Strip Creek, and the location of the riprap that currently covers the right bank upstream along the County Park property. 3.2 Design Modifications The existing design will be revised to accommodate the changes that occurred during January 2009 flood. It is anticipated that the revised design will include two or three log jams constructed on the left bank immediately downstream of the Riverstead Property, possible addition of LWD to an existing debris jam at the new confluence with Landing Strip Creek, removal of remnant riprap at the downstream end of the original project site, and removal of approximately 200 feet of riprap along the upstream right bank. The need for floodplain roughening or in -channel wood structures will also be evaluated and discussed as part of the right bank riprap removal. nhc will work with County staff to develop a practical plan for construction access and installation of project features. Drawings will be provided to the County for review and comment prior to preparing final design documents. 3.3 Final Design Documents Final plans, specifications, and construction estimate will be prepared to a level of detail adequate to allow County crews to construct the project. Drawings prepared during the final design phase will be stamped by a P.E. registered in the State of Washington. 3.4 Final Design Report The previously prepared Design Memorandum will be updated to describe the revised design and will be stamped by a P.E. registered in the State of Washington. TASK 4 — CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE nhc's project designers will work with County staff to provide guidance during construction. This may include: • General project understanding • Log placement: site location, orientation, and selecting appropriate log(s) for each feature • Ballast requirements and anchoring methods . • Construction access It is anticipated that the installation of the LWD features may take a total of 3 weeks to construct; therefore, we have included an allowance for the project designer and engineer to be on -site for a significant portion of the construction period. The actual time spent on site by nhc staff is flexible and will depend upon the desire and confidence of the County crews. A summary of the anticipated schedule is summarized below in Table 1 and detailed in the following sub -sections. Amendment No. 2 to Contract for Services Agreement Whatcom County Contract No. 200703044 Page 5 um Table 1. Summary of Staff Days on Site During Construction. Erik R. Derek R. Jeff J. Construction Phase 1 1 Pre -Construction Walk -Through and Staking 2 8 1 Installation of Log Jams 4.1 Pre -Construction Walk -Through nhc's project designer (Derek R.) and engineer (Erik R.) will travel to the site prior to or on the first day of construction to walk the project site with the County crew and any private contractors that have been retained to assist in the installation. nhc will assist in staking locations of key features of the design. 4.2 Installation of Log Jams & Removal of Existing Riprap The allowance provides for nhc's designer or engineer to be on site to provide construction guidance for up to 10 working days during the installation of the log jams. Because of the complex nature of this project and the need for adaptability to site conditions and available materials, this phase of the construction requires the most significant on -site presence. As noted previously, the number of days that nhc will actually spend on site during construction will be determined by the County's on - site lead project engineer. The County will be responsible for all construction supervision. It is assumed that Whatcom County will manage and oversee the removal of riprap from the upstream right bank and therefore, nhc staff will not be needed. Amendment No. 2 to Contract for Services Agreement Whatcom County Contract No. 200703044 Page 6 149 .6 N Mi CO c-i Mf g! ci a c4 J LU E Ul tu Mq O m7 cd IL IV X-x 6 ai All 21 in- 'E v z LD E M o '13 u p C, i L) E JNOUFa- E zl W E Zl r 02'Zi . W 0 �3 12 m 0 lo E 12 CL 0 IL 'I "t a e N 31 150 NORTHWEST HYDRAULIC CONSULTANTS RATE SCHEDULE As consideration for the services provided pursuant to Exhibit A-1, Scope of Work, the County agrees to compensate the Contractor according to the hourly rates provided below. These rates may be adjusted with the County's approval annually. Otherreasonable expenses incurred in the course of performing the duties herein shall be reimbursed as described here: • Mileage will be reimbursed -at IRS rate • Lodging and per diem reimbursement will be at a rate not to exceed the GSA rate for location services are provided • Reimbursement for air travel will be at coach rates • Subconsultants, materials purchased and equipment rented specifically for the project shall be reimbursed at cost plus 5% • Other expenditures such as outside printing, postage and in-house reproduction of floodplain maps shall be reimbursed at actual cost • In house computer usage and domestic and long distance telephone charges shall be at no cost. Contractor will invoice monthly. Invoices will include hours worked by employee by day together with tasks .accomplished. Requests for reimbursement of expenses must be accompanied by copies of paid invoices itemizing costs incurred. Costs of alcoholic beverages are not eligible for reimbursement. Compensation shall not exceed the contract amount. Any work performed prior to. the effective date of this contract or continuing after the completion date of the same unless otherwise agreed upon in writing, will be at the Contractor's expense. SCHEDULE OF STANDARD CHARGES (Effective 1 Jul 2008) LABOR FEE RATE Principal 228.48 Sr. Project Engineer 202.47 Senior Engineer 163.79 Engineer 125.34 Jr. Engineer 104.79 Sr. Technician/Drafter 121.48 Technician/Drafter 86.65 Jr. Technician/Drafter 75.80 Word Processor/Secretary 73.21 Administrator 103.23 Amendment No. 2 to Contract for Services Agreement Whatcom County Contract No. 200703044 Page 8 151 WILSON ENGINEERING, LLC RATE SCHEDULE As consideration for the services provided pursuant to Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work, the County agrees to compensate the Contractor according to the hourly rates provided below. These rates may be adjusted with the County's approval annually. Other reasonable expenses incurred in the course of performing the duties herein shall be reimbursed as described here: • Mileage will be reimbursed at IRS rate • Lodging and per diem reimbursement will be at a rate not to exceed the GSA rate for location services are provided • Reimbursement for air travel will be at coach rates • A 1.5 % subconsultant mark up will be included for Northwest Hydraulic Consultants services. All other subconsultants will be reimbursed at cost plus 5% • Other expenditures such as outside printing, postage and in-house reproduction of floodplain maps shall be reimbursed at actual cost • In house computer usage and domestic and long distance telephone charges shall be at no cost. Contractor will invoice monthly. Invoices will include hours worked by employee by day together with tasks accomplished. Requests for reimbursement of expenses must be accompanied by copies of paid invoices itemizing costs incurred. Costs of alcoholic beverages are not eligible for reimbursement. Compensation shall not exceed the contract amount. Any work performed prior to the effective date of this contract or continuing after the completion date of the same unless otherwise agreed upon in writing, will be at the Contractor's expense. Billing rates for work performed from January 1 - December 31, 2009: Principal Engineer, $130 per hour Senior Project Engineer, $115 per hour Project Engineer, $105 per hour Design Engineer (EIT), $90 per hour GIS Analyst, $88 per hour CAD Design Technician, $68 per hour Clerical, $64 per hour Inspector, $68 per hour Senior Professional Land Surveyor, $115 per hour Professional Land Surveyor, $105 per hour Survey Technician, $88 per hour 2 Person Survey Crew (conventional), $143 per hour GPS Survey Crew, $158 per hour 3 Person Survey Crew (conventional), $169 per hour Amendment No. 2 to Contract for Services Agreement Whatcom County Contract No. 200703044 Page 9 152 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO 9 n n a_ 1 a a CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: DGD 4/3/09 4/14/09 Finance Couny Originator: IFED)E11 E(` E W E D APR - 7 2009 Division Head: Dept. Head: Prosecutor: jjVHA-TcOM COUNTY Purchasin /Budget. �.3 07 COUNCIL Executive: 7 TITLE OF DOCUMEI ustainable Connections Amendment to contract #200802007 ATTACHMENTS. Contract Amendment SERA review required? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( x ) Requested Date: NO SUMMARYSTATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Request authorization for the Executive to enter into an agreement to amend the Sustainable Connections contract #200802007 to include additional work on the Zero Waste Initiative effort by helping to reduce waste, increase reuse and recycling rates and increase purchases of environmentally friendly products by businesses in Whatcom County. The agreement increases the original contract by $30,000 which will be paid out of the Solid Waste Fund as approved by the Solid Waste Committee. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.uslcouncib 153 WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORIVIATIONSHEET Whatcom County Contract No. 200802007-1 Originating Department.- EXECUTIVE Contract Administrator: Dewey Desler Contractor's /A ency Name: Sustainable Connections Is this a New Contract? If not, is this an Amendment or Renewal to an Existing Contract? Yes _ No X Yes X No If yes, previous number(s): Is this a grant agreement? Yes _ No X If yes, grantor agency contract number(s) CFDA number Is this contract grant funded? Yes _ No X If yes, associated Whatcom County grant contract number(s) Is this contract the result of a RFP or Bid process? Yes— No X If yes, RFP and Bid numbers) .Contract Amount: (sum of orig contract If a Professional Services Agreement is more than $15, 000 or a Bid is amt and any prior amendments) more than $35, 000, please submit an Agenda Bill for Council $_20, 000 approval and a supporting memo. Any amendment that provides either a 10% increase in amount or more than $10, 000, whichever is This Amendment Amount: $�30, 000 greater, must also go to Council and will need an agenda bill and Total Amended Amount: supporting memo. If less than these thresholds, just submit to $ 50, 000 Executive with supporting memo for approval. Scope of Services The original contract is for Green Building and Resource Conservation Outreach in Whatcom County. This is an amendment to expand the services of this agreement to include work on the Zero Waste Initiative effort by helping to reduce waste, increase reuse and recycling rates and increase purchases of environmentally friendly products by businesses in Whatcom County. Term of Contract: Twelve Months I Expiration Date: December 31, 2009 Contract Routing SteDs & Signoff /-sign or initial] (indicate date transmitted 1. Prepared by: TWH Date 3130109 [electronic] 2. Attorney reviewed: Date [electronic] 3. AS Finance reviewed. / Date 6 electronic] 4. IT reviewed if IT related Date [electronic] 5. Corrections made: Date [electronic] hard copy printed 6. Attorney signoff J2 c'n.Z Date .-d " 7. Contractor signed. Date 8. Submitted to Exec Office Date [summary via electronic; hardcopies] 9. Reviewed by DCA 10. Council approved (if necessary) H. Executive signed: 12. Contractor Original 13. Returned to dept; 14. County Original to Council Date_ Date_ Date Date Date this form may need to expand to more than one page 154 P�Go M c�G WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE f County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite #108 q O Bellingham, WA 98225-4082 MEMORANDUM To: County Executive County Council Members From: Dewey Desler, Deputy Administration Date: April 3, 2009 Pete Kremen County Executive Dewey Desler Deputy Administrator Subject: Amendment to Sustainable Connections Contract #200802007 Background: Contract #200802007 between Whatcom County and Sustainable Connections was established for the purposes of providing community business, residential and governmental outreach to promote, encourage and guide green building conservation efforts. The Solid Waste Committee also voted to approve funding for the Zero Waste Initiative effort. Sustainable Connections was selected for both emphases through a competitive RFP process. Because a contract already existed for the green building work a determination to amend the existing contract to include the Zero Waste Initiative work was made. Budget: The contract amendment incorporates an additional scope of work for the Zero Waste Initiative effort and increases the contract by $30,000. to be paid out of the Solid Waste Fund. The total contract amount for Sustainable Connections is $50,000. Requested Action: The County Executive recommends the approval of this contract amendment for the inclusion of the Zero Waste Initiative effort. Office (360) 676-6717 County (360) 384-1403 FAX (360) 676-6775 TDD (360) 738-4555 155 Amendment No. 1 Whatcom County Contract No. 200901019 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY Sustainable Connections Whatcom County Contract No. 200901019-1 AND THIS AMENDMENT is to the Contract between Whatcom County and Sustainable Connections dated January 28, 2009 and designated "Whatcom County Contract No. 200901019". In consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived, the parties agree to the following: This Amendment expands the scope of work to include work on the Zero Waste Initiative effort by helping to reduce waste, increase reuse and recycling rates and increase purchases of environmentally friendly products by businesses in Whatcom County. This Amendment increases the grant amount by $30,000 for a total maximum consideration of $50,000. Allowable expenses include printing costs and staff time for the inclusion of the Zero Waste Initiative tasks as outlined below: 1. Project Coordination — Toward Zero Waste Initiative (TZWI) a. Work with Program staff to be clear on goals and strategy, as well as develop a work plan and budget for the initiative. Establish procedures for tracking grant related expenses and other budget issues. b. Assist Program Managers to identify specific work volunteer interns may be able to assist with. c. Manage adherence to goals, strategy, work plan and budget throughout contract term. 2. Research, design and produce two new case studies of current zero waste businesses to serve as models for other businesses. Information on materials sourcing will be included. a. Sample zero waste policy and procedure manuals will continue to be available to businesses. b. Research, update and distribute the service provider directory to interested businesses. c. Research and update the Construction Waste Recycling Toolkit. d. Distribute tools through the website, as well as by mail and at business events, including the Public Activities listed in this application. 3. Public Activities: Toward Zero Waste Initiative Educational events. a. Use the well -attended and high impact combined Spring Business Conference and Green Building Conference on April 17'h, 2009 to promote the Toward Zero Waste Initiative to 400 local business professionals with a "Design for Deconstruction" breakout session for the Green Building segment that focuses on local case studies, tools and local service providers that can help. b. Design, promote and run a TZW focused workshop for food. industry businesses like grocers, restaurants and caterers. c. Design, promote, and run a workshop for design and construction professionals as part of the Green Building Program that focuses on construction waste reduction and recycling, sourcing recycled, non -toxic and renewable building materials and their alignment with the LEED rating system and other high performance building programs. d. Design, promote and run two tours of local TZW business success stories from two different industry types. 4. Media/Publicity a. Promote details related to the TZWI through the Green Building Program e-mails, the Sustainable Connections website, print newsletters, the "Where the Locals Go" Coupon Book, print Business Directory, Guide to Eating Local, Home & Landscape Tour Guide, Bi-Monthly Member Announcements and New Member Orientation meetings. b. Use established media contacts to feature the TZWI as well as high performance businesses through press releases, phone conversations, arranged interviews and by presentation of well written case studies. 5. Evaluating Impact of the Toward Zero Waste Initiative a. Develop and implement post -event evaluation form to determine changes in awareness, attitude and knowledge with regard to waste management best practices; b. Follow up with a minimum of 75 new and 107 existing businesses with an annual survey to gauge changes in knowledge, attitude and awareness of business owners and managers. 156 c. Partner with local waste/recycling service providers to measure changes in volume of waste generated, recycled materials. The contractor will prepare outcome measurements in a quarterly report that include: • Numberof printed and electronic versions of tools distributed • Numbers, size and types of businesses participating • Volumes of waste generated, recycled materials, and costs to businesses • Number of attendees at educational events and TZWI participating businesses; • Number of advertisements run and related news coverage; • Number of member communication tools (e-mails, coupon book, newsletters, business directory, etc.) used to promote the initiative • Results of post -event surveys and interviews Unless specifically amended by this agreement, all other terms and conditions of the original contract shall remain in full force and effect. This Amendment takes effect: April 1, 2009, regardless of the date of signature. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Whatcom County and Sustainable Connections have executed this Amendment on the date and year below written. DATED this CONTRACTOR: day of , 200_ Sustainable Connections Derek M. Long, Program & Development Director STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) On this _ day of December, 2008, before me personally appeared Derek M. Long to me known to be the Program and Development Director, and who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof.islolvv r NOTARY' PUBLIC in an the State of Washington, rgsiding at �OT�4q�,9�;•N,�Vl.�nci)1, My commission expires ;'� �� S Boa•.xvo WHATCOM COUNTY: Approved as to form: e---D Prosecuting Attorney Da e 157 Approved: Accepted for Whatcom County: By: Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) On this day of , 2009, before me personally appeared Pete Kremen, to me known to be the Executive of Whatcom County, who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. CONTRACTOR INFORMATION: Sustainable Connections Address: 170 Ellis Street, Suite 221 Bellingham, WA 98225 Contact Name: Derek M. Long Contact Phone: (360) 303-7776 (360) 647-7093 Contact FAX: (360) 594-4373 Contact Email: Derek(@sconnect.org NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at . My commission expires 158 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-200 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office A enda Date Assigned to: on inator: E E 0 n APR m 7 200 g, 3 � ` @�� gg'��0 �eCIL 4/14/09Finance/Council Division Head: Dept. Head: � Z � O Prosecutor: — Purchasin /Bud et: Executive: ' TITLE OF DOCUMEN . Application or Coastal Protection -Water Quality Grant ATTACHMENTS. Grant Application SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARYSTATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Request authorization for the County Executive to apply for a Department of Ecology Coastal Protection- Water Quality Grant on behalf the Whatcom Land Trust for the acquisition of S acres of wetlands on the Samish River. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION.• Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at. www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 159 WHATCOM COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION DEPT. 3373 Mt. Baker Highway Bellingham WA 98226-7500 MEMORANDUM TO: Pete Kremen, County Executive FROM: Michael McFarlane, Director RE: Coastal Protection Water -Quality Grant Application DATE: April 2, 2009 Michael McFarlane Director APR 0 6 2009 PETE KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE Enclosed are two (2) originals of a Department of Ecology Coastal Protection -Water Quality Grant application for your review and approval. ■ Background and Purpose The Whatcom Land Trust is requesting Whatcom County act as the local sponsor for a Department of Ecology Coastal Protection Grant which will provide funding to acquire approximately 5 acres of wetland habitat on the Samish River. This property adjoins the Land Trust's 120 acre Samish River Preserve and will provide preservation of critical habitat for fish and wildlife. This request is to authorize the County Executive to make application for the trust. ■ Funding Amount and Source The grant application requests $21,000 from the Washington State Department of Ecology. Whatcom County will serve as the local government applicant and pass the Coastal Protection funds through to the Whatcom Land Trust who will serve as the agent and owner. The Whatcom Land Trust will pay for all acquisition expenses. Please contact Michael McFarlane at extension 32072 if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this agreement, Encl. 160 W A S H I N G T 0 N S T A T E D E P A R T M E N T O F E C O L O G Y COASTAL PROTECTION -WATER QUALITY FUNDING APPLICATION FORM (Please submit one hard copy and one electronic copy) Date of application: March 10, 2009 Name of proposed project: Samish Wetlands WRIA where activity will occur: 3 — Samish Amount Requested (maximum is $50,000): $21,000 Total Project Cost: $21,000 (See details re match) Has this project received Coastal Protection Account Funds before? If so, please state Grant Number, Year, and Title. No Is this an amendment to a previous award? If so, please state Grant Number, Year, and Title. No Ecology's Project Sponsor: Name Barry Wenger Title Shorelands Specialist, BFO Phone Number 360-715-5220 E-mail bwen461@ecy.wa.gov Region NWROBFO 161 Coastal Protection Account- Water Quality Application Form -Revised 9-05 Recipient Name: Whatcom County- Parks and Recreation Department (in cooperation with the Whatcom Land Trust) Recipient Project Manager Michael McFarlane Recipient Telephone Number (360) 733-2900 Recipient e-mail MMcFarla@co.whatcom.wa.us Recipient Address 3373 Mt. Baker Hwy Bellingham, WA 98226 Billing Contact: Same as above Telephone Number: Recipient Billing Address Recipient FAX number: (360) 676-1180 Federal Tax I.D. number Ecology Region Northwest County Project located in Whatcom Legislative District 42 Congressional District- Provide percentage breakout if more than one 2 Name and title of person signing the grant Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive Attach the following: ♦ Description of the project (Exhibit A-1) ♦ Timeline (Exhibit A-1) ♦ Budget (Exhibit A-2) Page 2 of 10 162 Coastal Protection Account- Water Quality Application Form -Revised 9-05 APPLICATION SIGNATURE AND APPROVAL PAGE ,//-z -Oct ect Manager's Signature Date Michael McFarlane Recipient Project Manager's Printed Name: Ecology Project Manager's signature Date Regional Water Management Team Concurrence Date Ecology Completes: Ecology is Awarding $ to the above stated project for the time frame Page 3 of 10 163 Coastal Protection Account- Water Quality Application Form -Revised 9-05 EXHIBIT A-1 SCOPE of -WORK Project Title: Samish Wetlands Proiect Location: River Mile 26.6 on Samish River near Wickersham, Whatcom County. Property is located northwest of intersection of Wickersham Road and Innis Creek Road. Proiect Description: The Samish Wetlands project will enhance water quality, protect wildlife habitat and provide wildlife viewing opportunities on the Samish River through the acquisition and preservation of five acres of high quality critical fish and wildlife habitat. This acquisition will expand Whatcom Land Trust's current 120 acre Samish River Preserve, contribute to the protection of Samish River water quality in both Whatcom and Skagit Counties, and provide wildlife viewing opportunities by protecting the highest quality riparian habitat in the headwaters of the Samish River. The Samish River flows through the center of the project site and spreads into large open water wetlands, which support diverse suites of migratory and resident bird populations, waterfowl, fish and wildlife. Restoration, enhancement and protection of habitat in the Samish River headwaters will secure critical habitat linkages that will provide perpetual benefits to multiple species for foraging, nesting and rearing. The acquisition project site is located at the southern end of a larger protected wetland complex where Ennis Creek joins the Samish River (see attached aerial photo map). This five acre acquisition is a key parcel. It includes extensive open water wetlands and will provide protection of some of the best habitat for rearing Coho salmon, and resting areas for winter steelhead and fall Chum as they move upstream to spawn, as well as nesting and rearing habitat for over 50 species of birds and waterfowl documented in the adjacent preserve. Whatcom Land Trust partnered with Skagit Fisheries Enhancement Group and Whatcom County Public Works to improve habitat conditions on Whatcom Land Trust's adjacent 50 acre Innis Creek Property, acquired for $85,000 with a Salmon Recovery Funding Board grant in 2004. Following acquisition; the project partners transformed Ennis Creek by relocating it from a road side ditch to a stream with large woody debris that meanders through a mature forest, where it now joins the Samish River on Whatcom Land Trust's property immediately upstream of the project site. Whatcom County invested nearly $700k on the Innis Creek bridge as part of the relocation of the creek. Skagit Fisheries Enhancement Group spent $75,000 on plantings, channel relocation, and wetland enhancement. When the restoration was completed in the fall of 2007, over 500 Coho salmon were documented spawning in Ennis Creek and thousands of fry were documented rearing, the following summer. Additionally, this past fall, Whatcom Land Trust, using its'own funds, completed the acquisition of 62 acres for $343,000 and another 7.8 acres for $35,000 only one mile upstream. The Trust is also working to acquire the two parcels that abut the 7.8 acre parcel on the west, north and east (see map). The long term protection of this project site is critical because it will allow natural ecosystem function processes to occur, protect some of the most intact wetland habitat in the Samish headwaters and buffer the investment made on the adjacent preserve,. Whatcom Land Trust will provide stewardship of the site. The Trust will manage threats to habitat, organize enhancement projects to 164 Coastal Protection Account- Water Quality Application Form -Revised 9-05 further improve ecosystem processes, and provide ongoing monitoring. Whatcom Land Trust is a well established local land trust with a proven track record. I n addition to the Trust's management of the site, North Cascades Audubon has partnered with the land trust to monitor the expected benefits to bird populations. Whatcom County Parks and Recreation .will serve as the local government applicant and will pass the CPF funds through to Whatcom Land Trust acting as the agent. Whatcom Land Trust will carry out the project by purchasing fee title to five acres and protect the conservation values of the site in perpetuity. The Trust will pay for all acquisition expenses. The property owner recently contacted ' the Trust with the desire to sell the property. The owner is ready and willing to negotiate. Whatcom County has partnered with the Trust on a number of previous acquisitions. (See Map and Photos attached) Statutory Criteria How does this project meet the statutory criteria of environmental restoration and enhancement projects intended to restore or enhance environmental, recreational, archeological, or aesthetic resources for the benefit of Washington's citizens? This project will enhance the environmental and aesthetic resources of the Samish River watershed by protecting some of the highest quality riparian and wetland habitat. It will continue the implementation of the Cascades-to-Chuckanuts Conservation Plan (C2C), an ecosystem. conservation plan that represents a joint effort of the Whatcom Land Trust and Skagit Land Trust. The primary long-term objectives identified in C2C are to protect and restore one of Western Washington's most intact lowland forest ecosystems, and provide ecosystem connectivity and diverse habitat linkages from the North Cascades west to the Chuckanut Mountains and the marine coast south of Bellingham. Linking and restoring these fragmented ecosystems will provide direct benefits to at least 27 listed and sensitive species of fish and wildlife. The Samish River headwaters contain a large complex of forested and open marsh wetlands; with multiple productive small tributary streams, The Samish River is a Coho factory: The wetlands provide optimal habitat for Coho, which rear in the waters for up to two years. Chum salmon, winter steelhead, cutthroat trout, and river lamprey all use habitat on the project site. Resident and migratory birds in the Pacific Flyway utilize the wetlands for resting, feeding, nesting and rearing. Significant habitat enhancement and preservation projects have been undertaken throughout the Samish River. The project site is in an intersection in the midst of the C2C planning areas, the location serving to bind together ecosystems. Its preservation will serve as a conduit for alleviating landscape fragmentation and providing protected connectivity for species to move. Additionally, protection of the, open water wetlands on this site will help to protect water quality. The garnish River is listed for fecal coliform, which impacts Samish Bay, an important shellfish area. The project site is also located along the Pacific Northwest Trail route. Protection of the site will provide high quality wildlife viewing along the Samish River from Wickersham Road. 165 Coastal Protection Account- Water Quality Application Form -Revised 9-05 EXHIBIT A-2 COASTAL PROTECTION ACCOUNT BUDGET BUDGET BY ELEMENT 1. SALARIES 2. BENEFITS 3. CONTRACTED SERVICES 4. TRAVEL 5. EQUIPMENT 6. GOODS/SERVICES (Property Acquisition) 7. OVERHEAD TOTAL BUDGET BY ELEMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 $21 000 $0 $21 000 "Agencies may not be reimbursed from the coastal protection fund for the salaries and benefits of permanent employees for routine operational support. For equipment -please itemize For Goods/Service-list major items BUDGET BY TASK 1. (1) 2. (XX) 3. Poo 4. (XX) TOTAL BUDGET BY TASK $21,000 $21,000 TOTAL REQUEST $21 000 n-__ '7 _.9 1 A 166 Coastal Protection Account- Water Quality Application Form -Revised 9-05 • w �hR.�a��ob , --.gam* r K z y � �.' 1. !� WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL wn_ — 2008 — 343 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council O ice Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 9/30/2008 10/7/2008 PW & Introduction Division Head: 10 21 2008 Council Dept, Head. 3/31/2009 Introductio Prosecutor: 4/14/2009 PW/Council Purchasing/Bud, et: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. - Ordinance amending WCC 2.78, Solid Waste Advisory Committee ATTACHMENTS. SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMAR Y STA TEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Discussion of an Ordinance amending Whatcom County Code 2.78, Solid Waste Advisory Committee COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION. 10/07/2008: Substitute version amended 10/07/2008: Introduced amended version 10/21/2008: To be discussed at a later datg= forwarded to SWAC for review and recommendation 3/30/2009: Receive recommendation from SWAC to"adopt the ordinance as prestented..." 3/31/2009: Introduced Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note. Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at. www. co. whatcom. wa. us/council. 170 WHATCOM COUNTY Jon Hutchings PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT P���"` CO� Assistant Director d` �A ADMINISTRATION FRANK M. ABART CIVIC CENTER ANNEX Director ` 322 N. Commercial Street, Suite 210 Bellingham, WA 98225 'gs�yrN�,t° Phone # (360) 676-6692 Fax # (360) 676-6863 wwmcomhatcomma.us MEMORANDUM DD MAR 3 0 2009 March 27, 2009 iHATCOM COUNTYC®UNCIL TO: Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council FROM: Debbie Bailey, Division Secretary Solid Waste .A. - RE: Proposed Ordinance Changes W.C.C. 2.78 At the March 26th meeting of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC), the proposed changes to County Code 2.78, Solid Waste Advisory Committee were reviewed and discussed. SWAC voted unanimously to recommend to Council to "adopt the ordinance as presented with the proposed amendments to Chapter 2.78 of the County Code." cc Pete Kremen Printed on 100% post -consumer recycled -content paper. 171 PROPOSED BY: Brenner, Weimer SPONSORED BY: Consent INTRODUCTION DATE: March 31, 2009 ORDINANCE NO. AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.78, SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the intent of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee is to have a diverse cross-section of individuals interested in solid waste/recycling issues on the committee; and WHEREAS, the intent of the citizen and business/industry positions is to have individuals interested in these issues who have no financial ties to the solid waste industry; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to clarify language in the Solid Waste Advisory Committee section of the Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that Whatcom County Code Section 2.78 is hereby amended as outlined in Exhibit A to this ordinance. ADOPTED this day of , 2009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPRO D AS TO FORM: Civil Deputy Prosecutor Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Pete Kremen, County Executive Date: 172 EXHIBIT A (Ordinance amending WCC 2.78) Chapter 2.78 SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Sections: 2.78.010 Committee - Established. 2.78.020 Committee - Members. 2.78.030 Committee - Advice and recommendation to county executive. 2.78.040 Committee - Duties. 2.78.050 Appointments to committee. 2.78.060 Eligibility to serve on committee. 2.78.070 Filling of vacancies. 2.78.080 Terms of office. 2.78.090 Meetings - Rule promulgation. 2.78.100 Public works department to provide administrative support. 2.78.110 Members not to be compensated. 2.78.010 Committee- Established. The county solid waste advisory committee is established to be comprised of a county -wide group of representatives of citizens, public interest groups, business, the waste management industry, and local elected public officials or their appropriately appointed designees to provide for coordination and information exchange between the groups about solid waste issues and to provide ongoing public input and advice to Whatcom County on solid waste management issues. (Ord. 2002-050; Ord. 93-023; Ord. 91-002 (part); Ord. 85-90 § 1). 2.78.020 Committee- Members. The county solid waste advisory committee shall be composed of 11 members. Two of the members shall be local elected officials or their appropriately appointed designees, who shall serve for a one-year period, with one representative from the city of Bellingham and one representative from other cities in the county. One member shall be a Whatcom County councilmember. The remaining eight members shall represent a balance of interest from the following sectors: two citizen representatives with no financial ties to other included sectors, two representatives from public interest groups, one business/industry representative, one representative from the waste collection industry, one recycling industry representative, and one solid waste disposal facility representative. No two representatives can be from the same company or public interest group. (Ord. 2002-050; Ord. 93-023; Ord. 91-002 (part); Ord. 85-90 § 2). 2.78.030 Committee- Advice and recommendation to county executive. The county solid waste advisory committee shall advise and make recommendation to the county executive and council on matters within their scope and charge. (Ord. 85-90 § 3). 2.78.040 Committee- Duties. The scope and charge of the county solid waste advisory committee shall be to: A. Advise Whatcom County of all aspects of solid waste management planning; B. Review no less frequently than once annually, the county comprehensive solid waste management plan, and recommend appropriate changes, amendments, or modifications thereof; C. Assist Whatcom County in the development of programs and policies concerning solid waste management; 173 D. Review and comment on proposed solid waste management rules and policies, or ordinances prior to their adoption. (Ord. 85-90 § 4). E. Review and comment on the proposed solid waste management budget before it is submitted to the Solid Waste Executive Committee. 2.78.050 Appointments to committee. The county executive shall be able to appoint nonvoting ex officio members who shall serve at the executive's discretion. The county council shall nominate and appoint members to the committee in accordance with its rules of procedure as required by RCW 70.95.165. (Ord. 2002-050; Ord. 93-023; Ord. 91-002 (part); Ord. 85-90 § 5). 2.78.060 Eligibility to serve on committee. The term of office of any committee member shall be limited to two consecutive full terms. Reappointment shall be subject to confirmation by council action motion. If, during the term of office, a public official is defeated in a general election, or for any other reason loses his/her political office, the public officer is no longer eligible to sit on the committee as an elected official and the position shall immediately be vacated by that reason and refilled. (Ord. 85-90 § 6). 2.78.070 Filling of vacancies. A vacancy shall be filled for the remainder of the term of the vacant position in the manner described in the initial appointment. (Ord. 89-90 § 7). 2.78.080 Terms of office. Four members shall initially serve a term ending December 31, 1987, and the remaining five members shall serve a term ending December 31, 1988, or until their successor is appointed and confirmed as provided in this chapter. Thereafter, all terms shall be for three years. (Ord. 85-90 § 8). 2.78.090 Meetings— Rule promulgation. The solid waste advisory committee shall meet as required to carry out the purposes of the committee. The committee shall promulgate rules for the election of officers and the conduct of its business. (Ord. 85-90 § 9). 2.78.100 Public works department to provide administrative support. Ongoing administrative support to the committee shall be provided by the county department of public works. (Ord. 85-90 § 10). 2.78.110 Members not to be compensated. Members of the committee shall serve without compensation. (Ord. 85-90 § 11). 174 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-20 1 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: g MJD 4102109 I��( � � /J (� D 11 u E C `/ L� APR � Z 2009 ATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 4114109 PW Comm - Introduction Division Head: JPR 4102109 4/28/09 Council — Public Hearin Dept. Head: y�� " "t o Prosecutor: �/ ovkp% Purchasin /Bud et: Executive: 7^ TITLE OF DOC MENT: An Ordinance regarding establishment of speed limits on Birch Bay and Harborview Drives ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memo to County Executive 2. Birch Bay Steering Committee's Speed Limit Request 3. Whatcom County's Traffic Review 4. Ordinance SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? (X) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Requested Date: April 28, 2009 SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) To respond to a request by the Birch Bay Steering Committee to change speed limits in Birch Bay and to recommend that the speed limits be changed as follow: • Birch Bay Drive will be changed to 25 mph year round from Harborview Road to Point White Horn Road • Birch Bay Drive north of Harborview Road will be changed seasonally from 25 mph to 35 mph • Harborview Road south of Forsberg Road will be changed to 25 mph year round COMMITTEE ACTION. • COUNCIL ACTION.• Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at. www.co.whatcom.waus/council. 175 WHATCOM COUNTY JOSEPH P. RUTAN, P.E. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PGM°G Assistant Director/County Road Engineer FRANK M. ABART Za Whatcom County Engineering Services 3 d��- 5280 Northwest Dr., Ste C Director. Bellingham WA 98226-9098 �q$o� (360) 676-6730 HANG RE 76 E D MEMORANDUM APR 0 3 2009 TO: Pete Kremen, County Executive PETE KREMEN Through: Frank Abart, Public Works Director COUNTY EXECUTIVE FROM: Joseph P. Rutan, County Road Engineer/Assistant Direct�jvX— Michael J. Donahue, Traffic Division Manager !! RE: Response to Birch Bay Steering Committee's Request to Change Speed Limits in the Birch Bay Area DATE: April 2, 2009 Requested Action: The Public Works Department requests that a County Council Public Works Committee meeting is scheduled for discussion of the Birch Bay Sub -Area Committee's request for the altering of speed limits on various roads. Background and Purpose: The Public Works Department has reviewed the request and recommends that the currently - posted speed limits in the Birch Bay area be changed as follows: Birch Bay Drive - Harborview Drive south will be 25 mph year round Birch Bay Drive - Harborview Drive north will change to 25 mph (May 15-Sept 15) and 35 mph (otherwise the remainder of the year) Harborview Road — South of Forsberg Road will be 25 mph year round Information• The Birch Bay Steering Committee met and concluded that several other speed limit changes should take place in the Birch Bay area that this department does recommend. The Traffic Division of the Public Works Department has gathered road and traffic count and collision (accident) history that is included here with the enclosed traffic study. Enc. Office (360) 676-6730 FAX (360) 676-6558 176 CO U C i Q fC3 0 .� L O QN O 0 U N O N N N C (6 177 �i ` U C6O_ cAW ' �. y N p_ a)V E a) E U 8 •5�� O a C N s L L L L E o �� E�� p M o L Ci L Ci L L O m L cm IM cm = O i i i m o.o.o.mmU ummmmcou d � s V `� �_ d� N d C t =�� 0 N O Y C 7 m inm Q m EL i ++ .1.+ a.12 0mwmw0 do >a L 178 CU-� O Lf 4-4 cn cu a) E U O N .cn � CU c . O +, ch C6 CU cn U N a) cu C= CU O O cu O "c" O m E N O E U i -a Ca m O O Cv O tf Q. cn cu CD H . � cn W cn 0) cn CU 'v`I }' cn N L C6 O cn O CD C= '9 c O Cv E 0 U) O CL cn � cu cu O �O Cll W L cu L 0- 'U Ca U) -a O � cn co +_r c: J E CU E CU O O' U � a) �i _co E ^1 0 W {'�^� �^ 1� cn W O ' Ca L a E E cu O c a) L a) U cn p O cn U �(n 0 � O . .i—o L 40- ca '_ U C 0 Q cu cn to P to N N QN 1U—ON O 0 :3 p p N C to 179 ab— m 1.11 _ O Lm cc ncLmoo� �r'Ia�Nc cccu Etm cc N cc M O � co � In m d I_ N I -0 long NN t •L= •LN G p Z. �m O �c Om•L 'aim �m co M %6- ill .4)%- 0 ri 4- Cc rim- 0 C.) O O Lcc LL cm O N C O L Q mcvO=O Q cc OQ Gi QQ L �+ i =Q O= I. L 5OL= cn a = a O "-�., > O N 0 0 M C: < C .� 0 v Q O J ca U O `-' N O J L p O L u m C i N p1 � m a-+ .fl > - 0 fu fu N cn Q� NoOE4- fu f i 00 m i m E--OVp Falco N N al 4 E -0i _ , �J to -61 Q0 � 0 i M i C m - - U U +.+ m E L- O 0) 0O E �� E E CO m V mnC�a�� `~ 0 Nm 0 0� O p N fl. =-+ - c -0 C U "a "a � •V a�..r •- -0 C N i= C O �N 0 � �m L C ��.o.GO OC 0 +-' O C •� �• .%� `�fu Oa_0�� Q =i L OM0LCON fa -0 �0N fuC � EaOE�� iv Q��Q�Q Ind E�� �N E p- m �NLLOcaO CN C:)0 N � E i NLn 0 UM0� �>+, Gym m0- 'Q o -NN— O-� LC•z� °� C �Cd M'a �L�-�0m0 DO L0 Ln� ° O R p Q. c `� C a.+ � L C1C 3 .0 o ._ c cn 47 o CIC c-O=F-ccp °°L moat N.� ° C .1. + E— N L M y.. 0 0 OQ�cn�aV) Vm (�� k!u _ UN���vC m��=� •=Nt c m G V p00 00 U.0 .c0 CO•- Cod (Ac Q = � Q n o � C:) o � -1 o N � Mod' � Ln t0 O n 06 NNNN� �0>�CV)2:O 0 C = 0 N 181 V E C N O O L 4� O � Q O ,> ■� f 4-J O> .Y A �C N fu > � U to _ � O :' .� O (6 O '~' L Vf '�CLi• > L 0 p C O'•O O •Q o E a o�� oa�Z t� V 1 (u �n &M � 'N fu _ L d' a =R �'~'� ammmi��co i f N V E_ 0 'O 4-J O m � C. Z *+ (n cn E L Q = rl ('a O � =3 � � � �V 4 cn E fu*+ G7 EWfu L. M N ,--i U .L E � �= vOip O 'i U 0 V -a m m> 4+ z M O V u caCL O N = cn a. co oo �_fu °' _ a� a Obi O 0 Cl-0 c� _ U L 42 182 TRAFFIC STUDY FOR BIRCH BAY AREA This Traffic Speed limit analysis was conducted in the Birch Bay Area in reference to the attached map and request from the Birch Bay Steering Committee. Birch Bay Drive is classified as a Rural Major Collector. The road is a north-south.road that follows the shore of Birch Bay, goes through Birch Bay State Park and is the main road for access to the bay that is used for recreation by the locales and tourist. Birch Bay Drive is set up with a summer speed limit from May 15 to September 15 that is 20 miles per hour and the rest of the year the speed limit of 35 miles per hour. The road is constructed with 10.5' driving lanes with 4-foot paved shoulders. There is an ordinance for no parking within the paved portions of the road. There is designated parking in several places along the road. Most of the parking spaces are diagonal parking where the driver must back into the traveled way to leave the parking space. There is substantial foot and bicycle traffic on this road in the summer months. TRAFFIC COUNTS & DATA 2004 Summer Count Summer Seed Winter Count Winter Speed Harborview & Shintaffer 3342 ADT 30.4MPH 85% 2945 ADT 39.5MPH 85% Harborview & Alderson Rd. 4668 ADT 28.8MPH(85%) 2149 ADT 35.4MPH(85%) Jackson & State Park 2302 ADT 28.1MPH 85% 783 ADT 35.2MPH 85% TRAFFIC COUNTS & DATA 2007 & 2008 Summer Summer Winter Winter Count Seed Count Seed North End (South of Shintaffer) 3309 ADT 27.4MPH(85%) 2008 Middle (South of Harborview) 4225 ADT 28.6MPH(85%) 2007 South End (South of Alderson) 1840 ADT 27.4MPH(85%) 2008 COLLISION (ACCIDENT) HISTORY — Birch Bay Drive There have been 43 (Reported) collisions in the 7 years from the year 2002 through the year 2008. This is a general summary of collisions. Collision (Accident ) History is compiled as the Public Works Department reviews the accident Report. The Reports are received from the Sheriff s department or Washington State Highway Patrol. Sometimes it takes as much as a year or more to receive the final collision records. The collisions per year are as follows: H:BirchBayBirch Bay Drive 2005 Amend 3_24_09.doc 183 COLLISIONS PER YEAR FOR BIRCH BAY DRIVE 2002 3 2003 7 2004 5 2005 8 2006 5 2007 11 2008 4 Seventeen of the collisions were during the summer during the reduced speed limit and twenty six were during the winter speed limit. The average is six per year with several thousand vehicles per day traveling these roads. SUMMARY OF COLLISION (ACCIDENT) HISTORY OF BIRCH BAY AREA Page 2 BIRCH BAY DRIVE 2002 TO 2008 PERCENTAGE* Collisions Collision report recorded as 20% 8 of 43 Exceeding the reasonable safespeed 10% 4 of 43 Apparently asleep 25% 11 of 43 Under the influence of alcohol or drugs 10% 4 of 43 Did not grant ROW 35% 16 of 43 Misc.: inattention, over center line, improper turn, following too closely, improper backing, failure to yield to pedestrian, other or none ANDERSON ROAD — between Shintaffer Road & Harborview Road 2002 TO 2008 Collisions Collision report recorded as 1 Fixed object 1 Improper backing ALDERSON ROAD - Birch Bay Drive to half way toward Blaine Road 2002 TO 2008 Collisions Collision report recorded as 0 JACKSON ROAD - Birch Bay Drive to Bay Road 2002 TO 2008 Collisions Collision report recorded as 2 Exceeding speed limit 3 Did not grant ROW to vehicle 1 Fixed object 1 Inattention H:/BirchBay/Birch Bay Drive 2005_Amend 3_24_09.doc im HARBORVIEW ROAD - Birch Bay Drive to proposed change request area 2002 TO 2008 Accidents Collision report recorded as 2 Exceeding reasonable speed 1 Fixed object CONCLUSION This road is the only road in the county that has different speed limits depending on the time of the year. The 20 MPH speed limit seems to be to slow by reviewing the 85th percentile and the 35 MPH speed limit in the winter is right on the 851h percentile. There doesn't seem to be any correlation in the high speeds in the winter with and the increase of collisions along the road. Page 3 H:BirchBayBirch Bay Drive 2005 Amend 3 24_09.doc 185 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 LEI SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: Public Works - Engineering INTRODUCTION DATE: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN COUNTY ROADS WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council is authorized under RCW 46.61.415 to establish speed limits on certain County roads; and WHEREAS, a traffic study was conducted by the County Engineer's office; and WHEREAS, the County Engineer has determined that it is necessary to formally establish a new speed limit on Birch Bay Drive; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that a speed limit be set and posted as follows: on Birch Bay Drive, from the intersection of Holman Avenue to the intersection with Harborview Road the speed limit will be 25 mph year round, and on Birch Bay Drive from the intersection of Harborview Road north to Birch Point Road the speed limit will be 25 mph from May 15 to September 15, and 35 mph the rest of the year, and on Harborview Road south of Forsberg Road the speed limit will be 25 mph year round. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the County Engineer is hereby directed to post the appropriate signs and that the Whatcom County Sheriff and the Washington State Patrol be notified by a copy of this ordinance. Provisions of this ordinance are hereby added to Whatcom County Code, Section ADOPTED this day of , 2009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Civil Deputy Prosecutor Seth M. Fleetwood, Council Chair Pete Kremen, Executive ( ) Approved Date Signed: _ ( ) Denied D- 1 :m WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-175 CLEARANCES Initial ,sate Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assi ned to: Originator: Alex Cleanthous y�C� ?G/rq 3131 Council Introduction E C E� V E D Division Head: 4114 Planning and Wain Harrison �� B 3119001 / � Development l�Ve / Committee/Council MAR 2 4 2009 Dept. Head: DavidStalheim �a� TCOM BOUNTY Prosecutor: Royce Buckingham /� COUNCIL �C' Purchasing/Budget: Brad Bennett Executive: /� t Pete Kremen •(va/J'Vl 3d TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Setbacks ATTACHMENTS: (1) Proposed Zoning Code Amendment (2) Whatcom County Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action SEPA review required? ( x ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes (x) NO SEPA review completed? ( x ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARYSTATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Proposed amendments to the setback requirements of the Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance, Title 20. Proposed amendments are to reorganize and relocate setback standards for clarity and of the requirements of each zone. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION. 3/31/2009: Introduced Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 1APlanning Division\Long Range Planning\Zoning Amendments\Zoning 2009\PLN2009-00001 - Setbacks\Councihagendabill.doc 187 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING & sue' Za DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham, WA 98226 lolil MEMORANDUM TO: Whatcom County Council Members THROUGH: David Stalheim FROM: Wain Harrison, Long Range Planning Supervisor lG� Alex Cleanthous, Planner A« DATE: March 20, 2009 SUBJECT: Setbacks David Stalheim Director J.E. "Sam" Ryan Assistant Director MAR 2 0 2009 PETE KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE Whatcom County Planning and Development Services have begun work on a series of "code scrub" items where is a part of the long range department's work plan. One item on that list is the setback requirements within title 20. The setback provisions have been a difficult development regulation for the public to clearly understand and for planners to implement. The current setback requirements depending on a particular zone may have requirements in three different locations throughout the zoning code. Having development regulations in numerous locations creates a lot of confusion in clearly outlining what the requirements per individual zone are. The recommended amendment from the Planning Commission alleviates many of those issues. It consolidates the requirements throughout the zoning code into one table, which if adopted would go within WCC 20.80.210 (5). The Whatcom County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed zoning text amendment on March 12, 2009 where the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval for the proposed zoning text amendment. Office (360) 676-6907 County (360) 380-8110 FAX (360) 738-2525 im SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: INTRODUCTION DATE: ORDINANCE NO. AMENDING WCC TITLE 20, TO CLARIFY THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS WHEREAS, Whatcom County Planning and Development Services as a part of the long range work plan the "Code Scrub" item. The "Code Scrub" item are amendments that zoning administrative staff have identified as issues within the zoning code, WHEREAS, Planning staff discussed what issues within the current setback regulation could be alleviated through an amendment that purely reorganizes and clarifies language and does not change any of the setback standards, WHEREAS, Whatcom County Planning staff initiated the 60 Day Review process as required by RCW 36.70A.106 on the proposed zoning code amendment WHEREAS, Notice of the proposed Planning Commission Public Hearing was in the Bellingham Herald on February 26, 2009 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 12, 2009 and voted unanimously 5-0 on a recommendation of approval for the proposed setback amendment FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION 1. From the assessment of Planning staff and from comments received from the public, it was determined that existing provisions located in the Official Whatcom Zoning Ordinance, Title 20, which regulates setback were unnecessarily confusing and difficult to administer. 2. Whatcom County Planning and Development Services initiated a proposed amendment to the Whatcom County Official Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment was given file number PLN2009-0001 by Planning and Development Services. 3. 60 Day Notice of the proposed amendment as required by RCW 36.70A.106 was sent to the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) on December 19, 2008. On December 29, 2008 CTED notified Whatcom County that notice of the proposed amendment had been received and was forwarded to other interested agencies. No comments regarding the proposed amendment have been received from CTED, as of March 4, 2009. 4. On February 13, 2009, the Whatcom County State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Official gave the following non -project action a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS). im On February 3, 2009, staff completed a draft of the proposed reorganization of setback standards. The draft alleviated the issues discussed with zoning administrators and the Public Works Departments. The draft text was given to Whatcom County's front counter planner to serve as a prototype with which to conduct a "trial run" to ensure that the proposal is not inadvertently changing any standards and ensuring that there are no further non -substantive issues that this proposal could alleviate. 6. On March 1, 2009, the trial run was complete. Planner's working with the trial run copy of the proposal made additional suggestions to that would ensure clarity. 7. There is no substantive policy issues involved in this amendment. The proposed changes to the text are purely for clarification and implementation purposes. 8. The text amendment will clarify development regulations for the public to clearly understand what the setbacks requirements are for each zone. CONCLUSION The proposal meets all of the legal requirements as noted within the Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action. The proposed amendment is compatible with the Growth Management Act, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, along with policies within Whatcom County's County Wide Planning Policies. Approval of this amendment is in the public interest. 190 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that: Section 1. The Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance (Title 20) is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A. ADOPTED this day of 52009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Seth Fleetwood, Chairperson APPROVED as to form: Civil Deputy Prosecutor Date: () Approved () Denied Pete Kremen, Executive 191 EXHIBIT A 20.80.210 Minimum setbacks. (1) All structures, including accessory structures, shall be placed on their lots in compliance with the requirements of the Setback Table (20.80.210(5)), except as may otherwise be provided in this title. (2) Waterfront Lots. Waterfront lots shall comply with the building setback requirements set forth in the Whatcom County Shoreline Management Program. (See WCC 20.80.220(2)) (3) Vision Clearance. Notwithstanding any other setback requirements of this title, and unless specifically provided otherwise, a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property at the intersection of two streets, a street and an alley, or a street and a railroad. (a) A clear vision area shall consist of a triangular area, two sides of which are lot lines measured from the corner intersection of the street lot lines for a distance specified in subsection (c)(3) of this section (where the lot has rounded corners, the distance shall be measured from the intersection of those lot lines extended), and the third side of which is a line across the corner of the lot joining the nonintersection ends of the other two sides. (b) A clear vision area shall contain no planting, fence, wall, obstruction, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding two and one-half feet in height, measured from the top of the curb or, where no curb exists, from the established street center line grade; except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area; provided all branches and foliage are removed to a height of 10 feet above the grade. (c) The following measurements shall establish clear vision areas: (i) In a residential zone, the minimum distance shall be 30 feet, or at intersections including an alley, 10 feet; (ii) In all other zones, the minimum distance shall be 15 feet, or at intersections including an alley, 10 feet, except when the angle of intersection between a street other than an alley is less than 30 degrees the distance shall be 25 feet; (iii) Structures including buildings may be constructed within the clear vision area; provided, that any portion of the structure within the clear vision area is more than eight feet above the top of the curb or street center line grade and is supported by not more than two columns each of which is no more than eight inches in diameter. (4) Properties which are generally located on the Guide Meridian between Horton and Kellogg roads, and specifically identified in the Guide Meridian Improvement Plan, shall be subject to the provisions of said ' plan. The provisions of said plan shall supersede this chapter where there is inconsistency. (5) Setbacks Table. For the purposes of this chapter, the road classification used to determine setback requirements shall be as set forth in the right of way r-e fe ^nee WCC 20.80.210 dOGum^„+ maintained by the depaAment of p=un:=::_^ and eemmunity development servi . In the event a particular road is not listed in the fight ^r... ref renee decumen WCC 20.80.210, the department of public works shall determine the classification, which classification shall be based on the Whatcom County Development 192 Standards or such other local, state or federal roadway standards as the department of public works deems appropriate. 20.80.210 (5)(a) Setbacks Requirements of all Districts (1) No manure lagoon or other open pit storage shall be located closer than 150 feet from any Property line, or in a manner which creates any likelihood of ground water pollution or other health hazard. (2) All manure storage shall be protected from a 25-year flood, and shall be located 50 feet from irrigation ditches and waterways, 50 feet from the ordinarhigh water line of any lake or waterway; provided, that best management practices as determined by the Whatcom County Conservation District are in place. If the best management practices are not in place, 300 feet shall be substituted for 50 feet. (3)'In all districts where a single-family residence is a primary permitted use, a building permit maybe issued for the construction of a replacement dwelling on the same lot; provided, that the owner agrees by filing a statement with the building official that the old dwelling will be demolished, removed or converted to another permitted use upon completion of the new dwelling. 20.80.210 (5)(b) Setbacks Table Commercial Setbacks a n tz :9 MEr. Road Tyne Other Commercial, Collector Minor Local Neighbor- Minor Side Rear Industrial, I- Arterials or Collectors Access hood Access Yard Yard S, State Maior Streets Collector Streets Hwvs, Collectors Principal & Minor Arterials 30' 30' 25' 25' 25' 20' 0' 10' 1. Setbacks for those parcels situated adjacent to Urban Residential, Rural Cluster Development and Rural Zone Districts shall be administered pursuant to WCC 2062.550 (Buffer areal Road Type Other Commercial, Collector Minor Local Neighbor- Minor Side Rear Industrial, I- Arterials or Collectors Access : hood Access Yard Yard 5, State Maior Streets Collector Streets Hwvs, Collectors Principal & Minor Arterials 30' 30' 25' 25' 25' 20' 0' 10, Water Resource Protection Overla 30' 30' 20' 20 20' 20' 0' S' 1. Setbacks for those parcels situated adjacent to Urban Residential, Urban Residential Medium Density, Residential Rural and Rural Zone Districts shall be administered pursuant to WCC 20.63.550 (Buffer area . 2. Setback requirements for recreational vehicle parks shall be 30 feet for side and rear yards. 193 3. Front yard setback requirements for service islands of service stations shall be 25 feet to the center line of the driveway of the closest service island. ma.11 Town om e�alw . LTG M Em Road Type Other Commercial, Collector Arterials or Maior Collectors Minor Collectors Local Access Streets Neighbor- hood Collector Minor Access Streets Side Yard Rear Yard Industrial, I- 5, State Hwvs, Principal & Minor Arterials 30' 30' 25' 25' 25' 20' 0' 10, 1. Commercial uses shall be allowed to reduce front yard setback to 10 feet and the side yard setback to zero feet where the site and landscape plans promote pedestrian access to the building. Road Tvpe ,a Other Commercial, Collector Arterials or Maior Collectors Minor Collectors Local Access Streets Neighbor- hood Collector Minor Access Streets Side Yard Rear Yard Industrial, I- 5, State Hwvs, Principal & Minor Arterials 30' 30' 25' 25' 25' 20' 1. Setbacks for those parcels situated adjacent to Urban Residential, Residential Rural and Rural Zone Districts shall be administered pursuant to WCC 20.64.550 (Buffer area). 2. Setback requirements for multifamily housing, including all condominiums except time share condominiums and mobile home parks, shall be 20 feet for side and rear yards. 3. Setback requirements for recreational vehicle parks, and resort -oriented hotels and motels including time share condominiums shall be 45 feet for front yard, and 20 feet for side and rear 4. Setback requirements for nonresort-oriented hotels and motels and nonhabitation commercial develo ment shall be zero feet for side ards and 10 feet for rear yards. Road Type Other Commercial, Collector Arterials or Maior Collectors Minor Collectors Local Access Streets Neighbor- hood Collector Minor Access Streets Side Yard Rear Yard Industrial, I- 5, State Hwvs, Principal & Minor Arterials 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 20' 0' 10, Water Resource Protection Overla 30' 30' 20' I 20' I 20' 20' 0' 10, 1. Neighborhood Commercial District. Setbacks for those parcels situated adjacent to Urban Residential, Residential Rural and Rural Zone Districts shall be administered pursuant to WCC 20.60.550 (Buffer areal 194 ' - When located adjacent to I-5 these setbacks ma_y be reduced to 25' subject to the screening requirements under WCC 20.80.300. 2 - Roof overhangs or other architectural features shall not project further than 18 inches into the side or rear yard setbacks. Such overhangs may extend six feet into the front yard setback; however, in no case will they extend more than one-half the depth of the front yard setback. Industrial Setbacks Yu �§ Road Tyne Other Commercial, Collector Minor Local NeiEhbor- Minor Side Rear Industrial, I- Arterials or Collectors Access hood Access Yard Yard 5, State Manor Streets Collector Streets Hwvs, Collectors Principal & Minor Arterials 100, 100, 100' 100, 100, 30' 30' 30' 1. All setbacks shall be increased by one foot for each foot of building height, excluding tanks and similar structures, which exceeds 50 feet. 2. The building setbacks of WCC 20.80.210 shall not apply to utility or security structures such as poles, meters, fences, guard structures and the like, nor to structures relating to shipment on railroad rights-of- wayprovided, that no traffic hazards are created. For nonindustrial buildings, the zoning administrator may reduce or eliminate side and rear yard setbacks from side and rear property lines that are adjoining an industrial district provided that all of the following provisions are met: (i Screening will be provided to protect adjacent uses from unsightliness or visual distraction; (ii) A site plan has been submitted that shows that all structures and improvements including roof overhangs will not cross property boundaries, and a stormwater management plan has been provided that shows that runoff will be diverted to on -site drainage facilities; (iii) A reduction in setbacks will not reduce solar access on adjacent properties or if a setback reduction will result in reduced solar access, all parties having an ownership interest in the property adjacent to the side or rear yards to be reduced stipulate in writing, on forms provided by the zoning administrator, to the reductions. The zoning administrator maw require a title report to establish the ownership interests in the adjacent property; (iv) Adjoining properties will be shielded from light sources; (v) The use and storage of toxic or hazardous materials or processes will not be located within what would otherwise be the setback area unless adequate facilities to contain accidental spills on -site consistent with state regulations are provided; (vi) The reduced setbacks will not interfere with existing sewer, water and other easements; and (vii) Reduced setbacks will not result in the creation of a traffic hazard nor will the reduced setback create a circumstance that does not comply with WCC 20.80.210(3), Vision Clearance. 195 3. Setbacks for parcels adjoining a nonindustrial district(s) shall be administered pursuant to WCC 20.68.550 (Buffer Area) and Policy 1.05 of the Heavespact Industrial designation of the Cherry Point - Ferndale Subarea Plan. 4. The setback requirements of the Heavespact Industrial District shall apply to the storing and handling of hazardous materials; provided, that if federal and/or state regulations require different setbacks the greater setback (county, federal, or state) shall be used. 5. The zoning administrator may reduce setbacks for nonindustrial buildings to those of Light Impact Industrial if the reduced setbacks would not interfere with existing sewer, water and other easements. A greater reduction in setback requires approval under subsection 3 d of this section. i`.^3*' Road Tvne Other Commercial, Collector Arterials or Maior Collectors Minor Collectors Local Access Streets Neij4hbor- hood Collector Minor Access Streets Side Yard Rear Yard Industrial, I- 5, State Hwys, Principal & Minor Arterials 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 20' 10, 10, 1. All setbacks shall be increased by one foot for each foot of building height which exceeds 35 feet. 2. The building setbacks of WCC 20.80.210 shall not apply to utility or security structures such as poles, meters, fences, guard structures and the like. In addition, the zoning administrator may reduce side and rear yard setbacks for other structures as provided by subsection (1)(d) of this section (4) of the Light Impact Industrial zone. 3. Setbacks for parcels adjoining a nonindustrial district(s) shall be administered pursuant to WCC 20.66.550 (Buffer Area). 4. The zoning administrator may reduce or eliminate side and rear yard setbacks from side and rear properly lines that are adjoining an industrial district: provided, that the administrator finds that all of the following provisions are met: (i) Screening will be provided to protect adjacent uses from unsightliness or visual distraction; (ii) A site plan has been submitted that shows that all structures and improvements including roof overhangs will not cross property boundaries, and a stormwater management plan has been provided that shows that runoff will be diverted to on -site drainage facilities; (iii) A reduction in setbacks will not reduce solar access on adjacent properties or if a setback reduction will result in reduced solar access, all parties having an ownership interest in the property erty adjacent to the side or rear yards to be reduced stipulate in writing, on forms provided by the zoning administrator, to the reductions. The zoning administrator may require a title report to establish the ownership interests in the adjacent property (iv) Adjoining properties will be shielded from light sources; (v) The use and storage of toxic or hazardous materials or processes will not be located within what would otherwise be the setback area unless adequate facilities to contain accidental spills on -site consistent with state regulations are provided; 196 NO The reduced setbacks will not interfere with existing sewer, water and other easements; and (vii) Reduced setbacks will not result in the creation of a traffic hazard nor will the reduced setback create a circumstance that does not comply with WCC 20.80.210(3), Vision Clearance. Road Tyne Other Commercial, Collector Arterials or Minor Collectors Local Access Streets Neighbor- hood Collector Minor Access Streets Side Yard Rear Yard Industrial, I- 5, State Hwys, Principal & Minor Arterials Manor Collectors 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 20' 10, 10, 1. All setbacks shall be increased by one foot for each foot of building height which exceeds 35 feet. 2. The building setbacks of WCC 20.80.210 shall not apply to'utility or security structures such as poles, meters, fences, guard structures and the like. 3. Setbacks for parcels adjoining a nonindustrial district(s) shall be administered pursuant to WCC 20.67.550 (Buffer Area 4. The provisions of subsection (1)(d) of this section maybe applied to side and rear yard setbacks in the General Manufacturing District. The zoning administrator may reduce or eliminate side and rear yard setbacks from side and rear property lines that are adjoining an industrial district; provided, that the administrator finds that all of the following provisions are met: . (i) Screening will be provided to protect adjacent uses from unsightliness or visual distraction; (ii) A site plan has been submitted that shows that all structures and improvements including roof overhangs will not cross property boundaries, and a stormwater management plan has been provided that shows that runoff will be diverted to on -site drainage facilities; (iii) A reduction in setbacks will not reduce solar access on adjacent properties or if a setback reduction will result in reduced solar access, all parties having an ownership interest in the property adjacent to the side or rear yards to be reduced stipulate in writing, on forms provided by the zoning administrator, to the reductions. The zoning administrator mqy require a title report to establish the ownership interests in the adjacent property; (ivyjoining properties will be shielded from light sources; (v) The use and storage of toxic or hazardous materials or processes will not be located within what would otherwise be the setback area unless adequate facilities to contain accidental spills on -site consistent with state regulations are provided; (vi) The reduced setbacks will not interfere with existing sewer, water and other easements; and (vii) Reduced setbacks will not result in the creation of a traffic hazard nor will the reduced setback create a circumstance that does not comply with WCC 20.80.210(3), Vision Clearance. 197 5. The zoning administrator may reduce setbacks for nonindustrial buildings to those of Light Impact Industrial if the reduced setbacks would not interfere with existing sewer, water and other easements. A greater reduction in setback requires approval under subsection (2)(d) of this section. Road Type Other Commercial, Collector Arterials or Manor Collectors Minor Collectors Local Access Streets Neighbor- hood Collector Minor Access Streets Side Yard Rear Yard Industrial, I- 5, State Hwys, Principal & Minor Arterials 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 10, 10, 1. Maximum building height shall not exceed 35 feet; except, that an additional foot in height is allowed for each one -foot increase in setback in the yard adjoining the interstate highwaup to 45 feet in the West Bakerview/I-5 Interchange area of the Urban Fringe Subarea and up to 75 feet in the Birch Bay-Lynden Road area of the Blaine -Birch Bay Subarea. Height of structures, where applicable, shall also conform to the general requirements of WCC 20.80.675. �� aayy`//"gg'��z 5j.3rrfi'���,'�12�" frg s'� ^-'k' siu's?=,may g✓'x.,3�' 4frz y � ri':`,� `� �` 4"<,� ��1� ir�.33;� �""� �a��`� S ,�'� �2 4..w>.wm'Pw3�S. =a:. Road Type Other Commercial, Collector Arterials or Major Collectors Minor Collectors Local Access Streets Neighbor- hood Collector Minor Access Streets Side Yard Rear Yard Industrial, I- 5, State Hwys, Principal & Minor Arterials 30' 30' H 30' 30' 20' 10, 10, 1. Setbacks for parcels adjoining a nonindustrial district shall be administered pursuant to WCC 20.70.550 (Buffer Area 2. The zoning administrator may reduce or eliminate side and rear yard setbacks from side and rear property lines that are adjoining an industrial district; provided, that the administrator finds that all of the following provisions are met: (i) Screening will be provided to protect adjacent uses from unsightliness or visual distraction; (ii) A site plan has been submitted that shows that all structures and improvements including roof overhangs will not cross property boundaries, and a stormwater management plan has been provided that shows that runoff will be diverted to on -site drainage facilities; (iii) A reduction in setbacks will not reduce solar access on adjacent properties or if a setback reduction will result in reduced solar access, all parties having an ownership interest in the property adjacent to the side or rear yards to be reduced stipulate in writing, on forms provided by the zoning administrator, to the reductions. The zoning administrator may require a title report to establish the ownership interests in the adjacent property, (iv) Adjoining properties will be shielded from light sources; _ (V) The use and storage of toxic or hazardous materials or processes will not be located within what would otherwise be the setback area unless adequate facilities to contain accidental spills on -site consistent with state regulations are provided; us (vi) The reduced setbacks will not interfere with existing sewer, water and other easements; and (vii) Reduced setbacks will not result in the creation of a traffic hazard nor will the reduced setback create a circumstance that does not comply with WCC 20.80.210(3), Vision Resource Lands Setbacks OR Road Tyne Otlter Commercial, Collector Minor Local Neighbor- Minor Side Rear Industrial, I- Arterials or Collectors Access hood Access Yard Yard Maior 5, State Streets Collector Streets Hwvs, Collectors Principal & Minor Arterials 50, 50, 50, 50' 50' 1 S0' 20' 20' 1. The 50-foot front yard setback requirement for new buildings or additions may be waived if the zoning administrator finds the new building or addition is located along the same building line(s) of existing structures and will result in no additional encroachment, the public interest, safety and health are protected; provided, that for a new buildingthe he applicant shall also demonstrate that the proposed location is necessary for the economic viability and the continued operation of the agricultural use. 2. The minimum separation between new residences not located on the same property and farm uses such as barns, pens, milking sheds, or areas used to contain, house or feed animals or store manure or feed, shall be 300 feet. New farm uses such as barns, pens, milking sheds, or areas used to contain, house or feed animals or store manure or feed, shall be situated at least 150 feet from existing residences not located on the same property. Expansion of existing facilities within the 150-foot buffer, providing such expansion is not closer to a neighbor's residence, and pastures are excluded from this section's requirements. 3. Parcels of less than five nominal acres shall have the following minimum setbacks: Front Yards: — Primary arterials and secondary arterials: 45 feet. — Collector arterials: 35 feet. —Neighborhood collectors, local access streets: 25 feet. — Minor access streets: 20 feet. Side Yards: Minimum side yard setbacks shall be five feet. Rear Yards: Minimum rear yard setbacks shall be five feet. 199 Road Tyne Other Commercial, Collector Arterials or Maior Collectors Minor Collectors Local Access Streets Neij4hbor- hood Collector Minor Access Streets Side Yard Rear Yard Industrial, I- 5, State Hwvs, Principal & Minor Arterials 45' 35' 25' 25' 25' 20' 100' 100' Water Resource Protection Overlay 30' 30' 20' 1 20' 20' 20' 100' 100' 1. Parcels utilized solely for community centers shall observe the following minimum setback requirements: front yard: 50 feet; side yard: 25 feet; rear yard: 25 feet. �t'�•'CG .. � 'y : � '`°� � �r �,F ,� � Z Pt!k»r� � ��y-&.s ;7��y Y. 'fin .y3r` aaua' R ��^, t�.v�jrr. Road Type n aZ ' '4y Other Commercial, Industrial, I- Collector Arterials or Maior Collectors Minor Collectors Local Access Streets Neil4hbor- hood Collector Minor Access Streets Side Yard Rear Yard 5, State Hwvs, Principal & Minor Arterials 45' 35' 1 25' 25' 25' 20' 20' 20' Water Resource Protection Overla 30' 30' 20' 20' 1 20' 20' 20' 20' 1. Setbacks shall be increased to 100 feet for those parcels -in the Rural Forestry zone situated adjacent to the Commercial Forestry zone, except that such parcels whose owners have fled an agreement with the county auditor as specified in WCC 20.42.651 shall be subject to the standard setback of the Rural Forestry Zone. Forest industry buildings, stationary equipment or storage areas excludingscaling stations and watchman's stations shall not be located within 100 feet of any other zone district. 2. Parcels utilized solely for community centers shall observe the following minimum setback requirements: front yard: 50 feet; side yard: 25 feet; rear yard: 25 feet. 3. When a permitted residence (WCC 20.42.056), adjoins an existing parcel of 20 acres or more in size or a parcel that is being cultivated for commercial forestry production, a minimum building; setback of 100 feet shall be established from the common property line. 4. Lummi Island Scenic estates setbacks shall be administered under the Rural Residential Island setback standards. 200 Rural Residential Setbacks .yT,�,`��aS✓'"���!',�f�i!^�,.0y+^.s Ru�:�ral_Rexc7u�xal� . rN�Y4Af Road Type Other Commercial, Collector Minor Local Neighbor- Minor Side Rear Industrial, I- Arterials or Collectors Access Streets hood Collector Access Streets Yard Yard 5, State Maior Hwvs, Collectors Principal & Minor Arterials 45' 35' 25' 25' 25' 20' S'' S' Water Resource Protection Oyerla y 30' 30' 20' 20' 20' 1 20' S' I S' 1. Setbacks shall be increased to 100 feet for those parcels situated adjacent to Forestry Zone District, except that such parcels whose owners have filed an agreement with the county auditor as specified in WCC 20.32.651 shall be subject to the standard setback in WCC 20.80.210. low= Road Type Other Commercial, Collector Minor Local Neighbor- Minor Side Rear Industrial, I- Arterials or Collectors Access hood Access Yard Yard 5, State Maior Streets Collector Streets Hwys, Collectors Principal & Minor Arterials 25' 25' 25' 20' S' S' 1. Residential Rural -Island District. Setbacks shall be increased to 100 feet for those parcels situated adjacent to Forestry Zone Districts except that such parcels whose owners have filed an agreement with the county auditor as specified in WCC 20.34.651 shall be subject to the standard setback in WCC 20.80.210. Road Type Other Commercial, Collector Minor Local Neighbor- Minor Side Rear Industrial, I- Arterials or Collectors Access hood Access Yard Yard 5, State Maior Streets Collector Streets Hwys, Collectors Principal & Minor Arterials 45' 35' 25' 25' 25' 20' 5' S' No additional standards ` — Roof overhangs or other additional features shall not project further than 18 inches into the side or rear yard setbacks. Such overhangs may extend six feet into the front yard setback; however, in no case will they extend more than one-half the depth of the front yard setback. — Zero lot line side yard setbacks may be approved by the zoning administrator for single- family attached dwelling units along the common property line where the dwellings share a common wall. 201 Rural ZoninL Setbacks 4� g� Rrz.ra12 ,,s F r� a.,.„..,v�.,aEa�a. _0 Road Tyne Other Commercial, Industrial, I- Collector Arterials or Maior Collectors Minor Collectors Local Access Streets Neighbor- hood Collector Minor Access Streets Side Yard Rear Yard 5, State Hwvs, Principal & Minor Arterials 45' 45' 35' 25' 25' 20' 5515' Water Resource Protection Overla 30' 30' 20' 1 20' 20 20' 1. Setbacks shall be increased to 100 feet for those parcels situated adjacent to the Commercial Forestry Zone District, except that such parcels whose owners have filed an agreement with the county auditor as specified in WCC 20.36.651 shall be subject to the standard setback in WCC 20.80.210. 2. For lots created after 2001 through the cluster provisions, or lots created through the APO provisions which will be used for human habitation shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from the property line of any parcel or portion thereof which is designated or used for agricultural purposes. No structures shall be constructed within 30 feet of exterior, side and rear property lines, and no structure shall be constructed within 30 feet of an agricultural use. Subject to any further requirements within WCC 20.38 Agriculture Protection Overlay. 1— Roof overhangs or other architectural features shall not project further than 18 inches into the side or rear yard setbacks. Such overhangs may extend six feet into the front yard setback-, however, in no case will they extend more than one-half the depth of the front yard setback. Urban Residential Setbacks Road Tvpe Other Commercial, Industrial, I- 5, State Hwvs, Principal & Minor Arterials Collector Arterials or Maior Collectors Minor Collectors Local Access Streets Neighbor- hood Collector Minor Access Streets Side Yard Rear Yard 45' 35' 1 25' 10, 10, 10, 50 5' Water Resource Protection Overla 30' M 20' 20' 20 20' S' 5' 1. No specific setback requirements shall applesplanned concept submitted for technical committee review. This provision could be used for example to allow zero -lot -line development 202 e Road Type Other Commercial, Collector Minor Local Neighbor- Minor Side Rear Industrial, I- Arterials or Collectors Access hood Access Yard Yard 5, State Maior Streets Collector Streets Hwvs, Collectors Principal & Minor Arterials 45' 35' 25' 25' 25' 20' 5'' S' Water Resource Protection Overla 30' 30' 20' I 20' 20' 20' 1. Setback requirements for mobile home parks shall be 20 feet from the perimeter of the park for side and rear yards and shall be screey��ned from neighboring uses in accordance with WCC 20.80.345. ....')`.1e '. x ..FVi[z�'i '` o. a%�'�% i'x✓> o:lC�D Y. i &a..." RON .', Road Type Other Commercial, Collector Minor Local Neighbor- Minor Side Rear Industrial, I- Arterials or Collectors Access hood Access Yard Yard 5, State Maior Streets Collector Streets Hwvs, Collectors Principal & Minor Arterials 45' 35' 25' 25' 25' 1 20' Water Resource Protection Overla 30' 30' 20' 20' 20' 1 20' 5' 5' 1. Setbacks shall be increased to 100 feet for those parcels situated adjacent to Forestry Zone District, except that such parcels which are less than 20,000 square feet in a subdivision approved prior to January 1 1987 and whose owners have filed an agreement with the county auditor as specified in WCC 20.20.651 shall be subject to the standard setback in WCC 20.80.210 1— Roof overhangs or other architectural features shall not project further than 18 inches into the side or rear yard setbacks. Such overhangs may extend six feet into the front yard setback, in no case will the extend more than one-half the depilt of the front yard setback. 2 — Zero lot line side yard setbacks may be gpproved by the zoning administrator for single-family attached dwelling units along the common property line where the dwellings share a common wall. 203 Other Zoning Setbacks Road Type Other Commercial, Collector Arterials or Minor Collectors Local Access Streets Neighbor- hood Collector Minor Access Streets Side Yard Rear Yard Industrial, I- 5, State Hwvs, Principal & Minor Arterials Maior Collectors 100, 100, 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 1. Parcels utilized solely for community centers shall observe the following minimum setback requirements: front yard: 50 feet; side yard: 25 feet; rear yard: 25 feet. 2. Shoreline setbacks shall be administered consistent with the Shoreline Management Program of Whatcom County; provided, that a 25-foot setback is maintained from the ordinary high water mark of all water bodies and a 50-foot setback is maintained from the ordinar+high water mark of fish spawn streams. onLaum �; .: YiwP�() Road Type Other Commercial, .Collector Arterials or Minor Collectors Local Access Streets Neighbor Minor Access Streets Side Yard Rear Yard Industrial, I- 5, State Hwys, Principal & Minor Arterials -hood Collector Maior Collectors 30' 30' 20' 20' 20' 20' See .underlying Zoning 1,2 See underling zoning 1,2 No additional standards — Roof overhangs or other architectural features shall not project further than 18 inches into the side or rear yard setbacks. Such overhangs may extend six feet into the front yard setback; however, in no case will they extend more than one-half the depth of the front yard setback. `— Refer to additional provisions of WCC 20.64.250 or 20.65.400. Read Type 1 15, State 14 C 1�o Vials or- Major Gelleetors R4 Miner Gellleeters 1-V feral Lee V Miner Aeeess Streets Side Yards Rear Yards Additional ors May Be Applie fie- Prineipal &Nfiner Mefials or -al Aeeess greets Zone - - - - - - - - UR 45' 3-S! 25' 2S= 2W 51* -5!—* yes 204 WIN im. 205 ** Minor- aeeess streets are those that are dead ends or that are eonstr-ained from evef TS!iP.�Sl7: _ - • • • • R • • R • • • • - - • • • • . • . • • - • • . M. R ••. • !• •!• • !! • •!! • • R• • • •• • Mam 206 • .fa PURIMP ■ ■ ._ ■ . _. . • ■ rz+�•zss!�rr.E. • _ .��i��s!ee!�:r:rs!siTr�: 207 •! �•� •!• j"A �FAMINE t♦����iC���.tea.��:�.��.:�.a�\�.>a'.'�..�itiasrirn��.�a�'.Iwi��.�ni.rir_a.a�r�b �'r�..n��.ria: niteia���.�a�iiimire.rs.. ia:� I.l�Sil. t�J \_./l- fe S�l�set.�l.11et i i n1ne. itA�/S i n Ski t�LT/ i aft Z.lw•I i i S iI �'�'.'I r r i �'�L�J�1A.A�J.A�1 �.Lllf�'/ nl \�/ i fa�J \ 1. r.. S i a7�I. •� jow rMGTT". s7.2. 209 �! ! - ! low 210 .I TWOM il �. AII K- MET- •• •.,• ••• • . •• ••• . SIR 11 Wil PTMIP M. MUM PPMPTWqW.Ifpm"mpM �- 211 THE PLANNING COMMISSION ENTERS THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT & REASONS FOR ACTION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION 1. From the assessment of Planning staff and from comments received from the public, it was determined that existing provisions located in the Official Whatcom Zoning Ordinance, Title 20, which regulates setback were unnecessarily confusing and difficult to administer. 2. Whatcom County Planning and Development Services initiated a proposed amendment to the Whatcom County Official Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment was given file number PLN2009-0001 by Planning and Development Services. 3. 60 Day Notice of the proposed amendment as required by RCW 36.70A.106 was sent to the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) on December 19, 2008. On December 29, 2008 CTED notified Whatcom County that notice of the proposed amendment had been received and was forwarded to other interested agencies. No comments regarding the proposed amendment have been received from CTED, as of March 4, 2009. 4. On February 13, 2009, the Whatcom County State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Official gave the following non -project action a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS). 5. On February 3, 2009, staff completed a draft of the proposed reorganization of setback standards. The draft alleviated the issues discussed with zoning administrators and the Public Works Departments. The draft text was given to Whatcom County's front counter planner to serve as a prototype with which to conduct a "trial run" to ensure that the proposal is not inadvertently changing any standards and ensuring that there are no further non -substantive issues that this proposal could alleviate. 6. On March 1, 2009, the trial run was complete. Planner's working with the trial run copy of the proposal made additional suggestions to that would ensure clarity. 7. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing for the proposed text amendment was published in the Bellingham Herald on February 26, 2009. 8. A Whatcom County Planning Commission public hearing on the proposed text amendment was held March 12, 2009. 9. There is no substantive policy issues involved in this amendment. The proposed changes to the text are purely for clarification and implementation 212 purposes. 10. The text amendment will clarify development regulations for the public to clearly understand what the setbacks requirements are for each zone. CONCLUSION The proposal meets all of the legal requirements as noted within the Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action. The proposed amendment is compatible with the Growth Management Act, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, along with policies within Whatcom County's County Wide Planning Policies. Approval of this amendment is in the public interest. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Whatcom County Council amendments to Title 20 as set forth in Exhibit "A". WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JeargiMelious, Chairperson David Stalheim, Secretary �G Dat �- Ia-(9q Date 213 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-176 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: Alex Cleanthous<< b / 3 -((® 3131 Council Introduction U tl Imo, G E N E IIDJ " L Division Head: Wain Harrison 4/14/09 P & D ) Council AR 2 4 2009 Dept. Head: David Stalheim / (q 4114 Council \6 ( sir,{dC 0 M C®UNTY Prosecutor: ? Zc) —6t,3 Royce Buckingham ,�� g I N L COUNCIL Purchasing/Budget: Brad Bennett Executive: Pete Kremen TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Urban Zone Amendments ATTACHMENTS: (1) Proposed Zoning Code Amendment (2) Whatcom County Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action SEPA review required? ( x ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes (x) NO SEPA review completed? ( x ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMIVIARYSTATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Whatcom County's URMX zone was found out of compliance by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, as it does not have the necessary development regulations in place to facilitate for development at adopted Comprehensive Plan map densities. Additionally proposed are amendments to the cluster subdivision requirements and amending the zoning code to lower development potential within the Bellingham UGA to one dwelling unit per ten acres. COMMITTEE ACTION. • COUNCIL ACTION. 3/31/2009: Introduced Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at. www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 214 WHATCOM COUNTY Planning & Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 360-676-6907, TTY 800-833-6384 360-738-2525 Fax MEMORANDUM TO: Whatcom County Council Members THROUGH: David Stalheim �( FROM: Wain Harrison, Long Range Planning Supervisor Alex Cleanthous, Planner ABC DATE: March 20, 2009 SUBJECT: UR, URM, and URMX zoning code amendments David Stalheim Director J.E. "Sam" Ryan Assistant Director � ■ 1 MAR 2 0 2009 PETE KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) Case No. 08-2-0021c found that the URMX zone does not have the necessary development regulations in place to facilitate for development at adopted Comprehensive Plan map densities. Current code has provisions in place for development in the URMX zone up to 10 dwelling units per acre, however, adopted Comprehensive Plan maps have URMX zones with up to 24 units per acre using TDRs. The WWGMHB order gave a compliance date of May 12, 2009. Additional amendments in this proposal are to the development potential in the Bellingham UGA without public water and sewer service. The County Council currently has in place ORD2008- 036 which limits development potential to 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. This interim ordinance was originally initiated in 2007 because of Planning Commissions recommended land use policies for the Bellingham Urban Fringe Subarea plan which is still in the process of being updated. This proposed zoning code amendment is included at this time to avoid future potential external inconsistencies between policies and development standards as the Bellingham Urban Fringe Subarea plan is being updated. The proposal also includes lowering the minimum lot size for cluster subdivisions within the UR, URM, URMX zone. Current code has 12,500 sq ft minimum, the proposal amends the minimum lot size in for all three zones to a lot size that is similar to that of when public water and sewer is available. For subdivision of land without public water and sewer to reach this minimum lot size community drain fields would need to be utilized, and placed in the reserve tract. This proposal would not require subdivision of land to the proposed minimum sizes it would purely allow for the option to do so. Office (360) 676-6907 County (360) 380-8110 FAX (360) 738-2525 215 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: INTRODUCTION DATE: ORDINANCE NO. AMENDING WCC TITLE 20, TO ADOPT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WITHIN THE URMX ZONE, MODIFY DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WITHOUT PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SERVICE, AND AMEND THE CLUSTER SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS IN THE UR, URM, AND URMX ZONES WHEREAS, Whatcom County was challenged before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) on the sizing of the Bellingham Urban Growth Area that was adopted in February 2008 by the Whatcom County Council (ORD2008-003), ,WHEREAS, WWGMHB Case No. 08-2-0021c found Whatcom County compliant on a number of the issues, the WWGMHB did find that the Bellingham Urban Fringe Subarea Plan is both an internally and externally inconsistent document, WHEREAS, The WWGMHB decision gave a May 12, 2009 date of compliance for the internal and external consistency issues found within the Bellingham Urban Fringe Subarea Plan and the Urban Residential Mixed Use zone, WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Council has interim ordinance ORD2007-051 in place for Bellingham Urban Growth Area. The interim ordinance applies specifically to the UR, and URM zones that the subdivision of lots will not be less than one dwelling unit per ten acres in the Bellingham Urban Growth Area, WHEREAS, Whatcom County Council initiated interim ORD2007-051 on September 27, 2007. The interim has been twice renewed; March 11, 2008 and September 9, 2008, WHEREAS, In accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 Whatcom County Planning and Development Services notified the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development on December 19, 2008 that the County will consider amendments to the Bellingham Urban Fringe Subarea Plan along with amendments to the UR, URM, and URMX zone, WHEREAS, Whatcom County received an acknowledgment letter from the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development on the proposed amendments to the Bellingham Urban Fringe Subarea Plan and the proposed zoning text amendments on December 29, 2008, WHEREAS, The Whatcom County SEPA Official on February 12, 2009 gave this non - project action a Determination of Non -,Significance, WHEREAS, A legal notice for the Whatcom County Planning Commission public 216 hearing was published March 1, 2009, WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed zoning text amendments and voted 5-0 in favor of recommending approval on the proposed zoning text amendments, FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION Whatcom County's designation of the Bellingham Urban Growth area was challenged and brought before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) case number 08-2-0021c. Petitioners Jack Petree, Robert Wiesen, and Caitac USA Corp challenged Whatcom County's adoption of the Bellingham Urban Growth Area (UGA) as being undersized and thereby insufficient to accommodate Bellingham's projected 20-year population growth. 2. Petitioners also contend that the County failed to consider the goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA) when designating the Bellingham UGA and that the designation itself does not comply with several of the GMA's goals. 3. Petitioners further challenged the consistency of the County's UGA designation with its comprehensive plan and County -wide Planning Policies and the lack of development regulations in the UGA to implement new UGA land use designations. 4. The Board found no evidence demonstrating that the Bellingham UGA designation was not guided by GMA goals nor is the designation of Bellingham's UGA inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan policies or countywide planning policies related to urban growth. 5. The Board found inconsistencies between Whatcom County's.Bellingham Urban Fringe Subarea. The Subarea plan's locational criteria and policies are inconsistent with adopted Bellingham Urban Growth Area maps. 6. The Board also found a lack of development regulations in place to implement the adopted density for the Urban Residential Mixed Use zone. The Board however found that because the challenge was early in the planning period, and the area is not served by urban services, and the County continues to hold the area at a density of one unit per five acres, that the Board would not grant the Petitioners' request for invalidity. 7. The Board ruled that amendments are necessary to amend inconsistencies between planned densities in adopted Comprehensive Plan maps for the Bellingham UGA and policies. 8. Whatcom County completed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 5 year review of the Bellingham Urban Growth Area and the Bellingham Urban Fringe Subarea. Through the EIS pubic process reserving lands for development at planned 217 urban densities was determined to be a significant concern from the public through those deliberations. 9. Whatcom County's Comprehensive Plan has allocated for the City of Bellingham a projected population of 113,055 for 2022. The City of Bellingham's population projection is 48% of Whatcom County's total population projection of 234,917 for 2022. The City of Bellingham serves as the population center for Whatcom County. 10. The Whatcom County Planning Commission held over 40 meetings on their recommended land use policies for the Bellingham Urban Fringe Subarea. 11. The interim ordinance lowering development potential in the Bellingham Urban Growth Area to one unit per ten acres was initiated to implement development regulations that would be consistent with Whatcom County Planning Commission November 2006 recommend land use policies for the Bellingham Urban Fringe Subarea Plan. 12. Raising the development standard from one dwelling unit per five acres to one dwelling unit per ten acres in the Bellingham Urban Growth Area will ensure that development will occur at urban densities. Five acre tracts create future issues for redevelopment, as they are inefficient to divide into urban size lots. This may ultimately have the effect of inefficient use of Whatcom County's Urban Growth Areas. 13. Efficient use of the Bellingham Urban Growth Area and all of the Urban Growth Areas within Whatcom County will ensure that development will be concentrated within the urban portions of Whatcom County, and will avoid the need to expand Urban Growth Areas into the rural and agricultural portions of Whatcom County. CONCLUSION The proposal meets all of the legal requirements as noted within the Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action. The proposed amendment is compatible with the Growth Management Act, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, along with policies within Whatcom County's County Wide Planning Policies. Approval of this amendment is in the public interest. 218 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that: Section 1. The Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance (Title 20) is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A. ADOPTED this day of 12009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Seth Fleetwood, Chairperson APPROVED as to form: Civil Deputy Prosecutor Date: () Approved () Denied Pete Kremen, Executive 219 EXHIBIT A Urban Residential WCC 20.20 20.20.252 Maximum density, minimum lot size and maximum lot size within an urban growth area. Maximum Minimum Lot Size Lot Size Maximum Min. Reserve District Gross Density Area (Cluster Cluster Conventional Cluster Lots Subdivisions) Maximum gross 00 „1''w UR: all densities without density: 1 N/A* 8'0ft 22,000 0 80% public sewer and water** dwelling unit/5 q. sq ft. acres UR: in Bellingham's UGA Maximum densi : 1 dwellingunit/10 10 acres 8,000 sq ft 22,000 sq. 80% without public sewer and ft. water acres Maximum gross UR: all densities outside density: 1 N/A* MOO 22,000 0 80/o short-term planning areas** dwelling unit/5 sq. ft sq ft acres Maximum gross 12,500 UR: all densities with public density: 1 N/A* 22,000 0 80% sewer or water** dwelling unit/5 sq. sq. ft. Acres UR-3: in short-term planning Maximum gross areas with public sewer and density: 3 8 000 water, and stormwater dwelling units/1 12,000 sq. ft. ' s q' ft N/A 25% collection and detention acre facilities Maximum gross density: 4 UR-4: in short-term planning dwelling units/1 areas with public sewer and acre 6,000 water, and stormwater 8,000 sq. ft. s ft q' N/A 20% collection and detention Minimum net facilities density: 4 dwelling units/1 acre** Maximum gross UR-6: in short-term planning density: 6 areas with public sewer and dwelling units/1 4,000 water, and stormwater acre 5,500 sq. ft. sq. ft. N/A 20% collection and detention facilities Minimum net density: 6 220 dwelling units/1 acre** TTA• ;,, TZoti:.,..L...„,',. TT/:A 1� -1-9-acres �8 Sq- t: 000 WA:r/s a� wate q' ft-. * For the purpose of administering the lot consolidation provisions of WCC 20.83.070, the conventional minimum lot size shall be five acres. ** Minimum density shall be calculated as net density, after deducting the areas restricted from development by critical area regulations and infrastructure requirements. 221 Urban Residential — Medium Density (URM) District 20.22.252 Maximum/minimum density and minimum lot size— General. H Maximum Minimum Gross Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Size Reserve District DensitySize — Lot Size — Area Conventional Cluster Clustered (Cluster Lots Divisions) Maximum URM: all densities without density: 1 N/A* 12'W 22,000 80% public sewer and water dwelling 7,200sq. ft. sq. ft. unit/5 acres Maximum URM: in Bellingham's UGA densi : 1 10 acres 7,200 sq ft 22,000 sq. 80% without public sewer and water dwelling unit/10 acres ft Maximum URM: all densities outside density: 1. N/A* 12,500 22,000 80% short-term planning areas dwelling 7,200sq. ft. sq. ft. unit/5 acres Maximum URM: all densities with public density: 1 N/A* ,2000 7,200 22,000 0 80 /o sewer or water dwelling s ft q' sq. ft. unit/5 acres URM-6: with public sewer and Maximum water, and stormwater collection density: 6 7,200 sq. ft. ' N/A N/A N/A and detention facilities dwelling units/acre URM-12: with public sewer and Maximum water, and stormwater collection density: 12 7,200 sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A and detention facilities dwelling units/acre URM-18: with public sewer and Maximum water, and stormwater collection density: 18 7,200 sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A and detention facilities dwelling units/acre URM-24: with public sewer and Minimum net density: 10 water, stormwater collection and dwelling detention facilities and units/acre transferable development rights N/A N/A N/A N/A pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.89 WCC and subsection (4) of this section. Maximum 222 density: 24 dwelling units/gross acre T RAC in.Bell ....L,.,m's U A 1 dwelling .. ;*/� 10 es12,500 Sq7 22-980 sq. f * For the purpose of administering the lot consolidation provisions of WCC 20.83.070, the conventional minimum lot size shall be five acres. 223 Urban Residential Mixed (UR-MX) District 20.24 20.24.251 Minimum lot size. For the purpose of creating new building lots within the Urban Residential Mixed District, several land use densities are herein provided. The minimum lot size requirements for new construction vary according to whether or not public sewer, water, and, where identified by the appropriate Comprehensive Plan policies, stormwater collection and detention facilities serve the project site. Where public sewer and water are not provided, the minimum lot size shall be five acres, except within the Bellingham UGA where the minimum lot size shall be 10 acres. If public sewer and water, and, where specified by the Comprehensive Plan, stormwater drainage facilities are provided, the minimum lot size shall be as presented in WCC 20.24.252. 20.24.252 Density and minimum lot size. ,. Maximum Minimum Minimum Lot Minimum Reserve Area Lot Size Size — District Gross Density Lot Size — Cluster Conventional Cluster Clustered Divisions Lots URMX: all densities Maximum without public sewer and densi dwelling :1 unit/ nit/ 5 N/A 4,000 sq. ft. 22 ft2,000 80% water acres URMX: in Bellingham's Maximum densi : 1 10 acres 4,000 sq. ft. 22.000 sq. 80% UGA without public dwelling unit/10 ft. sewer and water acres URMX: all densities Maximum outside short-term density: 1 22,000 sq. 80% planning areas dwelling unit/5 N/A 4,000 sq. ft. ft — acres URMX: all densities with Maximum densi : 1 N/A ft. 4,000 sq., 22000 sq . 80% public sewer or water nit/5 dwellingunit/5 ft 224 acres Maximum gross density: 10 URMX: with public dwellingunits/1 sewer and water, and stormwater collection and detention facilities acre Minimum net 4,000 sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A densi :6 dwelling units/1 acre Maximum gross density 10 URMX (6-10): with dwelling units/1 acre Minimum net public sewer and water, 4,000 sq ft N/A N/A N/A and stormwater collection and detention facilities densi :6 units/1 acre Maximum gross density: 12 URMX (6-12): with dwelling units/1 acre Minimum net public sewer and water, N/A — N/A N/A N/A and stormwater collection and detention facilities densi :6 units/1 acre Maximum gross denst 24 URMX G0-24): with dwellingunits/1 N/A N/A N/A N/A public sewer and water, acre Minimum net and'stormwater collection and detention facilities density: 10 units/1 acre (4) (D Minimum density shall be calculated as net density, after deducting the areas restricted from development by critical areas regulations and infrastructure requirements. (5) M Apr- densities evef sk dwelling units per- -aere,For development with densities over a zone's minimum net density, transferable development rights (TDRs) from the Lake Whatcom watershed sending area must be used, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.89 WCC, Density Transfer Procedure. Each development right transferred from the Lake Whatcom watershed may be used to develop three dwelling units in the UGA. TDRs must be used to attain any density greater dmn six 225 20.24.305 Lot clustering. (1) The purpose of lot clusteringis s to provide an alternative method of creating economical building lots with spatially efficient sizes. Clustering is intended to reduce development cost, increase energy efficiency and reserve areas of land which are suitable for forestry, open space or future development. (2) Lot clusteringis s required for residential land divisions when: (a) The propegy is located within a short-term planning area and public water and sewer are not available; or (b) The propegy is located within a long-term planning area. 20.24.320 Reserve tract. For the purposes of this section, "reserve tract" is defined as that portion of a proposed subdivision or short subdivision which is intended for agricultural, forestry, open space or future development purposes. All reserve tracts created through the subdivision process shall be subject to the following provisions: (1) After a site is initially subdivided pursuant to this chapter, the reserve tract may be retained by the subdivider, conveyed to residents of the subdivision or conveyed to a third party. (2) The reserve tract may be considered as a building lot; provided, that it is included in the overall density calculation of the original parcel of record. Within short-term planning areas where public water and sewer are not available and long-term planning areas, the reserve tract may be considered a buildinglot only under one of the following additional conditions: (a) Residential construction and accessory structures are restricted to a building envelope that is delineated on the final plat or short plat. The buildingenvelope nvelope shall: (iBe contiguous with the outside boundary of the clustered lots; and (ii) Be entirely located 200 feet or less from the outside boundary of the clustered lots, and (iii) Not exceed the maximum lot size for clustered lots in the zone. (b) Residential construction and accessory structures are restricted to a building envelope that is delineated on the final plat or short plat. The building envelope shall: (i) Be contiguous with an exterior property line of the original parcel of record, and (ii) Be entirely located 200 feet or less from an exterior property line of the original parcel of record; and (iii) Not exceed the maximum lot size for clustered lots in the zone. (c) An existing residential use and accessory structures may be located anywhere on the reserve tract. Clustered lots shall be located adjacent to such existing residential use, unless the zoning administrator determines that: 226 (i) Because of physical circumstances applicable to the site clustering adjacent to the existing residential use would hinder access to the reserve tract for future urban development; or (ii) Protection of environmental features would be negatively impacted; or (iii) Existing agricultural structures would be negatively impacted. (3) The reserve tract may be further subdivided only through the long subdivision process and only under one of the following circumstances: (a) The county finds that in developing adjacent tracts it would help to further the objectives listed in WCC 20 20 305 by dividing the reserve tract and increasing the area of reserve proportionately on the adjacent land being subdivided so that there is no net reduction in reserve area; and when the reserve tract is owned by the original developer or a third pagy, no property owner within the original subdivision will be significantly adversely affected or suffer a substantial decrease of property value as a result of dividing the reserve tract; or (b) When the Comprehensive Plan and zoning have been updated as part of the normal process (other than a revision initiated by the private sector or done for a specific area) and the public process has been gone through subject to findings that there is no adverse impact to critical areas and when the reserve tract is owned by the original developer or a third party, no properly owner within the original subdivision will be significantly adversely affected or suffer a substantial decrease of property value as a result of dividing the reserve tract; or (c) The site is within a short-term planning area and public water and sewer serve the proposed development on the reserve tract. (4) For sites located within urban growth areas wells sewage disposal systems and associated easements may be located on the reserve tract only if. (a) The applicant demonstrates to the Whatcom County health department that there is not adequate space on the clustered lots for such facilities and/or easements, and (b) A note is placed on the face of the plat stating that prior to filing a final plat with the county auditor that divides the reserve tract for urban density development: Q) Owners of clustered lots and the reserve tract shall hook up to public water and sewer; and (ii) Easements and restrictive covenants for wells and/or sewage disposal systems on the reserve tract shall be extinguished with health department approval, and (iii) Wells on the reserve tract shall be decommissioned in accordance with Washington Department of Ecology regulations and sewage disposal systems on the reserve tract shall be abandoned. The intent of this provision is to ensure that the reserve tract can be developed to its fullest potential, and such development will not be restricted by the existence of wells sewage disposal facilities and easements associated with these facilities. 227 (5) The purpose of the reserve tract as stated in subsections (1),2) (3) and (4) of this section shall be communicated in writing on the face of the plat or short plat. The number of developable building sites remaining (if any) with the original parcel of record based on the assigned density, shall also be prominently_displa_yed on the plat or short plat Whatcom County shall make every effort to assist all agents in communicatingclearly learly such information to all purchasers and prospective purchasers of building lots or reserve tracts. (66) That the above stated requirements in subsections (2) through (5) of this section shall be recorded as a deed restriction at the time of filing of the final plat or short plat, and shall constitute an agreement between Whatcom County and the owner of record. Said deed restriction may be amended by mutual agreement between said parties after review for consistency and compliance with the Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance the Whatcom County Subdivision Ordinance and the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. 228 THE PLANNING COMMISSION ENTERS THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT & REASONS FOR ACTION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR. ACTION 1. The Whatcom County Council on February 12, 2008 adopted Urban Growth Area (UGA) maps from the Bellingham UGA. The adopted maps, amended the Whatcom County Comprehensive plan and Title 20 zoning map, ORD2008-003. 2. Whatcom County's designation of the Bellingham Urban Growth area was challenged and brought before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) case number08-2-0021c. Petitioners Jack Petree, Robert Wiesen, and Caitac USA Corp challenged Whatcom County's adoption of the Bellingham Urban Growth Area (UGA) as being undersized and thereby insufficient to accommodate Bellingham's projected 20-year population growth. 3. Petitioners also contend that the County -failed to consider the .goals of the Growth Management.Act (GMA) when designating the Bellingham UGA and that the designation itself does not comply with several of the GMA's goals. 4. Petitioners further challenged the consistency of the County's UGA designation with its comprehensive plan and County -wide Planning Policies and the lack of development regulations in the UGA to implement new UGA land use designations. 5. The Board found no evidence demonstrating that the Bellingham ,UGA designation was not guided by GMA goals nor is the designation of Bellingham's UGA inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan policies or countywide planning policies related to urban growth. 0. The Board found that an inconsistencies between Whatcom County's Comprehensive. Plan. maps and the text of its Comprehensive Plan, and. the Comprehensive Plan's land use designations for the URMX zone. 7. The Board also found a lack of development regulations in place to -implement the comprehensive plan land use map's designations- for the Urban Residential Mixed Use zone. The Board However found that because the challenge was early in.the planning period,. and the area is not served by urban services, the County continues to hold the area at a density of one unit per five acres, that the Board would not grant the Petitioners' request for invalidity. 8. The Board ruled that amendments werenecessary to amend. inconsistencies between planned.densities in adopted. Comprehensive Plan maps for the Bellingham UGA and. policies 229 9. The Board ruled that amendments to the Urban Residential Mixed Use zone were necessary to implement development regulations that would facilitate for development at adopted densities within in the Bellingham UGA. 10. The WWGMHB decision gave a May 13, 2009 date of -comp Hance for the Bellingham Urbari Fringe Subarea and the URMX zone internal and external consistency issues. 11. On, November 9, 2006 the Whatcom County Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval for Land Use Policies for the Bellingham Urban Fringe Subarea Plan. The updates to these policies were, an effort to update the Bellingham Urban Fringe Subarea Plan. That update has not been completed. as of this point, and the approved land'use policies have-not gone .before the Whatcom County Council. 12. The Whatcom County Council has an interim ordinance ORD2007-051 in place for Bellingham Urban Growth Area. The interim ordinance applies specifically to the UR, and URM zones that the subdivision of lots wilt. not be less than one dwelling unit per ten acres.,., .13. Whatcom County Council adopted ORD2007-051 on September 27, 2007. The interim has been twice renewed since the:first.adoption; March 11 2008 and September 9,` 2008. 14. The interim ordinance. was initiated by Whatcom County Planning Staff to. implement development regulations that would be consistent with Whatcom County Planning Commission November 2006 recommend land use policies for.the Bellingham Urban Fringe Subarea Plan. 15. Lowering the development potential of'subdivision of land in the Bellingham . Urban Growth Area to one -dwelling unit per.ten acres will preserve. large parcels of land. for future urban development when public water and sewer. service is available. . 16. San Juan East & West Residential planning areas, the Samish Crest Residential Planning Areas, and the Geneva Residential planning areas are within the Bellingham Urban Growth Area, but are currently not within the Bellingham Urban Fringe Subarea map. -boundaries. -Not having these areas within the Bellingham UFSP creates internal inconsistencies within the Whaicom County Comprehensive Plan. 17.'RCW 36.70A.0$0 (2) states that planning documents need to be internally. consistent documents. Adoption of a new. ' ellingham Urban Fringe Subarea Plan map amendingthe boundaries of the Subarea will alleviate inconsistencies within the Comprehensive. Plan. . 230 18. Proposed amendments to the Bellingham Urban Fringe Subarea Plan go beyond the WWGMHB order. The proposal removes locational'criteria and policies, and adds language in the subarea plan to draw a distinction that all of the policies and locational criteria within the plan apply only to land zoned within the City of Bellingham's Urban Growth Area. This is to ensure future internal consistency of the County's Comprehensive Plan. 19. The County was challenged in WWGMHB case #05-2-0013 on the basis the rural designations within Whatcom County were not rural in character and promoted, sprawl,into inappropriate portions of the County. Whatcom County is in the process of updating the rural element of the County's Comprehensive Plan to comply with the WWGMHB order. Removal of Rural and Agricultural land policies from the Bellingham Subarea plan is to ensure internal consistency in the Rural element update process. 20. The Growth Management Act requires coordination among jurisdiction in the planning process which the City of Bellingham would prefer to be involved in the update process to the Bellingham Subarea land use policies and have an opportunity for City staff, community, Planning Commission'and City Council to discuss proposed changes. 21. In accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 Whatcom County Planning and Development Services notified the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development on December 19, 2008 that the County will consider amendments to the Bellingham Urban Fringe Subarea Plan along with amendments to the UR, URM, and URMX zone. 22. Whatcom County received an acknowledgment letter from the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development on the proposed amendments to the Bellingham Urban Fringe Subarea Plan, and the proposed zoning text. amendments on December 29, 2008: 23..The Whatcom County SEPA Official on February 12, 2009 gave this non- project action a Determination of Non -Significance. 24. A Bellingham Herald notice for the Whatcom County Planning Commission public hearing was published March 1, 2009. CONCLUSION The -proposal meets all of the legal requirements as noted within the Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action. The proposed amendment is compatible with the Growth Management Act, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, along with policies within Whatcom County's County Wide Planning Policies. Approval of this amendment is in the public interest.. 231 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission heieby recommends to the Whatcoin County Council amendments to the Bellingham Urban Fringe Subarea as set forth in Exhibit "A" and the Whatcom County Zoning Code as set forth in. Exhibit `B". WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Jea Melious, Chairperson David Stalheim, Secretary 3 Date Date 232 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-203 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 41212009 411412009 P & D /Counci Kate Koch iR E E� V 2 D L� Dept. Head.• David Stalheim �- .APR - 7 2009 Prosecutor: Royce Buckingham - �1 �l "�`O� VVHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Purchasing/ Budget: Executive: Pete Kremen TITLE OF DOCUMENT. An interlocal agreement between Whatcom County and the City of Bellingham for the purpose of annexation and development within the City of Bellingham UGA for approximately 20 acres in Bellingham's Northern Urban Growth Area to be called Cordata Park. ATTACHMENTS: (1) Whatcom County Contract Information Sheet (2) Proposed Interlocal Agreement Amendment # 17 between the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes (X ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Interlocal Agreement between the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County for annexation of approximately 20 acres (known as the Cordata Park annexation) generally located in Bellingham's Northern Urban Growth Area. This land shares a common boundary with the.City's Guide Meridian/Cordata Neighborhood to the north, south and east. The request is to authorize the County Executive to sign an amendment to the City of Bellingham Interlocal Agreement. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION.• Related County Contract #: 9712012 Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 233 WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET Whatcom County Contract No. 9712012 Originating Department: Planning and Development Services Contact Person: Kate Koch Contractor's Name: City of Bellingham Interlocal Agreement Is this a New Contract? If not, is this an Amendment to an Existing Contract? Yes No X Yes X No If an Amendment, previous number(s):_9712012 #16 Is this a renewal? Yes _ No _X Contract Amount: (sum of original If a Professional Services Agreement is more than $15, 000 or a Bid is contract amount and any prior more than $35, 000, please submit an Agenda Bill for Council approval amendments) and a supporting memo. Any amendment that provides either a 10% $ No Dollars increase in amount or more than $10, 000, whichever is greater, must This Amendment Amount: also go to Council and will need an agenda bill and supporting memo. $ If less than these thresholds, just submit to Executive with supporting Total Amended Amount: memo for approval. Scope of Services This amendment #17 to the Interlocal Agreement made between the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County is for the purpose of annexation of approximately 20 acres in Bellingham's Northern Urban Growth Area. Nature of Contract Amt: ( Check one) Fixed Amount _ Not to Exceed _ Open Ended _X Term of Contract: Expiration Date:None Renewal Option Yes No X Last Renewal Expires: Special Dates or clauses that require calendaring: Contract Routing Stens & Skanoff: /sign or initiall [indicate date transmitted 1. Prepared by: _Kate Koch Date 41212009 [electronic] 2. Attorney reviewed: — Date /{ j� [electronic] 3. Corrections made Date [electronic] hard copy printed 4. Attorney signoff.• Date 5. Contractor signed: Date 6. Submitted to Exec Office Date [summary via electronic; hardcopies] 7. Reviewed by DCA Date 8. Council approved (if necessary) Date 9. Executive signed: Date 10. Contractor Original Returned to dept; Date 11. County Original to Council Date 234 AMENDMENT #17 TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM AND WHATCOM COUNTY CONCERNING ANNEXATION This amendment is made by and between the City of Bellingham (hereinafter referred to as the City) and Whatcom County (hereinafter referred to as the County), political subdivisions of the State of Washington, pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, RCW 39.34. WHEREAS, the City and County have entered into an Interlocal Agreement executed December 19, 1997 concerning annexation and development within the City of Bellingham's Urban Growth Area (UGA); and WHEREAS, the City and County have agreed to an additional annexation of property initiated by property owners, and known as the Cordata Park annexation; WHEREAS, Section 1 of the Interlocal Agreement states that for each annexation the Interlocal Agreement "shall be amended to include a description of the annexation area and other amendments related to the annexation area." NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED: The following information is pertinent to the newly annexed area and shall be included as an amendment of the Interlocal Agreement: Annexation Name and Acreage: Boundary Review Board no. Map: Legal Description: Annexation Method: Lake Whatcom Watershed Analysis Roads serving the area: Compensation for Capital Facilities: Cordata Park Annexation; approximately 20 acres BRB 2009 — 01 Attached as Amendment #17, Exhibit A Attached as Amendment #17, Exhibit B 75% petition Not in Watershed West Horton Road Extension Attached as Amendment #17, Exhibit C Interlocal Agreement — Amendment #17 City of Bellingham & Whatcom County 235 Existing & Intended Services: Attached as Amendment #17 Exhibit D IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this amendment effective on the date indicated below. CITY OF BELLINGHAM By Mayor Date Attest Finance Director Date Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney WHATCOM COUNTY By County Executive Date Approved as to form: Whatcom County Prosecutor Interlocal Agreement — Amendment #17 City of Bellingham & Whatcom County 236 EXHIBIT A TO AMENDMENT #17 Maps Cordata Park Annexation LOCATION City ofBellinghammnit ]71/T771Tfitd c� L:OII117T77T7Tty Development nepartment, 2008 Interlocal Agreement — Amendment #17 City of Bellingham & Whatcom County 237 EXHIBIT B TO AMENDMENT #17 Legal Description That portion of Section 1, Township 38, Range 2E W.M lying generally west of the Bellingham City Limits, more particularly described as the east one half of the south west quarter of the south west quarter of said section 1, Township 38, Range 2E W.M. Together with that portion of the Horton Rd. right of way abutting the north side of said parcel. Interlocal Agreement — Amendment #17 City of Bellingham & Whatcom County 238 EXHIBIT C TO AMENDMENT #17 Compensation for Capital Facilities WHATCOM COUNTY ROAD PROJECTS REQUIRING POTENTIAL REIMBURSEMENT Project Cost within Urban Growth Boundaries Project Name and Year Cost Total State/Fed Local Location Complete Match Share' West Bakerview (Mitchell 1997 50,210 50,210 0 50,210 to W. Maplewood Austin Street (Cable to 1998 809,090 809,090 109,720 699,370 Lake Louise Terrace Avenue Rock Wall 1998 23,340 23,340 0 23,340 Northwest Drive 1999 1,008,730 498,200 0 498,200 Bellingham C/L to Axton) Van Wyck Road (SR 539 — 1999 215,940 107,970 0 107,970 1,200 feet east) Slater Road (1-5 to 2000 227,100 227,100 0 227,100 Northwest Drive James/E. Bakerview 2000 697,380 697,380 430,220 267,160 Signalization Yew Street Road (Spring 2001 3,548,680 3,548,680 2,043,960 1,504,720 Valley to an Juan James/Telegraph 2001 461,750 461,750 0 461,750 Intersection Improvements Alderwood/Airport/Bakervi 2001 1,500,000 1,500,000 998,540 501,460 ew Marine to 1-5 Total 4,341,280 NOTES: 1. Only Whatcom County "Road Funds" are eligible for re-imbursement. Updated February 15, 2007 Interlocal Agreement — Amendment #17 City of Bellingham & Whatcom County 239 EXHIBIT D — TO AMENDMENT #17 Existing and Intended Service Providers Service Existing Provider Intended Provider Government: Whatcom County City of Bellingham Water: None City of Bellingham Sewer: None City of Bellingham Law Enforcement: Whatcom County Sheriff City of Bellingham Fire Protection: Whatcom County Fire District City of Bellingham Library: Whatcom County Library City of Bellingham District Road Maintenance: Whatcom County City of Bellingham Public School: Meridian School District #505 Meridian School District #505 Interlocal Agreement — Amendment #17 City of Bellingham & Whatcom County 240 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-052 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator David Stalheim: ( �� -(� I� M IE D 11-12-08 Planning Committee Division Head: JN 2 0 2009 H ° '°•<`:` �g 1 tz O i iA� ZY i ' 'J 11-25-08 Planning Committee Dept. Head: David Stalheim �.. /C�" .d .1-13-09 Planning Committee Prosecutor: 1-27-09 PlanningCommittee Purchasing/Budget: COUNCIL 2/10/09 2/24/09 Planning Committee Planning_ Committee Executive: 3/31/09 �Planni-ig Committee TITLE OF DOCUM NT. Urban Growth Area Review Process ATTACHMENTS: Memo SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes (x ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Discussion regarding Urban Growth Areas review process, focusing on growth allocation memo and relevance to alternatives discussion. COMMITTEE ACTION. • COUNCIL ACTION. 1/13/2009: Discussed. Approved joint Planning Commission/ Council meeting on February 12, 2009 1/27/2009: Discussed. 2/10/2009: Discussed 2/24/2009: Discussed. Gave staff direction to forward Ms. Craven memo to the GMCC. 3/31/2009: Discussed Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: ,2008-389 Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at. www. co. whatcom. wa. us/council. 241 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 5280 Northwest Drive, Suite B Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 360-676-6907, 360-380-8100 360-738-2525 Fax �L,9SMNG��2.. MEMORANDUM TO: Pete Kremen, County Executive County Council FROM: David Stalheim, Director DATE: April 6, 2009 RE: Phase II Population and Employment Allocations DAVID STALHEIM Director J.E. "SAM" RYAN Assistant Director On April 1st, a report on the status of the Phase II requests for population and employment allocations was presented to the Growth Management Coordinating Council. All cities, except Blaine, have put forth preliminary proposals for these allocation requests. Whatcom County must also make population allocations to Birch Bay and rural areas, and employment allocations to Birch Bay, Cherry Point, Columbia Valley and rural areas. In order to begin the dialogue about those county allocations, I have included tables with potential allocations for these areas, as well as assumptions for Blaine. Table 1, Population Allocation Requests Phase II 2008 Requested Study Area Population Allocation 2029-31 Total Bellingham UGA 89,284 19,543 108,827 Birch Bay UGA 5,290 5,290 Blaine UGA 5,754 5,754 Cherry Point UGA - Columbia Valley UGA 3,924 1,076 5,000 Everson UGA 2,395 1,948 4,343 Ferndale UGA 12,019 8,687 20,706 Lynden UGA 11,613 7,414 19,027 Nooksack UGA 1,137 1,159 2,296 Sumas UGA 1,279 793 2,072 Rural 58,305 58,305 TOTALS 191,000 40,620 231,620 GMCC Recommendation 60,490 251,490 Difference (19,870 (19,870) 242 TO: Pete Kremen and County Council RE: Phase II Growth Allocation Pronc The following table compiles totals using the following assumptions: 1) Blaine population allocation follows Alternative "Y", which is the pattern of all cities except Bellingham; 2) Birch Bay population allocation is at the No Action level (remaining allocation from Community Plan); and 3) rural population allocation is at 15% of the GMCC recommended growth forecast, a reduction of current rural population trends at 19 - 24%. Table 2, Population Allocation with assumptions Phase II 2008 Requested Study Area Population Allocation 2029-31 Total Assumptions City proposal - may be increased by 4,137 to meet Bellingham UGA 89,284 19,543 108,827 current plan allocation of 113,000 Birch Bay UGA 5,290 3,299 8,589 No Action Alternative Blaine UGA 5,754 3,720 9,474 Alternative Y Cherry Point UGA - No residential growth assumed Columbia Valley UGA 3,924 1,076 5,000 Based on Council decision 3-17-09 Everson UGA 2,395 1,948 4,343 City proposal Ferndale UGA 12,019 8,687 20,706 City proposal Lynden UGA 11,613 7,414 19,027 City proposal Nooksack UGA 1,137 1,159 2,296 City proposal Sumas UGA 1,279 793 2,072 City proposal Rural 58,305 9,074 67,379 Rural growth at 15% of total county growth TOTALS 191,000 56,713 247,713 GMCC Recommendation 60,490 251,490 Growth forecast recommendation on 10-01-08 Difference (3,778) 3,778 Table 3, Em loyment Allocation Requests 2008 Requested Study Area Employment Allocation 2029-31 Total Bellingham UGA 51,153 18,829 69,982 Birch Bay UGA 436 436 Blaine UGA 2,971 2,971 Cherry Point UGA 1,182 1,182 Columbia Valley UGA 90 90 Everson UGA 638 446 1,084 Ferndale UGA 5,534 3,669 9,203 Lynden UGA 4,832 3,200 8,032 Nooksack UGA 206 266 472 Sumas UGA 254 182 436 TOTALS 67,296 26,592 93,888 GMCC Recommendation 33,909 101,205 Difference (7,317) (7,317) Page 2 of 3 243 TO: Pete Kremen and County Council RE: Phase II Growth Allocation Propc Table 4, Employment Allocation with assumptions 2008 Requested Study Area Employment Allocation 2029-31 Total Assumptions Bellingham UGA 51,153 18,829 69,982 City proposal Birch Bay UGA 436 205 641 No Action Alternative Blaine UGA 2,971 1,903 4,874 Alternative Y Cherry Point UGA 1,182 542 1,724 GMCC Regional/Local Employment Allocation Columbia Valley UGA 90 45 135 No Action Alternative Everson UGA 638 446 1,084 City proposal Ferndale UGA 5,534 3,669 9,203 City proposal Lynden UGA 4,832 3,200 8,032 City proposal Nooksack UGA 206 266 472 City proposal Sumas UGA 254 182 436 City proposal Rural 2,276 2,276 Rural employment growth at No Action Alternative TOTALS 67,296 31,563 98,859 GMCC Recommendation 33,909 101,205 Growth forecast recommendation on 10-01-08 Difference 2,346 2,346 Page 3 of 3 244 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Nn_ 2009-202 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 41312009 IF-D E E V E D l! 411412009 P & D Dept. Head: David Stalhehn APR - 7 2009 Prosecutor: Royce �.0 q Buckingham a, , ,�c,oCOUNTY COUNCIL Purchasing/ Budget: Executive: Pete Kremen TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Van Wyck/James and Queen Mountain Annexations ATTACHMENTS: (1) Memo SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes (X ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARYSTATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Discussion regarding the proposed annexation of the Van Wyck/James St and Queen Mountain areas of the Bellingham Urban Growth Area in light of the Urban Growth Area update process and the results of the Land Capacity Analysis for Bellingham. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION. Related County Contract #: 9712012 Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at: www.co.wltatcoiii.iva.uslcouizcil. 245 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 5280 Northwest Drive, Suite B 3 , . ya Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 360-676-6907, 360-380-8100 �4gHING 0 360-738-2525 Fax April 6, 2009 Tim Stewart, Director City of Bellingham Planning Department 210 Lottie Street Bellingham, WA 98225 Re: Annexation Requests and Urban Growth Areas Dear Tim: DAVID STALHEIM Director J.E. "SAM" RYAN Assistant Director Last week, the city of Bellingham provided a proposal to Whatcom County regarding population forecasts and allocations while also requesting that we proceed with amending the annexation interlocal agreement to accommodate two annexation requests of approximately 271 acres. Why is the city requesting annexation when it wishes to encourage infill development and have a low population allocation? These are issues that should be discussed before moving forward with the proposed annexations. On March 23rd, the Bellingham City Council voted to suggest a county -wide planning forecast population of 234,917 (No Action alternative), with Bellingham receiving 44.5% of the total county growth. This means that the city's future population will be 108,827, a reduction of 4,137 from your current plan and allocation of 113,000. The Whatcom County Council's decision in February 2008 was based on the future population of 113,000. The County Council decided to add the areas now proposed for annexation based on your population allocation. Since the Bellingham City Council has provided notice to Whatcom County that they wish their future population allocation to be reduced, the proposed annexation area is no longer needed for urban growth and would likely be a target for UGA reductions during the review process. The annexation interlocal agreement requires that the city and county consider county -wide planning policies. Those policies state that urban growth needs shall be met by a combination of in -fill within cities and by growth within urban growth areas, and positive incentives to infill development encouraged. If the Bellingham City Council wishes to encourage urban infill as suggested in Resolution 2009- 07, then I wonder why the city is proposing annexation of largely undeveloped areas. One way to encourage infill is to limit annexations. There simply isn't a demonstrated need to annex at this time, nor perhaps in the ensuing twenty year period if the city wants to limit population growth and encourage infill. 246 TO: Tim Stewart RE: Annexation Requests Even if the Bellingham City Council were to amend their March 23rd decision to get to the allocation in your current comprehensive plan, our new land capacity analysis suggests that the city can accommodate your current population allocation within city limits. Please note that our land capacity analysis does not even include the 2,032 housing units that the city asked to be assigned to the downtown area or the 224 units in Fairhaven. The analysis also does not include infill options such as accessory dwelling units. The county -wide planning policies state that the county and cities should develop a consistent approach to calculating the land supply needed. Over the past six months, staff and elected officials of the cities and county have developed this collaborative effort. I think that the results have bearing on the current annexation review and can be used for consideration of the interlocal agreement for annexation. You have raised a concern that we should be reviewing this annexation request based on the city's land capacity analysis completed in 2006, and not the current land capacity analysis. Whatcom County's decision in February 2008 was not an endorsement of the city's previous land capacity analysis. Doing so would have added approximately 2,200 acres to the Urban Growth Area. The Whatcom County Council agreed to a modest expansion of the UGA in February based on: 1) the future population of 11.3,000 and 2) some adjustments to the land capacity conclusions due to lack of information and staff resources. I would urge additional dialogue regarding the city's proposed population (19,543) and employment (18,829) allocation. The city's proposal assumes that for each new person there will be a job, creating an imbalance between jobs and housing. Not only would this encourage more commuter trips into Bellingham, it will also likely create greater pressure, rather than less pressure, on the estimated 18,000 existing vacant lots in rural and resource lands. There are 715 lots within one mile of the city's urban growth area. Not providing an adequate housing jobs balance will undoubtedly create greater demand to develop those vacant lots, including with the Lake Whatcom watershed. In conclusion, I cannot recommend that the County move forward with consideration of the Van Wyck/James Street or Queen Mountain annexations because the city has not demonstrated the need to annex at this time. The annexation request fails to provide the balance between infill and expansion of city limits and it fails to recognize the results of the collaborative land capacity analysis. Denying, or at least delaying action on this annexation will allow the city to continue work on its infill strategies that both Whatcom County and the city want to pursue. I would ask that the city either suspend these annexation requests pending our Urban Growth Area review process, or I would ask that the County Council invoke jurisdiction of the Boundary Review Board to review these requests. Alternatively, if the County Council disagrees with this recommendation, I would suggest that we reach an agreement with the City of Bellingham that requires these annexation requests to acquire development rights out of rural or resource lands. Both Whatcom County and the city want to limit growth in rural and resource lands, yet the city's policies on limiting the extension of utilities has taken our ability to implement this program away. If the city and county can Page 2 of 3 247 TO: Tim Stewart RE: Annexation Requests agree on the transfer of development rights, at least this annexation request, while perhaps not timely, would result in removal of development from rural or resource lands. I. have asked the Whatcom County Council to consider action on this issue at the April 14t" Council meeting. If the County Council agrees to move forward with an interlocal agreement amendment, consideration of that can be taken up by the County Council on April 28". If the County Council chooses to request the Boundary Review Board consider these annexations, we will await the outcome of their decision before considering amendments to the interlocal agreement. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on these annexation requests, Regards, David Stalheim, Director Whatcom County Planning and Development Services C: Dan Pike, Mayor Bellingham City Council Pete Kremen, County Executive County Council Rebecca Craven, Policy Analyst Page 3 of 3 248 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-055 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Council Committee Originator. 3117109 4114109 of the Whole er-Clinton Wendy Wef W�"'�/ (Executive Session) Division Head 3/17/09 C E� E D Karen Goens: l V APR _ 7 2009 Dept. Head: Prosecutor: olRgp"V Purchasin udget: i,u `. '— t �� �i ! °.. Executive: TITL OF D NT.• ATTACHMENTS: SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes (X ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARYSTATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Strategy planning discussion and positions to be taken regarding Deputy Sheriff's Guild collective bargaining. (per RCW 42.3,0.140(4)(a)) COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.usleouncil. 249 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 The Planning Commission and County Council held a joint executive session from, 6:00 to 7:00 p.m., to discuss pending litigation with the County's attorneys. Call To Order: The meeting was called to order, by County Council Chair, Seth Fleetwood, in the Whatcom County Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call -Planning Commission: Ken Mann, John Steensma, John Belisle, Jean Melious, Sean Wilson, John Lesow, Rabel Burdge, David Hunter Absent: Geoff Menzies Roll Call -County Council: Barbara Brenner, Seth Fleetwood, Carl Weimer, Laurie Caskey- Schreiber, Bob Kelly, Sam Crawford, Ward Nelson Staff Present: David Stalheim, Kate Koch, Wain Harrison, Matt Aamot, Dean Martin, Pam Brown Public Hearing Whatcom County has determined that an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared to evaluate environmental impacts associated with the 10-year review of urban growth areas throughout the County. The Whatcom County Council and the Whatcom County Planning Commission will hold a joint public hearing to take comments on the scope of the EIS, including the alternatives to be studied, mitigation measures, and probable significant adverse impacts. Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS at this hearing. Stalheim: We are here to gather public comments on the scope of the EIS and to be prepared for the review and revision of the Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) of Whatcom County. Comments regarding the alternatives to be studied, mitigation measures and probable adverse impacts are appropriate at this public hearing. For many it seems that Whatcom County just went through the UGA review process. However, both the Bellingham review and revision, as well as the County review process, that concluded in early 2008, were based on the current Comprehensive Planning horizon year of 2022, not the 20 year planning period that is required by the Growth Management Act (GMA). Whatcom County entered into a stipulated agreement that the UGA review will be for the 20 year period, which would be to the year 2029, if completed this year. Whatcom County and the cities are required to review and revise Comprehensive Plans and development regulations by December 2011. The UGA review is the first step in that 2011 update process. This is why we are developing one growth forecast that will be used for this UGA review and the 2011 update process. There have been comments made that we are doing more than is required by the GMA in this UGA review process. The GMA requires counties to review and revise UGAs at least every 10 years. Whatcom County was required to complete this review in 2007. We are now under a Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) order to have this revision complete by June 30, 2009. 250 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 2 Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 The requirements in the GMA include a review of densities permitted and the extent to which growth is occurring within the incorporated and unincorporated portions of the UGA. It is clear that we are required to amend the Comprehensive Plan and the densities to accommodate our growth for the next 20 years. Since our current Comprehensive Plan is only to the year 2022 we need to forecast and allocate growth for the next 7 to 9 years, as well as changing plans and densities as necessary to accommodate that growth. As part of our action revising growth forecasts and densities to accommodate the growth we must take actions that demonstrate internal and external consistency. This includes ensuring that other elements of our Comprehensive Plan, such as capital facilities and transportation elements, implement the UGA decision. We must also act to insure that the plan is coordinated externally with cities. Whatcom County can not act alone in the UGA review process. We must consider the desire of the cities for their future growth. Tonight we are here to hear input about what is to be included within an EIS. An EIS addresses proposed actions and alternatives. The proposed action is the revision of UGAs for a new 20 year planning horizon and any other amendments necessary to implement that decision. An EIS describes existing conditions and impacts that might occur if an alternative were implemented. An EIS addresses mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate impacts as well as identifying significant, unavoidable and adverse impacts of the proposed action. The period of scoping of the EIS ends tomorrow, February 18, 2009. The EIS will be drafted based on the final EIS scope. A draft EIS will be issued and the public will have at least 30 days to comment on the draft. That draft is scheduled to be released in May of this year. A final EIS is then prepared to respond to public and agency comments and will be issued prior to an action by the County Council. The action of the County Council must be within the range of the alternatives addressed in the EIS or additional review will be required. The topics that are planned to be covered in the EIS include air quality, cultural resources, earth, land use, shoreline use, plans, policies, plants, animals, population, employment, public services, utilities, transportation and water resources. The EIS will be drafted primarily by our consultant team, lead by ICF Jones and Stokes. There has been a challenge to develop an alternatives approach that will be compared in this EIS. There are 10 very different UGAs with many variations and issues within each of these areas. We had to come up with three alternatives that could be studied and that would address the wide range of alternatives. We have proposed an approach that uses the EIS process to help inform final decisions and provides for a wide range of issues to be addressed in coordination with cities. The three alternatives include no action, which is required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and two action alternatives. The essential issues within these alternatives revolve around growth patterns rather than a growth forecast. The EIS will study growth patterns that test compact versus more dispersed growth patterns. Redirecting growth away from rural areas rather than a continuation of rural trends. Distributing a greater share of growth to small urban communities. The growth forecast tests a small band of forecasts. The no action alternative would use the existing Comprehensive Plan forecast growth of 234,917 as the low end of the population projection. The high end of our analysis would be the Office of 251 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 3 Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 Financial Management (OFM) forecast of most likely growth or their mid -range, for the year 2029, of 258,448 people. The alternatives that are derived from public input we received through public surveys last fall. In those surveys more than 50 percent of the respondents stated that the Growth Management Coordinating Council (GMCC) growth forecast, of 251,490, was either too little or about right. 38 percent felt that it was too much. When you review the responses the concern expressed was often the type or location of growth more than the rate of growth. The clear concern that was expressed in the survey was about the rate of rural growth in the last 10 years. More than 62 percent state that rural growth was too much. The public also expressed some strong interest in exploring moving growth away from Bellingham and into other communities and small cities. While nearly 40 percent thought that Bellingham should continue to be the primary job and population center, one third thought that small cities and small urban areas should become their own economic centers. Another 20 percent felt that each community should take a share of the new growth. The no action alternative that we have proposed will be studied in two parts. First, it will study the adopted Comprehensive Plan and present growth forecasts using the lower population range and current UGA boundaries. The no action alternative will also study the historic growth trends as they might continue to the year 2031. There is a clear departure of what our current plan says should happen and what is happening. There is more rural growth that has taken place than what has been allocated. This rural growth is largely taken from the growth that would have otherwise gone to Bellingham, but to a lesser number, other smaller urban areas. One of the two action alternatives, that we have labeled Alternative X, has the following key features: Growth is shifted out of the rural areas and into UGAs. Unlike our current plan we would study additional tools to implement this objective, including larger rural lot sizes, rural lot consolidation, transfer of development rights, and rezone of rural study areas to agricultural lands. In this alternative Bellingham would continue to be the primary job and population center. An emphasis on infill, urban densities and compact growth patterns would be studied. The second action alternative we are labeling Alternative Y. The key features of this alternative include: Bellingham growth would stay at or below historic trends and growth would be shifted to other areas. We will study achieved densities in the urban areas rather than planned densities. This alternative would be less infill oriented. Our EIS study approach is to use a suitability analysis. This approach would have us analyze areas for the appropriate location for urban growth. There would be four basic steps to this process. First, we would develop criteria that could be mapped and/or analyzed. Second, we would use the mapping and analysis to help determine appropriate locations for urban growth. Third, we would evaluate alternatives based on the suitability analysis, develop mitigation measures, publish the draft EIS and obtain public comments. Fourth, we would develop preferred alternatives with formal growth proposals based on the analysis and public input. The suitability analysis criteria that we are proposing includes critical areas, city interest, land capacity, lot patterns, alternative objectives, resource lands, service areas, land use, sensitive watersheds and transportation. 252 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 4 Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 We have provided the County Council and Planning Commission with background information that will help frame the discussion tonight. Included in this background information are growth forecasts, initial growth allocations and initial land capacity analysis results. Within those documents you will see that growth forecasts and preliminary allocations show declining growth rates and allocations to all areas from the current Comprehensive Plan. For example, the total urban growth rate is reduced from the current Comprehensive Plan forecast of nearly 64,000 down to an urban forecast range between 46,000 and 57,000. Bellingham's current growth allocation is similarly reduced from 35,000 to a range of 27,000 and 31,000. These numbers are based on the GMCC forecast for the County of 251,490. The process for reviewing the UGA first began in August 2008. Our GMHB deadline is June 30, 2009. The County Council has agreed to request a six month extension, but until we are granted that extension we are proceeding under the assumption that we must have this work completed. In the next two months, while the EIS is being drafted, we will work with the cities to get public input on what the city UGA proposals will be. Meanwhile the County will prepare the EIS and analyze the capital facilities and transportation systems necessary to demonstrate that the UGAs are adequate to accommodate the urban growth expected over the next 20 years. In conclusion, we are asking the public to comment on the alternatives, mitigation measures and probable adverse impacts to be studied in the EIS. We are asking the Planning Commission and County Council to specifically address the range of alternatives to be studied in the EIS so that we can proceed with this with this work. The hearing was opened to the public. Art Hyatt, Whatcom County: As you explore the population and density forecasts required under the GMA we must ask the question, can government, local or state, be trusted to make an unbiased decision? We need an honest broker, a neutral arbiter for this process. Government and the developers are the primary beneficiaries of growth. The developers get their profits, government gets their revenue and we the people get the bill, not only in sky high property taxes, but more pollution, more congestion, higher crime, impacted critical areas and a diminished sense of community. You are the fox. You can not be both the regulator and the facilitator of growth without creating the impression of corruption. This is like Henry Paulson, a Wall Street banker, regulating Wall Street. He was too conflicted to be either credible or effective. As is now evident this failed growth paradigm is unsustainable. The GMA needs to be amended so communities aren't held hostage to the growth table. We need a new engine of governance. Wendy Harris, Whatcom County: I think that far too much emphasis is being placed on population growth projections, which is only a segment of this scoping process. I think the crucial issue is really land use patterns and land use planning. Population growth projections should not be used as a substitute for determining, as a community, what policies and regulations need to be enacted to create the type of community that we want in the future. Many people participating in this public process are here because they will receive a personal or financial benefit by maximizing growth. I think it's important to remember that the overwhelming majority residents who participated in the Whatcom 2031 questionnaire and the visioning workshops indicated a strong desire to minimize rural growth and ensure the protection of our 253 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 5 Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 environmental resources. I am here tonight to represent the voice of this majority. I urge the County Council and Planning Commission to incorporate an action alternative, within the EIS, that relies on land use regulations and policies that protect our critical areas, resource lands and rural areas to the maximum extent under the GMA. To reduce the current trend of growth in rural areas it is crucial that the County enact growth impact fees for parks, transportation and education. Unless developers are forced to pay for their share of the true costs of the growth this cost will be passed along to existing residents and provide a financial incentive for rural sprawl to continue. Opportunities for multi -housing dwelling units should be increased. This encourages urban infill and creates affordable housing. While I understand that there are pros and cons to over planning and under planning for growth I believe that the risks of over planning are much greater. We can correct a mistake in planning for too little growth but we can not correct a mistake in planning for too much growth. Once we destroy our critical areas and resource lands to provide for growth we have forever lost that environmental resource. I think that the methodology proposed for the land capacity analysis is flawed with regards to the Lake Whatcom watershed. The analysis is reflected in the scoping proposal based on current land use regulations and zoning laws. However, we are mandated under federal law to restore Lake Whatcom which will require more stringent land use regulations and capital facility plans. Since Lake Whatcom is the source of drinking water for all of Bellingham and 50 percent of the County I believe it's a serious oversight to not incorporate the TMDL requirements into the EIS. We can not plan for growth without securing a safe supply of potable water. Perhaps the best solution for this problem is to withdraw the Lake Whatcom Watershed from Bellingham's UGAs. Lesow: I am going to try to keep track of public attitudes towards the alternatives, as they are presented in the staff report and the new one, Alternative A. Do you have any preference? Fleetwood: We are here tonight to take testimony and not ask questions. Council typically does not engage people. The concern here tonight is if we ask questions we will never get through the meeting. Rebecca Boonstra, Whatcom County: I am only asking for two things tonight. First, I am asking that as you consider the scope of the upcoming EIS to please study all of Whatcom County's UGAs as they exist today. To consider LAMIRDs is not appropriate and is outside the scope of this UGA review and the EIS. I am also asking you to please adopt population projections consistent with those be utilized by the GMCC of 60,490 additional residents by 2031. Clayton Petree, Whatcom County: (Gave handout to the Council and Commission) I want to note that the agenda and staff memo talk about the 10 year review and the planning period for that is 2009 to 2029. 1 put a chart in here that is from OFM that shows how population is tracking with the OFM middle projection. There is another year of population that has been reported, which is 191,000. It is tracking exceptionally well. I colored in blue about where the population figures are being talked about are. What I would really like you to notice is that all of them are below the OFM most likely projection. If you look at the proposed alternatives that have been presented in the staff report all of them want to study at or below the OFM most likely. I don't think that's a reasonable range to study in this EIS. You want to have the most reasonable range. If you are going to study somewhere below the most likely and what is actually happening you really want to study above as well in an equal proportion. Studying all of the ranges doesn't have anything to do with the final number that you pick. I think that all of the action alternatives should consider what happens if we plan high and grow slow and what happens if we plan low and grow fast. What happens if we plan for the most likely and the most 254 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 6 Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 likely takes place? If we make a shift in how we plan, going from Alternative X to Y, I would like to see something in the EIS that talks about how long a major shift like that will take and what sort of environment impacts it may have. Jack Petree, Whatcom: (Gave handout to the Council and Commission) Can a process like this end well if we don't begin well? The key word is solid data. The GMHB, in the compliance hearing, instructed the County that the law required using solid data. I would like to imagine for a moment that this hearing is about a request from a developer on the Nooksack River at Nugent's Corner. Staff comes to you and says we are only going to study what happens when the river is at instream flows and low instream flows because we don't want it ever to flood so we won't study flooding and that will keep it from flooding. Think what your reaction would be if somebody gave you a bracket like that. The question is how has population tracked with most likely to occur projections? I have laid them out for you. We have had four projections over the period of Growth Management. The first was in 1990. In 1990 the OFM projected way under what actual growth was. We exceeded the 2012 projection by 2003. In 1995 it projected a little under. In 2002 it projected a number and Whatcom County projected under the OFM projection. As of 2007 OFM projects that the actual growth is exceeding the projected by 1,821 people for the five year period. OFM has consistently underestimated actual population growth. How can an EIS, that only looks at the impacts of growth below those established by law, as most likely to occur and establish, by experience, as likely to be lower than actual growth, possibly be a valid SEPA process? A valid EIS would utilize the most likely to occur population established by law as the midpoint and then examine what happens if we get more growth than we thought we would or what happens if we get less growth than we thought we would. You bracket the most likely to occur. Does planning accurately for likely projections lead to more growth? The fact is that we have under projected for three planning cycles in a row and we have had growth exceeding that growth by a long way. We continue to see the impacts of that. It's not solid data to use data that both the County and consultants agree is flawed to justify this. It's not using solid data to purport to be reviewing growth from 1997 to 2008 and not have a word in the documentation about what actually happened during that time. It's not solid data to count thousands of housing units on land that's not zoned to accept them. In conclusion, can an EIS, only examining environmental impacts less severe than those defined by law as most likely to occur, be compliant with the law? If you actually go along with that are you going to allow private projects the same latitude when they do an EIS? Mary Dickinson, Governmental Affairs Director for the Building Industry Association of Whatcom County (BIAW), Whatcom County: We want to publicly thank the Whatcom County Council and Planning Commission for encouraging this public hearing. It's refreshing that some members of our County government have not forgotten the Washington State GMA requirements for continuous public participation. In the past the Planning Commission has expressed concern over last minute contributions of testimony, especially written testimony. We apologize for our late submission but we must point out that all of the pieces for this public were not available on Whatcom County's website until last Thursday afternoon, February 13, 2009. In addition with this past weekend being President's Day holiday weekend we would venture to guess that many members of the public were engaged in other activities. These types of activities, over a holiday weekend, frustrated our County's last 10 year review process and lead to the County stipulating to the GMHB that it did not complete the process correctly. In terms of the EIS we are not prepared, at this time, to advocate for any particular scope of the proposed EIS. It would not be responsible for us to comment on a scoping document based on 255 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 7 Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 data that even the County agrees is not yet complete and accurate. However, we are confused of how this EIS process is being proposed. Particularly, we are confused because, although we don't believe this is the intent, it appeared in the text that the County is deciding which option to plan the EIS to examine when in fact all alternatives need to be studied, particularly the no action alternative. In terms of rural lands we want to express dismay that the County is using the fact that its 10 year UGA process, which they are out of compliance on, as an excuse to further explore the opportunity to downzone the entire rural County. The County should first strongly examine why the current UGAs and future UGAs, like the five year review are from the City of Bellingham, are not being built on and go from there. One fiction of GMA, that occurs constantly, is that there absolutely could be no building or development in the unincorporated county for residential purposes and that's not true. In addition the Washington State Court of Appeals has established that a five acre parcel is decidedly rural density. Another legal fiction of GMA is that population projections are like enrollment or admission numbers. In that scenario once a community sets a goal to be reached and once it's reached the door is closed until people leave. That's not true. We want to remind you that GMA must be realistic and the GMCC has stated there are over 6,000 pending building permits in the City of Bellingham. This is not true. These types of assertions are at best conjecture and at worst fraud and we ask that you don't submit them because that could open the County up to litigation. Darcy Jones, Jones Engineering, Whatcom County: In reviewing the EIS and some of the other material it occurred to me that I'm not quite sure what the project is of the EIS. We have some alternatives, but I don't know exactly what the project is. It seems that the alternatives are set around population management. It seems we need to take a step back. Maybe we want to establish what our priorities are. What do we want to preserve? What communities do we want to preserve? What environment resources do we want to preserve? What industry base and business base do we want to preserve? What housing stock do we want to preserve? Maybe there are some alternatives. I know we want to establish the UGAs. This has been the most amazing mathematical problem I have seen in the last five years. It's a big math quiz. I think we want to take a softer look in this EIS. Regarding the population projections we do need to plan ahead for the most likely scenario. If that isn't achieved by the target year then you haven't necessarily lost anything. You have set aside land for homes, schools, business, industry, medical facilities, etc. and that doesn't necessarily promote growth. There are a lot of other policies you can have to protect the environmental issues and to promote growth in the right directions when it needs to occur. People argue that we should plan for a lower population and keep monitoring things. A lot of communities have tried that but for the most part they don't really end up being affordable but end up being an elitist community. These types of communities are conducive to business or industry. Don't let the current economic downturn dissuade you right now. Don't be short sighted. I believe things will get better and we should plan on that. Janice Schuch, Whatcom County: I am here as a long time member of the North Bellingham Community Association. I am speaking because of some proposed maps I saw that show Ferndale's UGA moving to the east. This unincorporated area, east of 1-5 is not suitable for urban development. It is currently zoned RR1 and RR2. Almost all of that is already built up. The only way to ever get urban density would be infilling within what already exists. This is uncalled for when the County's own projections show that Ferndale has more buildable lots available than any other area. Ferndale needs to decrease its UGA rather than extend them. The area east of Ferndale has three salmon spawning streams. Deer Creek, Ten Mile and 256 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL $ Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 Silver Stream. There are extensive critical areas and flooding that often cuts them off from the Ferndale area. This rural area no longer has an elementary school and one of its two markets is closing proving that it is a small rural area with farms, not urban. The area west of Ferndale, which is being shown on the map to be taken out of the UGA has been in the UGA for at least 10 years. The owners in this area have been counting on that development potential and the income the UGA density would give them on their investments. The Ferndale School District has followed this long range planning of the City of Ferndale and built its newest elementary school in this area and has land there for its potential new high school addition. This area is high and dry and suitable for building. I ask the County to leave Ferndale's UGA alone to the eastern direction. The residents of the North Bellingham area scream loudly. It seems that these changes to the UGA may be a County proposal and the residents of this area do not want the change there. Jayne Urlig, Whatcom County: My concern in this whole process is the quality of life for all of Whatcom County and preserving this quality of life that we have in both our urban and rural communities. I would like to bring up something that is not usually brought up at this level. Usually at this level of the EIS we talk about a broad stroke and then at the program and policy level we start talking about the details. One thing that is very critical, that I think we would all have an open mind about as we proceed, is that there is a tremendous amount of research data that bears out that light and noise pollution has a significant unavoidable and adverse impacts on not only human life, but also on plant and animal life. In terms of light pollution adverse impacts on plants are that it can delay ??? in the fall to an appreciable amount that the trees do not go into dormancy and at the time of cold or wind or ice storm these are the trees that will most likely snap and fall on transmission lines and buildings and can cause damage to structures and even loss of life. In the spring sometimes we have bud break early, again causing tender growth, die back, decreasing overall tree vigor. This again increases windfall, downfall, subsequent erosion, land slides, etc. In terms of insects, bird life and mammals, light and noise both affect these in a huge, huge way. It disrupts biological behavior and in migration periods. They are delayed which causes a decrease in hummingbirds, bats, etc. It doesn't take much to have an impact. If we don't look at this stroke at the beginning then it will be too late to mitigate or prevent those impacts in the rest of our community. We all breathe the air and we are all affected by the light and noise pollution so please consider it now. Barb Casort, Whatcom County: I live in the area that is being considered to be expanded into the City of Ferndale. My property has flooded to 10 feet deep. To consider that area for development is not reasonable. To think of that as an area that would be considered is not a responsible thing to consider. I bought the farm so that people who are living in the city and living in apartments can come and learn to do farming and understand that food doesn't grow in a grocery store. I would like Ferndale to consider being where Ferndale is now and to consider their growth to the west because our area is not an area that should be in the city. Crawford: I believe we need some clarification regarding what is being proposed for the City of Ferndale. Stalheim: When the County and city staff were working on the range of EIS alternatives we were looking at different approaches. One approach was to study areas that might be included and areas that might be excluded from consideration for UGAs. I believe that is the reference that the last two people have spoken to. This is discussion staff had been having but it was put out to the public at one of the Ferndale meetings. The approach that we are doing right now is just 257 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 9 Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 to study the suitability of each of these areas for urban growth or not. There are not any proposals on the table. Lincoln Rutter, Whatcom County: I would like to suggest that there needs to be an economic foundation to any population projection. The problem with that is that we are all aware that a recession or depression destroys that economic foundation. I hope it's not news to people that we are in one of those situations right now. By their nature a recession or a depression is a spiraling event. It will continue to eat away at that economic foundation until something acts to arrest that process. As evidence of that I would like to suggest that during the entire decade of the 1930's the Roosevelt administration incurred an annual deficit of over 400 billion dollars annually. We are all familiar with the CCC, WPA, etc. There is wide agreement among economists that it did nothing to stop the depression. It wasn't until 1941, with the outbreak of the WWII that the government deficit reached 2.8 trillion dollars. That caused full employment to be regained. I would like to recommend that the U. S. Government appreciate the fact that the spiral is occurring. I have faith in the common man and I believe that if you all drive around and look at these UGAs and the sprawl that has occurred in places like Birch Bay and Blaine there are rural ghost towns for you to witness where there are 650 lots that were part of a subdivision and there is not a single house in the subdivision. What I am asking is that the EIS, the economic scope of this document involve some common sense in terms of looking around, within our County, and quantifying the number of existing homes for sale, the number of plats that are unoccupied and the degradation to the local economy that has occurred. You can drive through downtown Bellingham and see the number of offices for lease. It's an ignorant policy to make forecasts that are based on anything other than economic reality. I would urge you to use your own common sense to do your own research because there is a direct correlation between the size of a UGA and the amount of taxes it takes to pay for the public infrastructure that has to support that larger geographic region. The population projection you pick should be the minimum in order that we act to preserve the disposable income of the people that are going to be required to start consuming again if we are to get out of this economic problem that we are in. Dave Pros, Whatcom County: I want you to include in the EIS the 220,000 population projection that is allowed by OFM. None of the population numbers or allocations has had a public hearing. The GMA requires the public be involved early and continuously. We are now 8 months into this process with 16 weeks to go and this is the first public hearing that there has been on this issue. The alternatives have not had any public vetting. They have all been discussions among planning people, but no one has gone out into the public and asked us what we want. We have had no discussions on growth models. Growth models will tell us the whole story of where we want to have growth go. The highest percentage of people asked in the workshop want to have the small towns become their own economic centers. This answers a lot of questions about transportation, etc. There is no cost analysis. We don't know how much X or Y is going to cost. I have an Alternative A. Using the lowest population projection will cost the least. That is important for us taxpayers to know. We are the ones that foot the bill on all of this. We know that land use ordinances control how we grow. There are consequences to taking on a number that is too high. We are supposed to be planning which means we are supposed to be proactively engaging in those activities that will accommodate those people. In this kind of economy or any kind of economy please take the lowest number. More than likely this number is going to be good for the next 12 months. 12 months from now we are going to be in 2011 when we are supposed to be doing planning for 2031. 1 asked Mr. Bricklin if 22 years was just 258 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 10 Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 1 as wrong as 18 years and his indication was yes. If the Planning Department can't tell us what 2 our costs are then I think it's imperative that we go with the lowest number and plot that course. 3 Historic trends is the basis for the number that they have given. Historic trends are only relevant 4 if we want to continue to make the mistakes of the past. That's what those numbers represent. 5 This is a new age. We have grown a certain amount. This is a new Council that is being very 6 careful about growth. We need to be looking at the lowest cost for these next 11 months. Have 7 a countywide discussion about various issues including growth models and do a proper 8 visioning and come up with the proper population projection for the next 22 years. 9 10 Carole MacDonald, Whatcom County: I would recommend that you study all Whatcom County 11 UGAs, as they exist today. Under the current Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 12 consideration of LAMIRD alternatives are not appropriate and are outside the scope of this UGA 13 review and the EIS. I would also ask you to please adopt population projections consistent with 14 those being utilized by the GMCC of 60,490 additional, minimum, residents by 2031. 15 16 Lou Piotrowski, Whatcom County: I am from Glacier and I want to attest to some of the growth 17 that is happening in a rural unincorporated area. I was on the Foothills Subarea Plan Advisory 18 Committee (FSPAC). We found that there were 895 houses that are in Glacier as of 2006. I 19 know that many houses have been built there now. At that time we only had a full time 20 occupancy rate of less than 15 percent. That left a lot of houses that were either vacant or 21 seasonal. Many are now being sold as full time occupancies. With that many people I don't want 22 to see Glacier become a UGA. I don't think anybody really wants to see that happen. I want to 23 try and figure a way to look at how we might move growth some place else. A lot of people are 24 coming and I would like to see people go into the UGAs. I would like to see us with an 25 anticipated growth rate of 50,000 to 60,000 people over the next 20 years. I can't imagine why 26 anyone would want to close down the UGAs. We need to look at all of the UGAs we have and 27 make them as attractive as we possibly can. I would request that none of the alternatives 28 include any kind of action that would result in the rescinding of any UGA status in Whatcom 29 County. Any such action would be outside the scope of the EIS. Only study the UGAs that are 30 currently in operation and identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Since the EIS is only concerned 31 with the current UGAs rural areas should remain outside the scope. I don't think that making any 32 place a LAMIRD, that has urban density, allows the tools necessary to do good planning. 33 34 Norma Otto, Whatcom County: I agree with Lou, Carole and Rebecca. I would like to make sure 35 that the scoping of the EIS is just about the UGAs as they exist today. Please don't consider any 36 LAMIRD alternatives. I would like to ask that you remember that the Columbia Valley UGA is 37 really urban and not rural density at all. I am happy with the population figure the GMCC has 38 been recommending. 39 40 Max Perry, Whatcom County: I live on Northwest Road, where we have Deer Creek, Ten Mile 41 Creek and Barrett Lake that flow into the Nooksack River. We are not conducive to Ferndale 42 growth. I recommend that Ferndale look to the north and west for growth. 43 44 Richard Banel, Whatcom County: The EIS should study Whatcom County's UGAs as they exist 45 today in the current Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. I support adopting the population 46 projections adopted by the GMCC. Consideration of the Columbia Valley UGA as it currently 47 exists or as envisioned in the Foothills Subarea Plan is suitable under the no action alternative 48 X and or alternative Y scenarios. There should be inclusion of alternatives contemplating the 259 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 11 Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 rural element, as this is a separate issue and should remain outside the scope of the EIS. I support retaining the UGA in the Columbia Valley. Michael Chiavario, Whatcom County: When I was a student at Western in 1969 there was a guest lecturer who came to talk to us about this new concept called Pugetopolis. I had only lived in Bellingham for about a year at that time and I thought it was interesting but I didn't know what he was talking about. Now I do know what he was talking about. Just this year a fellow named Knute Berger is touring western Washington with his book. The book is called Pugetopolis. It is happening and we all know it. There was a Bellingham Herald article, just yesterday, that said the rate of global warming was recently found to be three times faster than it was projected to be in the last decade. Sea level is rising faster in many places, .8 inches per year. The Governor's Puget Sound Task Force has let us know that our sound is critically in danger. The members of that task force, who have put forward a plan to go forward, are telling us that they don't know how we are going to fix this problem, because it is so severe. All of these problems are related to develop issues like the reduction of forests and impervious surfaces, which are all things that go along with increased development. You all know that citing a low population figure will result in reduction of the development impacts like forest reduction and impervious surface reduction. This is what I want you to do. Set the lowest number please. This isn't a radical step. Some people would like you to believe it is and that it's not planning properly. I believe it is a prudent and moderate step and one of many that we are going to have to make over the next decade. As the reality of the impending environmental catastrophe becomes more apparent and erases our collective denial we are going to eagerly take further steps that would indeed seem radical now. Alternatives X, Y and A will be horribly short sighted. Max Duncan, Whatcom County: I have a few facts and quotes from the EIS. "A significant portion of runoff that originates in the Columbia Valley percolates the subsurface as groundwater recharge. Course grain sands and gravels that are at the surface serve as a parent material for the highly permeable topsoil. Infiltration rates are high. Water levels are generally less than 30 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater flow direction is to the south. The average linier velocity is 4.4 feet per day. Groundwater discharges to Kendall, Sprague Lake, Kendall Creek and likely the Nooksack River." My layman's version sounds something like this, it rains a lot here. We need that rainwater to soak in and recharge our groundwater and if there are sources of pollution, anywhere in the Columbia Valley, it is very likely these pollutants will wind up in our groundwater supply. I am a lucky man. I teach at Kendall Elementary School, which means I get paid to work with the most precious resources in that community. That resource is, of course, our children. Those children drink the water from the downstream end of the Columbia Valley 176 days per year for all seven years of their elementary education. Out of this group a significant number drink water from the Kendall Creek watershed at home and at school. I do not speak for the school district, but I certainly speak for the needs of my son, who is one of those children who both goes to school and live down stream. I also speak for one of the great things that the Pacific Northwest is known for. It's a place where the water runs clear and the fish live in it. I was disappointed that the EIS did not address fish and wildlife but it certainly does address the water. I want to lend a voice to the importance of having plenty of good clean water and that is particularly true for those who are young and developing and do not yet have a voice in the area that will leave for them. I agree with the gentleman that recently spoke, that another way of addressing this is by looking at the lowest population projections. Even under the most optimistic scenarios I think that will offer far fewer jobs and services than it will ever attract compared to the residents. I don't think there are any provisions to pay for 260 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 12 Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 increased services required by increased population and low projections just make sense in a number of ways. I just saw this alternative A. I like the looks of this out of any of the alternatives I have seen so far. Everett Hatfield, Whatcom County: I moved out there because it was an urban area. My comment is I hope you will consider keeping the towns in a circle. Keep the urban area as much as you can. RobRoy Graham, Whatcom County: I am a Fire Commissioner for Fire District #14, which would provide service to the UGA in the Columbia Valley. Fire District #14 is at a critical point with regard to providing service to the citizens of our district. We are currently working with ideas to continue to provide the level of service our citizens have come to expect utilizing volunteer staff that presently exists. We are working with techniques such as assigning duty nights, rotating shifts and recruiting more staff to respond to the 450 plus calls a year that Kendall, alone, responds to. The addition of 250 to 300 homes, in a UGA, would require Fire District #14 to move to paid staff to meet additional demand. Funding for staff would need to be raised through additional taxing of our citizens. Failure of passage in these difficult times would place the burden on our system that could only be met through mutual aid responses from distant stations resulting in an increased response times. I ask you to consider the volunteer nature of District #14 when you consider growth brought about by the UGA. Bill Bliss, Whatcom County: I own property on the east end of Van Wyck and Horton Road, east of the Guide Meridian. I am glad to see that your EIS study is going to include transportation and capital improvements as two of its key factors. I think those are critical to planning for the growth of Whatcom County and considering all of Whatcom County. In the previous UGA planning, that was undertaken by both the City of Bellingham and the County, my 20 acres and the 60 acres west of my property was in all of the UGA plans up until the County Council meeting in February 2008. At that time even with the low growth projections my property was included in the proposed UGA for the King Mountain area. At that time the property, north of Van Wyck Road was excluded from the UGA and 228 acres was taken into the King Mountain UGA area. The decision was made based on the area required and the fact that the dividing line for the Mt. Baker School District and Bellingham was the Van Wyck Road, not Horton Road. It was shortsighted in a couple of areas. One is, that transportation is key regardless of what proposal you take, even today with no growth. I'm sure all of you have experienced the traffic congestion on the Guide. That traffic is getting people in and out of Bellingham. A corridor east of the Guide Meridian, from Horton Road to the Sunset area, as is proposed to come down James Street Road and across the west side of King Mountain, past my property and on to Horton Road would enable a good traffic corridor east of the Guide Meridian. By not including that last 60 acres in the UGA you have basically blocked that transportation corridor. There is no way to get the traffic out of the King Mountain UGA area to the north. There is no way to get traffic from east of Bellingham into Bellingham. The closing of the Bakerview fire station, with the recent annexations, has raised the fire code in my area from 6 to 10. My fire insurance rates have gone up. I would encourage you to include that 80 acres back in the UGA. Phil Cloward, Whatcom County: I would like to give you some perspective. I first came to Whatcom County, to work, in 1956. Off and on through the years I have worked here and I have also lived here. I traveled to work here and I liked it so I moved here. I have a syndrome, just like everybody else does, you can call it Pugetopolis, or whatever, but basically let's not plan in 261 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 13 Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 1 a vacuum. I know you don't get governed in a vacuum. In 1957 1 could drive down the Columbia 2 Valley, in September, and couldn't see my hand in front of my face because of the smoke from 3 the ??? . Let's not be doomsday just because we had people come and live here. There are 4 positive things and we can, through good management and good government and good 5 planning, have our cake and live here too. Don't live in a vacuum and pick the lowest figure just 6 because it's easy and convenient. You need to look at preserving the UGAs the way they are. 1 7 don't think there is any place to be throwing in LAMIRDs as a substitution for UGAs. Let's have 8 good planned growth and not ignore it. It will bite us and that's what's been happening. 9 10 Bill Vaught, Whatcom County: I live on the Mt. Baker Highway at mile post 16. 1 ask you to 11 envision, for a moment, small streams trickling down saturated Sumas Mountain. Then the rains 12 begin. By early evening of the second day the intensity of the rain increases causing the 13 innocent stream to become swollen and then a raging torrent of silt laden brown water. The 14 power becomes greater with the addition of gravel tearing at the banks on its decline down a 35 15 percent grade from a distance of two miles. The bombardment continues on rootballs of cut 16 trees and then non -harvested trees close to the swollen torrent. Now the actions of the water 17 and its contents carve into the stream bed exposing huge boulders, some the size of small 18 automobiles. The boulders become dislodged from the mountain side and increase the potent 19 mix cascading uncontrollably down the steep grade. It has now become a full blown land slide. 20 As it approaches the more level terrain the mixture spreads out for several hundred yards wide, 21 tearing at everything in its path for a distance of approximately one-half mile. This stream now 22 becomes a series of streams following the path of least resistance toward the more level terrain. 23 As the force of the slide abates the area is inundated with spear shaped tree trunks, mud and 24 those huge boulders. This happened on the Mt. Baker Highway at mile post 16 on January 8, 25 2009, at 3:30 in the morning. Fortunately no lives were lost but a few structures were damaged. 26 The landscape was devastated and the land will remain scarred for some time. In township 40, 27 range 5E, section 21, the same as the footprint for the proposed Balfour Village, exists the east 28 side of Sumas Mountain, with some of those 35 percent grades. Maps of geological hazard sites 29 indicate the presence of alluvial fans on those very same slopes and the terrain below them. 30 The effect of a slide, with the same magnitude, would border the catastrophic given the 31 closeness of homes proposed for that area. Are the wishes of a few, who have a substantial 32 vested interest in a high density development, more great than the moral issue of responsible 33 development and the welfare of the unsuspecting? Responsible development does not place 34 families in areas of potential harm. The Council has a moral obligation to the overall welfare of 35 the citizens of this county. By protecting the rural atmosphere you achieve this obligation. 36 37 Dan McShane, Whatcom County: I have five areas that I hope would be considered in the 38 scope of your analysis. One is for the rural areas. I would like to see a separation out of the truly 39 rural areas from the LAMIRDs and how you evaluate the alternatives. I think there is a lot of 40 confusion about what is going on in the rural areas and not recognizing that some of that is 41 actually in LAMIRDs that exist. Under the EIS analysis please include alluvial fans and go 42 beyond just the published information. There is a lot of new information that just occurred this 43 winter. The areas covered by alluvial fans are larger than the maps indicate. Evaluate the ability 44 of delivering services in a cost effective manner. I think in the last round you had, with the City 45 of Bellingham, there were certain areas that the cost effectiveness of delivering services to 46 some of those areas needs clarification. Lake Whatcom is specifically mentioned as a sensitive 47 area but please do not forget Lake Padden. 75 percent of the Lake Padden watershed is within 48 the current Bellingham UGA. Urbanizing Lake Padden isn't a good idea. It's a much more 262 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 14 Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 sensitive lake than Lake Whatcom and it will have oxygen problems. When looking at both lakes also consider phosphorous, not just stormwater. The DOE manual does not go far enough in mitigating the impacts of stormwater. In the suitability study area there is an area I would be interested in seeing how it played out. It is the area between Bellingham's UGA western boundary and the floodplain of the Nooksack River. It's immediately adjacent to land that is zoned industrial so it will be next to a job center. It's not in an agricultural zone but essentially a LAMIRD that needs to be analyzed. I am curious why that's left out and preference is given to areas north of Bellingham. Eric Hirst, on behalf of Futurewise Whatcom, Whatcom County: We urge you to recommend the lowest feasible population projection, which is roughly 220,000 people in 2031. We think the most important thing you could do, in terms of guiding the EIS, is to make sure that at least one of the alternatives considered includes a low population projection. You can't really adopt a population projection that falls outside of that considered in the EIS. The proposal from staff has a very narrow range of population, less than 10 percent. We would recommend that you eliminate alternative Y and replace it with alternative X, but instead of the population of 258,000 use, instead, a population of 220,000 then you really have a robust range to look at and some substantial information about the environmental, economic and social impacts of different population growths. There are 10 reasons why we favor a low population projection. Perhaps the most important is that we think the population projection should reflect policy. That is the vision that we, the citizens and the County Council, have for the future of Whatcom County. It's not just past trends or a technical exercise. It's an opportunity for you to exercise your judgment and your policy wisdom. Although several speakers mentioned the importance of the OFM medium forecast, the law allows you to pick any population number within the very broad OFM range, which is roughly 220,000 up to 330,000. Nothing requires you or encourages you to pick anything like the mid range. The citizens strongly favor slower growth. The workshops and surveys that the County did last fall show that almost 50 percent thought that the GMCC recommendation was too high compared with 30 percent who thought it was too low. John Flarry, Whatcom County: In preparation for tonight I got on the computer and downloaded a map of Ferndale's UGA. The Ferndale UGA goes from Slater Road, at the south, to past Grandview Road, at the north. If you look at the City of Ferndale it covers about'/4 of the UGA area for the City. I'm told that Blaine occupies about 1/10 of the Blaine UGA. I think we need to look at this in terms of common sense. I drive to work everyday, past Skyview Estates, in Ferndale. It's a development that has been there for about 2 '/2 years and can accommodate about 80 houses. Right now there are 3 houses. The City of Ferndale expanded its water and sewer to accommodate developments like this. The citizens of Ferndale are spending a lot of money on their water and sewer bills to pay for it. I understand that the UGA was based on the medium range population projection. If the medium population range projection can make Ferndale's UGA four times bigger than what it shows today, and can accommodate growth for the next 20 years, there is something wrong. I think what we need to be doing is looking at the lower population projection. We need to focus on compact growth patterns. I would like to suggest alternative A-1 which would focus growth in the larger cities along the 1-5 corridor, namely, Ferndale, Blaine and Bellingham. Let the rural communities and urban areas stay rural and small. Laura Leigh Brakke, Whatcom County: I would like to urge the preservation of farmland, as a priority. I would like us to do the math and find out how many small organic farmers it would take 263 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 15 Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 to feed the 220,000 people we are going to plan for. I would like us, as a county, to be maybe the first county in the United States to grow and provide all of the food for our residents without having to ship it. I think we could do that. We also need to do the math and find out how many empty units and lots we have. There are a lot of places being built. We need to protect clean water and clean air. We need to support the Pacific salmon. We were one of a few places, in the whole world, that at one time had all five Pacific salmon returning. We can't say that now. What will it take to get that back? Lynnea Flarry, Whatcom County: I am here from Futurewise and a concerned citizen. I favor alternative A. I would like to urge you to choose the lowest population number for projected population. Right now I am extremely concerned, and I have been for some time, about the amount of our rural land that keeps getting encroached upon ever more and more by development. In the mid 1980's we lost 500 acres annually. Around 2000 we lost 2,000 acres that was converted from rural and ag use to urban usage. At this rate what will my grandkids have to look for in Whatcom County other than just urban sprawl, more pavement and impervious surfaces? I think we need to draw the line now. Every time we increase the UGAs we lose more of this very precious commodity, our rural lands. When we extend UGAs we are moving the cities and putting them in very difficult situations because their pockets are empty. Our cities don't have money to go ahead and provide the infrastructure needed for extended UGAs. We need to put in policies that will help make the lowest possible population growth happen. Take the incentives out of moving out into the rural areas. Let's get impact fees in place. Let's encourage people to live in the cities instead of sprawling out into our very precious farm and forestry lands. I was interested to find that there is already enough available land in our present UGAs to accommodate growth for the next 20 years. Ferndale is 4 times larger than it needs to be. Blaine is 10 times larger than it needs to be. Our housing boom has busted. Do we want to expand the UGAs in case we might need them some day? Let's monitor our UGAs and adjust them if we need. We can always add another room to our house, but if our house is huge how do we shrink it down? Jan Eskola, Whatcom County: I support using the lowest population projection possible, 220,000. It seems every time a staff report comes out the projections increase. This is just not right. I urge the County Council to listen to and respect the wishes of the public that consistently request you to choose the low projections. I support Dave Pros' alternative A, which encourages growth in all cities, discourages growth in the rural areas and utilizes only the 220,000 population projection. I also support the Planning Commission's 5-2 vote that converts the Columbia Valley UGA to a LAMIRD. This is the best alternative for this rural area and I urge the County Council to confirm this vote. UGAs should not be in rural areas. They belong and should be located around cities. Wyburn Bannerman, Whatcom County: I live near the intersection of Valley View and Grandview Roads. I have 90 acres there. I am speaking for my neighbor, also, who has 90 acres there. What are we to do with our land? My neighbor has the unfortunate thing of having a small, three month stream that runs through the corner of his property. The EPA person drove by the Grandview Road one day, saw a cow near that stream and sent him a letter saying he was going to get fined $10,000 a day if he didn't keep his cows away from that little stream. The County followed that up with another letter, three days later, saying it was only going to be $1,000 per day for the County. He has been working with them for two years. He has fenced off all of the streams. Right now he has 30 head of cattle and they allow him five acres, of his 95 acres, to work with in the winter. What should he do with this land? There used to be 200 to 300 264 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 16 Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 dairy farms on that Ferndale hill. There are two left. Pretty soon those two will be gone. What do you expect us to do with this property if we can't have cattle on it or dairy farms? This could be done in Lynden, but they keep expanding out and taking the good land away. Ferndale hill should be left to a rural type living of five acre lands. It doesn't flood and has great views. I would like to protect my property from being down zoned. Heather Swanson, Whatcom County: I support some combination of alternative X and A, whichever alternative is going to put urban growth in existing urban areas. I generally agree with Dave Pros and his comments. I urge you to allow the lowest allowable population projections. I don't think it's short sighted to determine, through a public visioning process, what we want to preserve in our communities and in our county. We need to enact land use ordinances to back up the projections. In the end it's the ordinances that are going to achieve what we decide we want to achieve. We should be looking to manage growth through policy, not simply to encourage it. The GMA clearly states that its primary goal, relating to urban growth, is quote "To encourage development where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner." To this end we need to use every tool in the box, including converting non -city UGAs to LAMIRDs. Heather Wolf, Whatcom County: I represent S.C. Goshen and Holly Associates, who own land in the Columbia Valley UGA. We are asking that review of the Columbia Valley UGA, in the EIS, be limited to the existing UGA and that recommended by the Foothills Subarea Committee. The LAMIRD alternative should not be included in the EIS. It's not a viable alternative for this area. I want to clear up some misconceptions about LAMIRDs. A LAMIRD is not a growth planning tool. It's used to draw a boundary around pre-existing development. Creating a LAMIRD in the Columbia Valley is not a solution to lack of employment opportunities and services in this area. If the Columbia Valley UGA is withdrawn these types of services can not develop in this area. The proposed LAMIRD boundary is drawn around the existing residential development. Therefore, in order for commercial and industrial uses to develop in this area some of the existing residential land would need to be eliminated. This does not make any sense. It's important to understand that LAMIRDs can not be expanded to create new commercial and industrial uses. This is because the GMA encourages these types of uses in UGAs. Creation of a LAMIRD in the Columbia Valley will encourage exactly the type of rural sprawl that the GMA is designed to prevent. This is because the many residents of the Columbia Valley will need to travel to outlying areas for employment and other commercial opportunities. The reason it's important for you to make this decision now is so that we don't go further along this path of a LAMIRD. What needs to happen in the Columbia Valley is good planning. That means drawing a logical boundary around the UGA and further planning through adoption of a subarea plan. Amy Mower, Whatcom County: I am speaking tonight on behalf of Foothills Friends. We support the OFM lowest population projection of approximately 220,000 people. We urge the Council to listen to the public input from public surveys and workshops. The largest number of participants urge that you choose projections lower than the 251,000 suggested by the GMCC. We support Dave Pros' alternative A. In this time of economic crisis it would be irresponsible to choose otherwise. Foothills Friends urges that if the Columbia Valley were to stay a UGA it should be part of the EIS process along with all other UGAs in the County. The Columbia Valley needs a complete EIS, not merely the 2008 SETS. The 2008 SEIS did not include many of the issues addressed in the scoping document for the 10 year UGA review. One jumps out, air quality. That is a big health issue in the Columbia Valley. Particulate matter and wood stove smoke 265 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 17 Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 hangs over the valley during temperature inversions. The County did not look into this issue in 2008. Along with the rest of the UGAs air quality must be reviewed for Columbia Valley. There are other new EIS issues listed in the letter we submitted to you. There are many issues that should have been included in the 2008 SEIS but were not. For example, the completion of a pending investigation of an old landfill. A quantitative groundwater analysis. The LOS capacity of County and State roads, not merely intersections. We urge you to address these and the other points listed in the letter. The most important issues for Foothills Friends were addressed in our earlier letters. We support the Planning Commission's 5-2 vote to convert the Columbia Valley UGA to a LAMIRD. That vote was the best decision for the rural area and the future of Whatcom County. A LAMIRD is best for the Columbia Valley regardless of the countywide population projections. We urge the County Council to confirm that vote. The planning tools are there for the Columbia Valley LAMIRDs that will serve the resident's needs. We challenge you to use those tools and to do what is best for the County. Dennis Jones, Whatcom County: I came tonight without information regarding alternative A. Of the alternatives I did see I saw a no action alternative, which of course is not an option by GMA. I also saw two other options, one of which they called alternative X, which looked at possibly some pullback and in other areas some expansion of the UGAs. The other option was alternative Y, which I also see as a non -starter. I know the County planners did a lot of work on it but I do see some increased density and with that you provide some open space, so you don't overly increase your level of service on the existing roads in Bellingham. It's not an option at the current time. I support alternative X at this time and not necessarily the lowest possible projection. The only thing worse than failing to plan is planning to fail with a number that's unrealistic. Bob Wiesen, Whatcom County: The worst thing we could do would be to plan for an unrealistically low population number. We experimented with this strategy with our roads many years ago and we are paying for it at a very high price. Citizens lose time getting where they need to go. There is a higher costs of doing projects like the Guide Meridian and the Pole and Hannegan Road improvement. There is a higher cost of goods and services due to the increased transit times. My worry is that we are trying to do too many complex things in too short a time. Worse yet, it's hard for citizens to keep up with the process because of the short time between staff releasing important information and public hearings. This makes our public process of low quality. Patrick Alesse, Whatcom County: My mother had advice about growth which was crossing your legs does not work. You really have to figure out how you can accommodate growth. It doesn't mean you have to grow that much. In the years 2000 through 2009 1 looked at the total property taxes for the cities. They went up by 35 percent. Their growth of people went up 74 percent. The non -city areas taxes went up 39 percent. The rural area growth was 26 percent. What this means is it isn't the cities that are running out of money, it's the rural County that is running out of money and out of a tax base. In a Smart Growth publication I received someone was talking about carbon footprint, stating if you want to help the environment move to the city. Birch Bay, in the years 2000 to 2007, the population grew 42 percent. That was more, in terms of percentage of growth, than Lynden, at 22 percent. Birch Bay is a place people want to come to. It's a fool's paradise. It has a lot of natural capacity and I think we need to keep growing there. I think there should be some light industrial along Kickerville Road. 266 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 18 Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 John Coleman, Whatcom County: I want to commend County staff for working under such a tight time frame that has been given to them by the GMHB. I am, however, concerned about the lack of population review that has happened up to this point. During the workshops we were presented with a number that was already picked. It was the mid -range number. My concern is that when these types of actions make there way to either the (Loops?????) or the GMHB the process is more what's looked at rather than the decision. It's stated that the jurisdiction has the purview to do pretty much what they like, regardless of what people say and what the facts are. However, if you don't follow the process you'll never get beneficial judgment. I don't have a problem with the population projections. I want to encourage that the EIS actually looks at the full range so the County isn't in a position where they have to defend their decision in the future, again. Rollin Harper, Sehome Planning, Whatcom County: I am here this evening as the City Planner for Everson, Nooksack and Sumas. Given the tight time constraints that we are facing we are coming at this in an unusual way with the SEPA process proceeding before the cities have had the opportunity to bring forward their proposals. The concern for the cities is that we are covered on the low end, at least with the existing Comprehensive Plan numbers in the no action alternative. The concern is with having picked some numbers that are below the OFM baseline we may not include enough room for the cities to go through their process and come up with what the proposals are. We aren't talking about proposals for sprawl. We are talking about what the cities see as the most reasonable continuation of what, in fact, has been growth, in measured levels, in my cities, at urban levels of density. As I looked at alternatives X and Y, which were based on a number below OFM baseline, then adjusted to see possibly shifting more population to the small cities, I believe those numbers cover the highest numbers out of X and Y. I would ask you to exhibit some restraint if you start to crunch numbers lower and recognize there are a number of reasons why we want to bracket high enough for the cities to have a chance to do their work. Michael Lilliquist, Whatcom County: I want to say that the staff I have talked to in the Planning Department have been friendly and respectful. I think there is a small, but serious, misrepresentation when David Stalheim says that 50 percent of the people say that the number they picked is too little or just about right. What he has done is taken that middle number, the about right number, and he's lumped it with the too little number. You can just as well lump it with the too much number and say that 70 percent of the people think that the projection was too much or too high. It's a bogus statistic and I think 50 percent is also bogus. I am not in favor of Alternative X or Y, but maybe A. Most people favor Bellingham remaining as the job and population center. That may not be the best way to grow. I would like to see the small cities become their own economic centers if possible. Staff has talked about how we need to protect our rural lands, they say we need to have strong preservation, that we've had too much growth in the unincorporated areas. Then there is a slight of hand in that they are saying we need a higher or medium population number, as if you have to have one in order to do the other. We haven't done right by our rural lands. We have allowed too much growth but we don't have to accept the high population numbers to do the right thing. They are separate issues. I would like you to pick a rational number. I think you first need to put to rest an erroneous belief that the past is destiny and the past trends are the only rational numbers to accept. Imagine that you are a school board and I am going to come before you and talk about school test scores. I am going to tell you that school test scores are low and it's a fact and it would be foolish and unrealistic to plan for improved test scores. We need to plan for a current rate of students success and 267 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 19 Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 1 student failure. We need to set good goals that we can be proud of. We have to have goals that 2 match our values. 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 John McLaughlin, Whatcom County: I would like to remind you that the population projections were generated by an invalid model. We should not be planning our future or developing an EIS based on statistical errors. The projections ignored any limits of any factors or resources. To address those limits I would like to quote SEPA. "The review of alternatives in the EIS must discuss the benefits and disadvantages of reviewing or observing for some future time the implementation of the proposal as compared to possible approval at this time. The agency's perspective should be that each generation, is in effect, a trustee of the environment for succeeding generations. Particular attention should be given to the possibility of proposing future options implemented by the proposal." One can interpret that language as a strong argument for including the lowest projections possible as an alternative in the EIS. Facilitating more development, choosing a higher projection is surely foreclosing on future options. Destroying natural infrastructure or driving salmon to extinction is not acting as a trustee to the environment for succeeding generation. There is a large and growing scientific literature on impacts of land use on stream structure, riparian function and salmon populations, including quite a bit of work done in western Washington. Several general conclusions emerged from this literature. First, when the extent of urban development exceeds a threshold, impacts the streams and becomes so great that salmon and other sensitive species can not persist. The development threshold for salmon depends on several factors, but it appears it's difficult to retain salmon after about 10 percent of watershed becomes covered with impervious surfaces, in some cases the threshold is only 5 percent. Second, the impacts of urban development on streams and salmon have occurred even in the presence of riparian buffers and other protective measures. Buffers do have value but they can't buffer streams from impacts, particularly hydrologic impacts caused by urban development. Third, these impacts have occurred even with aggressive efforts to mitigate development impacts, including best management practices. The EIS scope should consider whether development should be on a level that will cause extinction of wild salmon runs in streams and rivers. Identifying which runs will be lost will require an analysis of impervious surface development and impervious surface coverage by watershed under development in all areas. In some cases we may have exceeded the threshold, already. Any credible EIS must include that analysis and it must consider foreclosed options. Betty Shaw, Whatcom County: I live on King Mountain and I'm not happy about what happened there. It will have terrific ramifications. The thing that worried me most about King Mountain was that it was done under the table and illegally, not by you, but by somebody who is no longer here. King Mountain was expanded into the City of Bellingham without annexation. Once that was established then that particular guy was home free to build more homes. That's not right, not fair, not good. The first thing I want you to think about carefully is critical areas. Think about slopes, trees, rivers and all of the things that developers need to think about when they are building. King Mountain is solid rock. I don't know how they are going to get all those houses there. The only impact I see is that it's going to impact the quality of my life. How are you going to provide services in some of these areas? We had a meeting on King Mountain and there was someone there from every City entity. The fire department, police, etc. Every one of them said they could not provide services. It's too expensive and they don't have the people. The traffic is horrible now. James Street Road is a small rural road that is falling apart. It's the major access road. You are going to have to build new roads or make sure the ones you have are going to 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 20 Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 stand up to the traffic because ours don't. When you cut down trees you ruin some of the air quality. The reason so many of us moved to the county is because of a sense of community. I know you don't want to destroy that. Be careful, because when you alter the City as much as this is being altered and we continue to do it you have to do it carefully or we will all have to move to Everett and I don't want to do that. Brian Jones, Whatcom County: I have lived through three recessions so I am familiar with them. The population continued to grow through them. I haven't noticed anyone has stopped having babies. I don't think people are moving to California. I would like to suggest that we use the mid- range OFM and look at the high and low figures too. Regarding land supply a lot of people have expressed surprise that we suddenly have so much land available in the UGAs. If you change the density in the UGA higher than our analysis and you increase the density in the cities, higher than our last analysis suddenly we are going to have a lot more available land in the UGA. The question is do you want to live in a little rat house in a 400 foot tower in downtown Bellingham? That way we could handle all of our population growth. I am kind of shocked that I haven't heard a word, this evening, about affordable housing. This is where it starts. If this is not a component of the EIS it had better be. There has been a huge process, through the CHAT program to evaluate that. I need to know where my daughter is going to live next year. I need to know where my son-in-law, who is in Iraq fighting for this country, is going to put his family. I need to know where my foster daughter is going to live with her baby. This place isn't cheap and there isn't any place that's much cheaper. I favor the alternative focusing on Bellingham as the growth area for this region. Blair Murray, Whatcom County: I was not going to address the issues of LAMIRDs tonight, but I feel compelled to do so because about half of the testimony tonight has touched on LAMIRDs in one way or another. The scoping process is certainly intended to insure that the EIS focuses on relevant issues. Columbia Valley is a community of urban development with a population of about 4,000 people. We all recognize that it's underserved, both in terms of public facilities and commercial services. I think the issue before us in regard to whether the Columbia Valley should be a UGA or a LAMIRD is how to provide the necessary public infrastructure and commercial services that this community is pleading for. Even those that are opposed to the retention of the UGA agree the services need to be provided and to do this in a framework without allowing or permitting excessive growth. The LAMIRD, unfortunately, does not achieve these objectives. LAMIRDs may not be used to create new small towns or new commercial development where none had existed previously. A LAMIRD, within the Columbia Valley, would be a residential type 1 LAMIRD, because there is not, and was not, as of July 1990, any commercial development in that area. Some would have you believe that a type 3 LAMIRD is the answer to the issue on commercial services for the community. Type 3 LAMIRDs are specifically designed for cottage industries and isolated, small scale businesses. It's not a grocery store or the other services that the residents of the Columbia Valley need and desire. A Columbia Valley LAMIRD essentially means no necessary services. LAMIRDs have been interpreted very strictly by the GMHB and by the courts. New development is restricted in terms of size, scale, intensity and use. It's these uses that have been historically present. The retention of the UGA status is proper, just and right in Columbia Valley and provides for the necessary public services and for the commercial opportunities. GMA does allow and provides the tools to prevent excessive growth. 269 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 21 Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 Rob Staveland, Whatcom County: There was one statement that caught my ear. In the course of a lot of conversation about which population alternatives to use, as if choosing a population alternative was to set a policy, but the EIS scope does not set the policy, it informs the policy. Therefore, it's important to have useful information that must at least analyze the impacts of over planning as well as under planning. There was conversation about the cost of growth and if that's the case we should analyze the difference between the cost of growth in rural areas versus the cost of growth in urban areas. I believe what we will find is that if we over plan, in UGAs, and the growth doesn't occur there will be little if any harm done, but if we under plan and the growth occurs then we could have significant adverse impacts. Amy Harksell, City of Lynden Planning Director, Whatcom County: You need to create a reasonable range of alternatives to allow each of us, as the smaller jurisdictions, to plan appropriately for our jurisdictions and you need to give us the respect and authority to do that. Rollin Harper made the comment that you need to have a broad enough range so that we can look at all of those numbers. The numbers that are here tonight are certainly within the range that I would expect my community to grow with. We have all made an effort, over the last 20 years, to increase our density and meet the requirements of the GMA. As a planner for the City of Lynden, for 17 years, I appreciate the fact that the Council did agree to ask for an extension. Planning for our community does take time. We need that luxury of time in order to formulate what is best for our community and to provide you with the best information to make your decisions on. You need to look at the economic impacts of low growth. How are you going to pay to change policies of the past as well as that upper bracket of how are we going to put services out if we expand the growth. Perry Eskridge, Government Affairs Director for the Whatcom County Association of Realtors, Whatcom County: The one thing that keeps coming to my mind as I look at all of this information is that Mark Twain said there are three kinds of lies. There's lies, damn lies and statistics. I took about 15 phone calls today concerning this issue. One of them was actually a realtor. All the rest were members of the public trying to get information about what is going on. I think that's a little disconcerting for me. I think you are going to see a lot more public interest in this. I think people honestly believe that their government is not giving them the full picture. They are looking to professional organizations to give them the information. That should be of concern to you. It's concerning to me. I started really diving into the numbers today and just want to give you something to think about. A lot of my realtors specialize in rural lands. They have people come in and say that they want to live in a rural area. A lot of my realtors are concerned that if we don't have rural land we aren't going to have anything to sell. When I started looking at the Kendall area and the Columbia Valley numbers let's presume they are correct. Taking the number that has been given to us, the medium number, of 3,000 people in the next 20 or 30 years. The average occupancy rate is 3.1 people per unit right now. How many houses is that in that area? You are talking about a thousand more homes. If you are looking at 5 or 10 acre parcels what does that mean? It makes no sense. Let's presume these are going to be low income houses and there will be second homes out there. All of a sudden you get lower occupancy numbers. If you only have two people in a house and you are trying to provide for 3,000 more people what does that do? If you are going to aim at a target don't put the top of the cross hairs at the area where you think you want the bullet to hit. Move it, get a bracket and line things up in the middle. The hearing was closed to the public. 270 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 22 Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission February 17, 2009 The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Minutes prepared by B. Boxx. The Council approved these minutes on , 2009. ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair 271 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 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Committee Of The Whole February 24, 2009 Council Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Bob Kelly Sam Crawford Carl Weimer Laurie Caskey-Schreiber L. Ward Nelson Weimer moved to go into executive session to discuss the two agenda items for approximately 60 minutes. Motion carried unanimously. 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING POTENTIAL PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS FOR THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT (AB2009-018) 2. STRATEGY PLANNING DISCUSSION REGARDING DEPUTY SHERIFF'S GUILD COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (AB2009-055) OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk , 2009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair Committee of the Whole, 2/24/2009, Page 1 272 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 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Regular County Council February 24, 2009 Council Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Barbara Brenner Bob Kelly Sam Crawford Carl Weimer Laurie Caskey-Schreiber L. Ward Nelson FLAG SALUTE MINUTES Absent: None 1. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR DECEMBER 9, 2008 Brenner moved to approve the minutes. Motion carried 7-0. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING POTENTIAL PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS FOR THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT (AB2009-018) (Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors. Board Chair Weimer assumed the duties of the Chair for this portion of the meeting.) Fleetwood moved to authorize the County Executive, acting on behalf of the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors, to move forward with acquisition of two properties on Jones Creek, as long as the purchase price of each parcel does not exceed the amount discussed in executive session. Motion carried 7-0. Fleetwood moved to authorize the County Executive, acting on behalf of the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors, to move forward with and complete acquisition of two properties in Marietta, as long as the purchase price of each parcel does not exceed the amount discussed in executive session. Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 1 273 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 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Motion carried 7-0. OPEN SESSION The following people spoke: Kara Black, A Closer Look Travel Agency Owner, stated she wants to put in an eco- lodge on 80 acres. She described an eco-lodge. The neighbors in the area support her project. The zone is rural, one unit per ten acres (R10A). The parcel could be split up into eight different parcels. At the County pre -application conference, the project was put into the most restrictive commercial classification. There were extraordinarily expensive requirements that make the project not feasible. Consider the scale of business when making requirements. She would have been required to widen the roadway, a 90,000- gallon tank of water with a high speed pump system and hydrant. She was also required to install a very expensive sprinkler in a barn, not just the buildings. The project became too expensive. This kind of code promotes really big developments. Those are the only ones that can afford to pay those costs. Larry Helm, 2660 E 415t Terrace, Squalicum Valley Community Association Vice - President, stated the February storm damaged roads and made them impassable. Whatcom County road maintenance staff responded quickly, worked around the clock, involved and responded to neighbors, and did an excellent job in his neighborhood. The Association wanted to thank them publicly. Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County Executive Director, stated he supports the ordinance staying pro -active enforcement of Whatcom County Code Section 24.05, On -Site Sewage System Regulations, in cases where property - owners are otherwise not transferring title or conveying real estate (AB2009- 135). It recognizes the unnecessary burdens on citizens and staff from the onsite sewage system regulations adopted last November. This ordinance balances the needs of the environment with the needs of the people. Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, stated he is outraged that today's Planning and Development Committee voted against the Planning Commission's recommended 220,000 population projection in the environmental impact statement (EIS), without any public input. The goal was to have the number in the EIS so they can plot from the low number to the high number. Citizens have repeatedly expressed concern about the growth rate in the County. This action disregards those concerns. It will create higher tax bills for everyone. Bellingham won't continue to grow. They don't have to make the urban growth areas (UGA) or cities smaller. The goal is to see what people want. Plan for the lowest cost possible. Reinstate the 220,000 projection. The County Council must have a public hearing if it goes against the Planning Commission recommendation. Bruce Deila, citizen, stated the number of hotels that require a credit card in Bellingham is because of a letter he submitted to the attorney general. He read from the letter. Now he's learned that more than one hotel accepts cash. The Chamber of Commerce should notify the motels and let them know, so they don't give out false information. He will begin a petition process to get the City Council and County Council to Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 2 274 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 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. enact a law that prohibits motels from requiring a credit card. They don't need to prohibit access to shelter. Brenner stated this is a State issue. States are allowed to make more restrictive ordinances than the federal government. The federal government does allow a proprietor to accept whatever kind of currency they want. When Mr. Deila was here last time, she provided him with the name of Greg Winters from the Homeless Project at the Opportunity Council. Mr. Winters has a vast list of places all over Bellingham and Whatcom County. Mr. Deila is welcome to give Mr. Winters a call for that list. Those places exist. Ellen Baker, 9945 Mt. Baker Highway, Glacier, stated keep in mind the roles of the two advisory committees regarding the Columbia Valley as an urban growth area (UGA) or limited area of more intense rural development (LAMIRD). The subarea plan advisory committee only looked at the picture from a very narrow perspective. The Planning Commission reviewed the matter from a wider, countywide perspective. She supports the Planning Commission recommendation. Jan Eskola, Glacier, stated it was mentioned that the Council should only take comments from Columbia Valley residents on the UGA or LAMIRD issue. However, what happens in the Columbia Valley has huge impacts on the entire Foothills area. All Foothills residents have a stake in this issue. She supports the Planning Commission recommendation. The Council should read the minority report to the draft Foothills subarea plan. Trist Shirley, Futurewise, stated reinsert the Office of Financial Management (OFM) low projection number. The committee recommendation contains a range of population numbers. The EIS should contain a range of options. No public input was involved in selecting the population projection of 258,000. He recommends the County start with a low UGA population projection, monitor the population, and adjust it later if necessary. To begin, assume they will expand at the OFM minimum rate, and size the UGAs accordingly. That will provide an adequate land supply until 2017, even if they expand at the much faster minimum rate. Chet Dow, 5491 Woodfern Way, stated he supports the ordinance staying pro- active enforcement of Whatcom County Code Section 24.05, On -Site Sewage System Regulations, in cases where property -owners are otherwise not transferring title or conveying real estate (AB2009-135). Most people can take care of their own systems. The Council should have a public hearing on this item. John Lesow, 317 Madrona Place, stated long-range planning. He is concerned that they've moved away from long-range planning and toward trend management. Planning has been turned over to consultants. The historical average population growth over the past 100 years would result in a population projection of 220,000. However, they are projecting for the next 20 years with an eight- to ten-year window. That's irresponsible. It will impact the environment and agriculture. Reconsider the OFM minimum population projection of 220,000. Jason Reimer, 9951 Peace Road, Blaine, stated the Council should have a public hearing on the ordinance staying pro -active enforcement of Whatcom County Code Section 24.05, On -Site Sewage System Regulations, in cases where property- Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 3 275 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 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. owners are otherwise not transferring title or conveying real estate (AB2009- 135). The onsite sewage regulations the County enacted effectively asks people to give up their Fourth Amendment right to not have an unreasonable search. Reconsider the enforcement aspect of the regulations. Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated he supports Executive Kremen's position regarding the Terraquarium. Regarding the population projection, the Council should choose the middle number. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. RESOLUTION DECLARING THE COUNCIL'S APPROVAL AND INTENTION TO ADOPT THE FEBRUARY 10, 2009 AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 23 — SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (AB2008-303C) -AND- la. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, IN ITS ENTIRETY (ALL EXHIBITS INCLUDED) (APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY ON AUGUST 8, 2008) Crawford asked for an explanation of the process. Peter Gill, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report and read from a presentation (on file). A property is nonconforming if it cannot meet the buffer requirements of 100 or 150 feet and still provide a 2,500 square foot building area outside the buffer. The buffers have been in effect since 2005. They are not new. These amendments are an attempt to address building within those buffers. The public was very concerned about language regarding a home that is destroyed due to casualty. A structure can be replaced in -kind if not in a hazardous area, which is defined. This is consistent with previous shoreline management programs and other building codes. He showed slides of potential lot development options. Incentives will reduce impacts to shorelines with smaller footprints and lower growth. The alternative is a conditional use permit, which is still an option. Traditional permitting processes are still options. This is an alternative. Nelson asked if the limit of 2,500 square feet applies outside the buffer. Gill stated the 2,500 square foot limit applies only to the buffer area. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Gill continued to read the presentation regarding next steps. After tonight's public hearing, they will make modifications. The Council can vote on and approve the amendments in upcoming meetings. At that point, these amendments are forwarded to the State for review. The State will review and comment on the amendments. Then, the County will begin negotiations with the State before adopting any amendments. This could take months. Crawford stated the County submitted the current Shoreline Management Plan that the State Department of Ecology and the County have agreed to. It's got all those Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 4 276 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 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. regulations in place, including the 150-foot setback. Everything just presented is a proposal to Ecology to make some of the restrictions more flexible, depending on a person's situation. He hasn't heard that anything proposed tonight is more restrictive than what is currently the law that is in place now. Gill stated that is correct. Crawford asked the difference between this resolution and the ordinance scheduled for later during this meeting. Gill stated this resolution forwards these amendments to Ecology for review. The ordinance codifies the existing code. Crawford asked how they are enforcing the regulations if they haven't been codified. Caskey-Schreiber stated State law trumps County law. Gill stated it gets into legal issues with State law and who is actually responsible. Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated that when the Department of Ecology set a letter to the County on August 8 approving the plan, the law went into effect as a State law. To enforce the regulation, the County technically does not need to adopt an ordinance. It is the desire of staff to have it on the County books to be acceptable as a local ordinance. It becomes a law pursuant to State law. It doesn't have to be enacted as a local law. They adopt the regulation to have it codified. Brenner asked the definition of "in kind." Gill stated it means within the footprint of the existing structure. Brenner stated there was a court case since these buffers were adopted in 2005 that questions a one -size -fits -all buffer. Frakes stated they are currently in litigation on that very issue. It is County opinion that the case does not affect the validity of the adopted Shoreline Plan. Brenner stated the County began using the term nonconforming' instead of 'grandfathered.' The term nonconforming' is more negative. She asked if the term 'grandfathered' is a legal term. Gill state the old Shoreline Program also used the term 'nonconforming.' Barry Wenger, State Department of Ecology, stated he will comment on the size and origin of buffers and the role of the State in shoreline permits. It was always the intent to allow someone to rebuild a home in the same location if it burns down. He supports clarifying that and other changes. Regarding buffer sizes, they went through a long process with a citizen advisory committee and a technical advisory committee. They went through many scientific studies, defined the shoreline functions they want to protect, and identified the shoreline distance it would take to preserve those functions. That's how they came up with the buffer distances. He submitted information (on file) and state the County rewrote the Master Program in 1993. It took six years. At that time, they needed more flexibility in the setbacks. A person who already had a house and who wanted to expand the house had to get a variance. To get a variance, a person had to show a hardship. That's difficult to do if someone is already living in a house. He talked his agency into using the conditional use Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 5 277 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 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. process for adding height, building away from the water, or building on the sides of the structure. It doesn't allow building toward the water when already in the buffer. That provides a little oversight and much more flexibility. It doesn't require a hardship determination. That has worked really well for 16 years in this County, and statewide. He read the handout on the conditional use statistics for Whatcom County residences. Fleetwood opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke. Larry Blanchard, 4131 Saltspring Drive, Ferndale, stated the County violated State law by closing public comment and input in 2008 before making a decision. The County intends to reverse development and turn all shorelines back into their state before people settled the county. The County plan is a land grab designed to prevent property owners from using the buffer next to the water. The plan disregarded specific policies in State law protecting property rights and Constitutional property rights. Larry Quinlivan, 2327 Northshore Road, stated he thanks the County for the Shoreline Master Program amendments. A nonconforming designation affects the value of a property, even if the home was built to the codes in place at that time. That isn't fair. This action seems to be an uncalled for abuse of eminent domain. Don't use the nonconforming designation. Tim Volwieler, 1050 Larrabee Avenue, Suite 104, Bellingham, stated the State is trying to lay things on the Council that isn't a County Council decision. The County Council is being told by the citizens to go back to the State and do things that really aren't in the Council's power to do. He is in favor of variances and conditional use permits in the shorelines. He is in favor of managing critical areas more stringently. Regarding the setbacks, the citizens are saying that they want consistency on the one hand and flexibility on the other hand. He is in favor of the 150-foot setback as a general rule. Absent that, the regulation will be vague and put the power on the individual planners. Honor the intent of the original State Environmental Policy Act and management guidelines. Look to the future and protect the natural environment. Don't give in to all the exceptions that individual property owners have requested. Christie Lysne, 2472 Northshore Road, stated she speaks for Kris Ungern at 2095 Northshore Road. He is concerned by the nonconforming designation of existing structures on the shoreline, which conformed to the regulations in effect at the time of original construction. The proposed shoreline setbacks are arbitrary and will cause problems for homeowners who wish to sell, remodel, or replace structures. The other major limit is the 2,500 square foot footprint limit. New rules for private docks impose arbitrary limits on the walkway, widths, and lengths. The proposed rules have a one -size -fits -all approach with arbitrary rules. Allow flexibility. Variances and conditional use permits are difficult to get. Gary Lynse, 2472 Northshore Road, stated Councilmembers didn't read or understand what they read when passing the regulation in 2008. The biggest nonconforming landowner is Whatcom County, which has miles of County roads around the shorelines that are within those buffers. He asked what the County is going to do with its nonconforming roads when they wash out and go into the lake. The real issues are sewers, roads, and runoff. The cure is to replace the councilmembers who voted for this. Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 6 278 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 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Jim Dickinson, 2094 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island, stated there has been a complete lack of due process. Regarding the nonconforming issue, his house, built in 1897, is about 120 feet from the high water mark, is nonconforming and therefore illegal. However, it's not nonconforming. He has a vested right to that place. They need to change that term and let people know they have a vested right. Lot consolidation is illegal in the State. It is a vested right. Define what feasible means. Decisions will be made by whichever planning staff person looks at the project. It needs to be codified so everyone has the same set of rules. The City of Victoria, B.C. puts out more sewage into the water than everyone in Whatcom County. Wendy Harris, Bellingham, stated she objects to the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments do not comply with the County Councils directive to amend the Shoreline Management Program (SMP) for purposes of clarification. The proposed amendments contain substantive changes that expand the rights of shoreline property owners at the expense of the public. They are exempt from current variance and conditional zoning permit requirements up to 500 square feet. The public interest is not being protected by limiting this exemption. Water bodies are impaired by these small, incremental acts. Weakening the SMP does not prioritize the interests of all residents of the state, as required under the Shoreline Management Act. Don't weaken the SMP. People put in five years of hard work and compromise on the SMP. Don't override that community effort to placate the interests of a few intent on forwarding a personal agenda. The proposed amendments make the SMP confusing to understand. Shoreline property owners are entrusted with a precious natural resource that impacts public health and safety. It has been in a state of steady and increasing degradation. Shoreline property owners should be held to a higher standard of care and responsibility than the general public. Extensive scientific evidence supports the need for the imposition of more stringent land use regulation for shoreline property, rather than more lax regulations. Terri Temple, 2131 Lummi Shore Road, stated she purchased a house in March, moved in to her house in May, and intended to add onto the house. She now finds out she can't. She researched building codes and found nothing about setbacks at the time she bought the house. They shouldn't be worried about her polluting. There are cars that drive along the road. She lives on the reservation, and people park their cars, shell fish, and party. The County Council is writing legislation without informing her. The County managed to find her to tell her she owes property tax, but not to tell her the County is about to devalue her property. Property values have gone down, but the County isn't lowering property assessments so people will pay fewer taxes. This Council makes a lot of decisions without talking to the voters. The State does override the County, but the County Council wrote the shoreline management changes, not the State. This sits with the County Council. Rod Johnston, 2714 South Park Drive, Bellingham, stated he adamantly opposes amendments, especially the setbacks. He's not convinced that there is scientific evidence that shoreline survival requires a 150-foot setback. The amount of time it takes isn't the issue. The issue is getting it right. That's important. Another issue is that they need a new system for proper notification. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Johnston continued to state they need proper notification. Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 7 279 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 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Michelle Luke, Lummi Island, submitted and read from her information (on file). The Ecology piece and the private property piece are not being equally respected. The amendment allowing only one remodel is crazy. The plan should be full of solutions for every development stage. Use best available technology. Mike Kent, 5631 Nakat Way, Birch Bay, stated he compliments Mr. Gill on the presentation. As a realtor, he is concerned about disclosure. Clients are required to fill out a statement regarding conformity. A nonconforming designation may be a cause for a bank to decline to loan. He is concerned about the remodeling issue. All rules and changes should be consistent. The culture at the County should be one in which staff show the public how to do things correctly and accomplish their goals, rather than telling people what they can't do. That is the underlying concern of most citizens. People feel too intimidated to try for conditional use permits. Nelson asked if the disclosure form specifically asks if the property is nonconforming. Kent stated it talks about zoning parameters. The last question on the form asks if there is any information that a potential property owner would want to know. Potential property owners would want to know about this. Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association (BIA) of Whatcom County Governmental Affairs Director, stated she has several concerns. The BIA was part of a stakeholder plan. One concern is that staff chose to write brand new regulations when it was asked to write amendments for clarifications, including new regulations for mandatory lot consolidation on shoreline parcels. Lot consolidation is a function of Title 20, not an overlay regulation. They are opposed to the setbacks that make properties nonconforming, especially when the Shoreline Management Act says that single family residences are a preferred use. The terms 'nonconforming structure' and 'nonconforming use' are blurred. She has been at every shoreline meeting, and tonight is the first she's seen of a 3,600 square foot regulation. They are concerned with the 2,500 square foot limit. She is concerned about adopting something by ordinance, but there was never a public notice. The Council is adopting regulation by resolution, and the County Charter says that resolutions don't have any force of law. Take more time on these regulations. Matt Stock, The Buck Law Group attorney 2030 1st Avenue, Suite 201, Seattle, stated he speaks on behalf of many clients with shoreline property. His clients are frustrated that the amendment package didn't address the substantial increase in shoreline setbacks. The effect will be to render just about every existing shoreline house a nonconforming structure. The consequence is serious. It will complicate efforts to refinance, remodel, renovate, expand, and sell these properties. The number of people who apply for conditional use permits will increase, which will slow the process. The County imposes significant fees for a conditional use permit or variance. Properties will be devalued. There was no public notice that this would be adopted tonight. Reconsider the shoreline setback width and application. Dannon Traxlor, 709 Dupont, Bellingham, stated she speaks on behalf of many shoreline property owners. There must be better notice to affected property owners. Mr. Gill said these shoreline setbacks have been enforced since 2005, but they were enforced Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 8 WE 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 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. via the critical areas ordinance, not the Shoreline Management Program. The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that was illegal. Don't have a blanket, one -size -fits -all setback, because it doesn't meet the legally -required proportionality test, and science doesn't support it. Critical areas within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act are governed only by the Shoreline Management Act. The Council had asked staff to work with the State Department of Ecology (DOE) and get input on the legality of the setbacks. She would like to see the outcome of that conversation. Ron Jepson, citizen, stated he is an engineer and waterfront property owner. Setbacks sound as if they are for an industry, not a house. The real issue is the setbacks. The setback for saltwater is greater than that for potable water. The wider the lot, the farther back one is forced. The drainfield can be in the buffer, but not the house. There are many inconsistencies triggered by those excessive setbacks. No one who has a vested interest was able to fight for the property rights. Perry Eskridge, Whatcom County Association of Realtors, stated he received no notice of the proposed amendments. The regulations need to be reasonable. The language still exists about replacing a destroyed structure if there is no feasible alternative. DOE says it's clarified, but it's not clarified. Subsection (f) says that an owner must meet both conditions. He is opposed to the limit to allow only one remodel. He opposes the 2,500 square foot building footprint limit. That size should be the minimum footprint, not the maximum footprint. Private property ownership is a fundamental right in the United States. Regulations must be reasonable. There should be a connection to the purpose. Staff didn't clarify the issues. More work needs to be done. Wendy Steffensen, Resources North Sound Bay Keeper, stated she is an advocate and educator for marine water and fresh water. The 'if feasible' language now applies only to uses other than single family residences. It's untrue that one can't build a home on a nonconforming lot. The 2,500 square foot footprint is what is allowed without a variance or conditional use permit on a nonconforming lot. To build more, one can get a conditional use permit or variance. According to County staff, the County received 10 to 20 conditional use and variance requests over the past two and a half to three years. Of those, four have been denied. County staff does help people to mold their projects so they don't need a conditional use permit or variance. She understands the desire to be flexible, but they must protect the shoreline. Don Wines, 2219 N. Nugent, Lummi Island, stated he is concerned about the size of the buffers. A one -size -fits -all buffer doesn't work. His shoreline is sandstone, and will be there for a thousand years. Laura Lee Brakke, 585 Pleasant Bay, stated regulations are written to carry out the intent of the law. The intent of the Shoreline Management Act, passed in 1971, is in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58 and is to protect and preserve the shorelines in the State. The interest of all people are paramount in the management of shorelines of statewide significance. She read the RCW. People must read the law and applicable regulations before they buy land. Living on the water can come with many benefits, and it also comes with more responsibility. They must protect natural resources. Non -point pollution is a major contributor to the declining health of Puget Sound. Using buffers will Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 9 281 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 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. maximize the aquifer recharge area, preserving the natural mechanisms that keep water clean. Eliminate the use of fertilizers and herbicides in the shoreline jurisdiction. People who receive building permits in hazardous area should sign a waiver to hold harmless and release from liability any County, State, or federal agency so no taxpayer money is ever spent to repair or reimburse for damage to a house built knowingly in a hazardous area. Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, submitted information (on file) and described the property in the handout. The property was approved for a restaurant, but the developer ended up adding 35 feet to the shoreline and built two buildings three times larger than the original plan for the restaurant. The County allowed the developer access to a restroom. There are things in the Shoreline Management Program, which Whatcom County enforces, that do need to be looked at. Property would be worth nothing without government. Stuart Andrews, 3391 Robertson Road, stated it took him 28 years to acquire a waterfront home. He endorses the private property taking. The U.S. Constitution allows the public to confiscate private property via eminent domain, considering two caveats. First, there must be an overwhelming public need for the property. Second, the property owner should receive market, or just compensation, value for the loss. If market value is too much for the public to bear, the public need may be less than overwhelming. Market value is the value before public tampering, not after. Calculate the value of a 150-foot swath of residential shoreline property, and then pay it. Then reduce property taxes on the property proportionally. Or, give up on the confiscation. Then it won't be theft. Henry Forkade, 8745 Ortell Drive, Blaine, stated they just went through five years of planning and building on their new home. The first two years were involved in consulting with County regulators. They were told all kinds of different information. There was no one single setback for all properties along the marine shore. There was a different setback from the shoreline, depending on specific conditions. Mr. Chalfant told him he would not be able to build a house near the bank, but he was granted a variance on the lot. The house is no where near the 150-foot setback. Now, the setbacks are more strictly enforced. People receive different interpretations. The Council should do what's right for the private property owners on the shorelines in their jurisdiction. The property owners are the best protectors of nature. Lori Hansen, 419 Lakeside Drive, Bellingham, stated she and people where she lives are concerned about water quality. She is concerned about the attitude that people who live on shorelines don't care. She asked about the science behind the reason for the setbacks, and what changed. Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County Executive Director, stated make sure the ordinance is clear, and that a reasonable person can understand what is required. Make sure that all the regulations are applied consistently among everyone. Make sure that people can count on the regulations that are applied. People must be certain about the regulations. Last, make sure that the regulations are legal. Avoid legal entanglements. There is a problem with the 2,500 square foot limit. Janie Earling, 3245 Mosquito Lake Road, stated she is a shoreline landowner and land use consultant. She thanked Peter Gill for the presentation. Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 10 282 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 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) Earling stated she is opposed to the once -per -lifetime limitation, the mandatory lot consolidation, and the lack of notification. Clarify the definition of "in -kind" and indicate that it means within the same footprint. It's vague and capricious. She agrees with Ron Jepson regarding lot width and impact toward the shoreline. Her house was poorly constructed and needs to be rebuilt. Clarify whether she can do that. Frank Muljat, 2565 Northshore Road, Bellingham, stated his house is 45 feet from the lake, and wants to know if he would be able to rebuild his home on his original 5,000 square foot footprint. He asked how many variances he would need. There are many questions that need to be answered. Larry Berman, 3233 Sunset Way, stated he lives on Lummi Bay. The biggest environmental shoreline problem is Mother Nature. He asked why they haven't thought about grandfathering. Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated people are most worried about Planning Department staff's attitude. The interpretation of these rules will change when an applicant takes a lawyer. The rules can be interpreted in too many ways. Skip Jansen, 2024 Northshore Drive, Bellingham, stated the program is good. If a house burns down, it can be replaced in the same footprint. Consider people who purchased lots 30 years ago and would like to build a house now the same size as their neighbor. The regulations should allow them to do that. If the property is devalued, the County should pay the assessed property value plus past property taxes. Linda Smit, 992 Paradise Road, stated the primary reason for a lost salmon run is due to untended salmon nets upriver, not mismanagement along the river. Landowners along the shorelines take their land stewardship seriously, using best practices. She is aware that some people pollute the river, which is why they need shoreline management laws. Her main concern is not knowing definition of shorelines. Definitions change. A drainage ditch was changed to a fish -bearing stream, so a neighbor couldn't build a garage. Don't let those definitions change over time. Roger Almskaar, 233 S. State Street, Bellingham, submitted a handout (on file) and stated he appreciates the progress on the nonconforming structure issue. The wording isn't quite there yet. His main concern is with the setbacks. The text doesn't distinguish between buffers and setbacks. He doesn't agree with a uniform buffer on shorelines, especially in areas that are already developed to urban densities. He read from his handouts. In some cases, the buffers make sense, but not in areas that are already developed. Sy Eldred, 317 W. Laurel, stated he has a lot at Sandy Point that is 160 feet deep. There is a sewer system and neighboring houses. It's a developed area. There must be discretion for each property. A one -size -fits -all regulation doesn't work. There must be continuity in the permit department. The general public who benefit should pay the cost of this, not the personal landowner. Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 11 283 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 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Jason Reimer, Blaine, read from a copy of the Declaration of Independence and stated everyone should read it. Hearing no one else, Fleetwood closed the public hearing. Fleetwood stated they are still within the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) period, so the Council will not take final action on this resolution tonight. The ordinance amending Whatcom County Code (WCC), Title 23, Shoreline Management Program; the Official Shoreline Map and associated provisions of WCC Chapter 16.16, Critical Areas, and WCC, Title 20 Zoning Ordinance to update the Whatcom County Shoreline Management Program in accordance with the requirements of the Washington State Shoreline Guidelines (WAC 173-26) and other applicable local, state, and federal environmental regulations (AB2008-303) was before the County Council for discussion at tonight's meeting, but the Council has been advised to simply introduce that item tonight. (Clerk's Note: The Council took a five-minute break at 9:45 p.m.) CONSENT AGENDA Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services committee and moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through nine. Caskey-Schreiber withdrew item one. Brenner withdrew item two. Motion to approve Consent Agenda Items three through nine carried 7-0. 1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND PEEPLES ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE BUILDING AT 215 N. COMMERCIAL STREET IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,800,000 (AB2009-119) Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services committee and moved to approve the request. Caskey-Schreiber asked if the County can negotiate a lower price since the economy is down. Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, stated the County entered into a lease purchase agreement for this property almost three years ago, and negotiated the purchase price at that time. Because of the down economy, the property was recently reappraised. He could provide a copy of the appraisal. Brenner moved to hold in Committee. Bennett stated they are exercising the option according to the agreement. The individual would probably not be obligated to sell the property to the County if the County doesn't purchase the property at that price. Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 12 ME 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 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Crawford stated he doesn't recommend that. The agreement was a lease to buy. The sale price was dropped to less than the appraisal price. The seller has signed the contract. The decision was made at the time they decided to lease to buy. Brenner asked if they can wait three weeks. She would like to wait to see the appraisal. Bennett stated he didn't know if they can wait. Caskey-Schreiber asked how much was budgeted for this item. Bennett stated the budget amount was $1.8 million. The price was negotiated three years ago. Motion to hold in Committee carried 5-2 with Crawford and Fleetwood opposed. 2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM GUARDIAN AD LITEM SERVICES, LLC FOR SERVICES FOR 2009 IN THE AMOUNT OF $310,000 (AB2009-120) Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services committee and moved to approve the request. Brenner stated she won't support the request. It is the same services with the same people who went over the contact before. She doesn't believe that they won't go over the budgeted amount. It means kids will suffer. They need a registry of people who are capable of providing this service, and get as many people as they can to provide the service. Caskey-Schreiber asked why they don't have guardians ad litem on staff rather than have expensive contracts. Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, stated it probably won't be less expensive. They've run the numbers. Nelson stated this process has been evolving for at least six years. They've been trying to start the National Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program. Deciding on the program is a decision of the courts and judges. The Council must work with them. They're elected, and determine how to set this up. It's not the Council's jurisdiction to impose a certain process on the courts. They must work together during the budget process. Brenner stated she brought it up during the budget process. Motion to approve carried 6-1 with Brenner opposed. 3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NW YOUTH SERVICES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TEEN COURT PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,500 (AB2009-121) Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 13 285 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 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. 4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF LIGHT BARS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT FOR SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT VEHICLES USING WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT FROM VENDOR AUTO ADDITIONS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $62,520.48 (AB2009- 122) S. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #09-09 TO LOW BIDDER, MCASPHALT INDUSTRIES, FOR DELIVERY AND SUPPLY OF ASPHALTIC EMULSIONS IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $950,000 (AB2009- 123) 6. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO PURCHASE LIGNOSITE FOR DUST CONTROL ON COUNTY ROADS FROM SOLE VENDOR, MEENDERINCK, LLC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 (AB2009-124) 7. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDED CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING IN ORDER TO INCREASE HOUSING CASE MANAGEMENT CAPACITY NEEDED TO HANDLE INCREASED CASELOADS (IN ASSOCIATION WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WHATCOM HOMELESS SERVICE CENTER) IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,094, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED AMOUNT OF $103,613 (AB2009-125) 8. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDED CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING IN ORDER TO INCREASE HOUSING CASE MANAGEMENT CAPACITY NEEDED TO INCREASE CASE MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM INTAKE CAPACITY (IN ASSOCIATION WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WHATCOM HOMELESS SERVICE CENTER) IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,539, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED AMOUNT OF $134,593 (AB2009-126) 9. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF SHERIFFS AND POLICE CHIEFS FOR THE PURCHASE OF SMALL EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES TO AID IN COMBATING THE METHAMPHETAMINE PROBLEM IN WHATCOM COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,804.30 (AB2009-127) OTHER ITEMS 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2009 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, SECOND REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,084,653 (AB2009-113) This item was divided and substituted with two separate items, below. 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2009 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, SECOND REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $768,266 (AB2009-113) Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 14 io 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 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. Weimer moved to amend the ordinance by removing the amount allocated to HDR (Real Estate Excise Tax Fund 1) in the amount of $257,593. Hold that request to the next meeting. He's heard from Alliance Properties that there are serious errors in the HDR report. He would like to hear from Alliance Properties at the next meeting, before approving the HDR request. The new budget request amount would be $510,673. Nelson stated Alliance Properties is a proponent. He asked if Councilmember Weimer has had discussions with a proponent, who said there are errors on a consultant's report, and wants to hear Alliance Properties' concern with the property. Weimer stated that's correct. He wants to hear what Alliance Property representatives have to say before moving forward with the HDR contract. He is not making a judgment about HDR one way or another. Alliance Property talked with the administration and got all the information in the HDR report. Nelson asked if this report was reviewed be a separate committee. Weimer stated the public hasn't reviewed the report at all, and they're moving forward with the environmental impact statement (EIS) process. Nelson stated he has concerns with this direction. It seems to send the message with different property owners that the County may be in trouble. Caskey-Schreiber stated she supports holding this item. She's not sure she's satisfied with the amount of money they've spent and what they've gotten from them. She would rather just hear outside opinions about HDR's work. Nelson stated they are getting the opinion of a different property owner. Crawford stated they need to hear from the County Executive about the relationship with this consultant. The Council had an executive session several months ago in which the jail siting committee gave a report, based on the HDR material. This is a last minute thing. This item just continues the contract. He asked if the Executive objects to the Council holding this item. Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated the Council can do whatever it deems appropriate. He is not demanding that this move forward now. There is no harm done in waiting. However, questions are raised about a proponent working behind the scenes with councilmembers to do these last minute maneuvers. The Council puts itself at risk, and it raising questions about appropriateness and being above board. Kelly asked how the Council approves an expenditure for funding something that the public isn't allowed to see, for reasons that none of them can understand. He's heard rumors. Some of what he's seen in executive session led him to question some of what he heard from the consultant. The wetland survey seemed to be nothing more than a windshield survey. It wasn't a wetland delineation. There wasn't time in executive session to question that. He doesn't know how to address those questions in light of the executive session requirements. Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 15 287 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 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Crawford stated he will support the motion, since the County Executive said there is no practical problem with the delay. He is not aware of a potential real estate transaction in which individual councilmembers are apparently having discussions with one of the property owners. That is cause for concern. He has not been contacted by any of the property owners and has not had any discussions. It doesn't seem appropriate. They may need to have another discussion with legal counsel about where they should involve councilmember discussions with potential real estate sellers. Brenner stated she wants to find out why they had to be in executive session for it. She doesn't think they had to be. Crawford stated that as soon as the Council decides on something, the value increases. Caskey-Schreiber stated they need clarification on what is appropriate to discuss with someone who is pitching a project to the County. They must all be open to ideas and input to try and find the best value and location for this project. They all just want to save money for the taxpayers if there is an opportunity to do so. Legal counsel can look into what is appropriate when a potential contractor wants to pitch a project or point out errors in assumptions built into a very expensive report. Nelson stated the report included several different site locations. If there are questions about the report, the entire report should be open to the public. Crawford stated he disagrees. The minute the top -ranked site is published, the real - world cost of that site doubles. It seems unclear to the Council that the purpose of hiring a third -party expert who has no vested interest in any site, and who is a proven expert in the market to do this type of analysis, was the reason why they don't go out and try to find the best value. The County hires the firm to do an analysis and give the Council all the facts. At the time the report was presented, the Council didn't ask any question that was off the table. Deciding now to go talk to individual property owners is a different way than the Council approved as being a fair and independent way to come up with the best value for the taxpayers. Weimer stated he didn't contact Alliance Properties about anything talked about in executive session. He didn't provide them with any information. They met with the administration and were given the HDR report and all the data that HDR collected. They have since used that data to verify the report. They have concerns about the data they were given, and would like to share that concern with the Council before moving forward. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B.) Motion to amend carried 7-0. Motion to adopt as amended carried 7-0. 1A. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2009 WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BUDGET, FIRST REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $316,387 (AB2009-113A) Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, 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 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. (Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors. Board Chair Weimer assumed the duties of the Chair for this portion of the meeting.) Weimer moved to approve the resolution. Motion carried 7-0. 2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO INCLUDE REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES THAT RESULT IN THE CREATION OF PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED STEETSCAPES IN URBAN GROWTH AREAS; AND ALSO ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20.97 TO ADD DEFINITIONS THAT CLARIFY TERMS USED TO DESCRIBE ELEMENTS OF THE STREETSCAPE (AB2008-398) Caskey-Schreiber reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated the committee recommends that the Council hold a hearing on March 17 on the two versions of the ordinance. The committee discussed several items during its meeting today. She reported on those items. She moved to direct Council Policy Analyst Rebecca Craven to bring the list of questions in her memo, beginning on Council packet page 201, to the Growth Management Coordinating Council (GMCC), as discussed today regarding the discussion regarding the Urban Growth Areas review process (AB2009-052). Brenner stated it isn't appropriate to ask the Cities some of those questions in the memo, such as whether the Cities want densities that are lower than urban and whether the Cities would want to permit in the urban growth areas (UGA's). She doesn't support some of the questions in the memo, even for discussion purposes. Crawford stated he understands those concerns. However, he and Councilmember Fleetwood can carry that intent back to the GMCC. It's strongly -needed dialog. They won't resolve the issue, but must make sure the dialog begins. Otherwise, there won't be coordinated planning between the County and each of the cities. The County isn't committing to anything that is discussed. Brenner stated the GMCC plate is full. Some of these topics are outside their realm. Fleetwood stated they shouldn't take this memo so seriously. It's just to pose a variety of questions that people need to consider. It isn't binding. It's harmless. He and Councilmember Crawford can clarify that at the GMCC. Motion carried 6-1 with Brenner opposed. Caskey-Schreiber stated the question is before the Council, although she is opposed to the recommendation, but she must move to approve a Planning Commission recommendation to add a fourth alternative to the environmental impact statement (EIS) to study a population projection of 220,000 by 2029, as discussed in committee today Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, 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 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. regarding the review and decision on the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the EIS alternatives for the ten year UGA review (AB2009-052B). Nelson stated he doesn't support the recommendation, and staff doesn't support the recommendation, so don't spend money on studying it. Brenner stated it's a good idea. The economy will continue as it is, and they will need to plan for less growth. It's at least worth looking at. It's not about what they want. It's about reality. Caskey-Schreiber stated it's dangerous to think this is an actual option for the county. In the last five years, there have been 14,000 new residents. With that same trend, there could be 70,000 more residents in 20 years. This option calls for 30,000 more residents. The risk of underestimating the population increase is too scary. It would reverse most of the planning policies and the Birch Bay UGA and subarea plan. That's not planning. Entertaining that unlikely option is irresponsible. Kelly stated the white paper is recommendation, which was done because adequately informed about the ramifications education tool. an answer to the Planning Commission the public asked for it. The public wasn't of selecting that number. The paper is an Brenner stated she believes in the recommendation because it's a possible reality, not because that's what people want. The last five years has been the biggest bubble ever, and they won't see that again. Crawford stated that is completely wrong. They have looked at population growth in Whatcom County for 20 years. Motion failed 1-6 with Brenner in support. Caskey-Schreiber moved to have the consultant write a white paper on the Planning Commission's fourth population projection alternative. The white paper would explain why that option is not viable, as discussed in committee today regarding the review and decision on the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the EIS alternatives for the ten year UGA review (AB2009-052B). Crawford stated this is a complete waste of money. The County is out of money. Another $11,000, which includes the next item, is piling more money on a very expensive process. They're under a deadline. Don't support this item. Motion failed 3-4 with Fleetwood, Brenner, and Kelley in favor. Caskey-Schreiber moved to add light, glare, and noise to the items to be analyzed in each of the EIS alternatives, as discussed in committee today regarding the review and decision on the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the EIS alternatives for the ten year UGA review (AB2009-052B). Motion carried 4-3 with Fleetwood, Weimer, Caskey-Schreiber, and Brenner in favor. Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 18 290 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 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Nelson asked how one does an EIS on those issues. He asked the criteria to use. David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, stated a noise study could cost $30,000, and he is concerned that it would be difficult to do any kind of noise study countywide that is measurable. This is more of a qualitative analysis that talks about how noise, light, and glare will be impacted as a result of growth. He doesn't know if it will end up a deciding factor. Nelson stated he is concerned about the criteria that will be applied in the urban growth areas and rural areas. He agrees that they would have to spend a fortune to get anything useful. Brenner stated she disagrees. The Planning Commission was probably talking about the appropriateness of things. Caskey-Schreiber moved to otherwise approve the proposed scope of alternatives presented to the Planning Commission and Council for their hearing last week, as discussed in committee today regarding the review and decision on the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the EIS alternatives for the ten year UGA review (AB2009-052B). Brenner moved to amend to scope options X and Y at a population of 251,000, which is what the GMCC recommended, not at a population of 258,000. She doesn't know where that number came from. Stalheim stated the population of 258,000 is the most likely population for the year 2029, according to the State Office of Financial Management (OFM). It affects the smaller cities because it provides a wider range for the study. It doesn't mean the final recommendation will be that number. It will provide more flexibility for the individual City's and their proposals. The GMCC made the recommendation of 251,000, which is within the range. Brenner withdrew her motion. Crawford stated he is in favor of the motion. The Planning Commission spent a lot of time on it, and it won't cost them anything. He appreciates the Planning Commission coming up with these ideas. Motion carried 7-0. 3. APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON UTILITIES PLANNING AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE, DISTRICT 3 POSITION, APPLICANT: RICHARD MAY (AB2009- 116) Weimer moved to appoint Richard May. Motion carried 7-0. 4. APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WASTE RECYCLING INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVE, APPLICANT: IAIN DAVIDSON (AB2009-117) Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 19 291 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 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Brenner moved to appoint Iain Davidson. Motion carried 7-0. 5. RESOLUTION (JOINT) OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AND THE BELLINGHAM CITY COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF WASHINGTON STATE SENATE BILL 5344-2009-10, RELATED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEM FOR THE STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA (AB2009-132) Brenner asked what they are committing to in terms of cost. Caskey-Schreiber stated the cost will be passed on to the large cargo ships. Crawford stated the State is currently paying for the emergency response tug. Senator Rankor proposes that the owners of the oil -carrying ships or their contractors pay for it. It's a funding shift from the State to the oil users. Caskey-Schreiber moved to approve the resolution. Crawford stated he is against the resolution. They shouldn't weigh in on State issues. This has nothing to do with local waters. There will be fiscal impacts to industries in Whatcom County. If they are going to consider this, the Council should get input from those industries. Brenner stated they're paying for their own protective measures. That's a good thing. She would be surprised if the local refineries have a problem, because they're already doing this. Caskey-Schreiber moved to call the question. Motion carried 6-1 with Brenner opposed. Motion to approve the resolution carried 4-2-1 with Crawford and Nelson opposed and Brenner abstaining. 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE (WCC), TITLE 23, SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM; THE OFFICIAL SHORELINE MAP AND ASSOCIATED PROVISIONS OF WCC CHAPTER 16.16, CRITICAL AREAS, AND WCC, TITLE 20 ZONING ORDINANCE TO UPDATE THE WHATCOM COUNTY SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE SHORELINE GUIDELINES (WAC 173-26) AND OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS (AB2008-303) (PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM WAS HELD ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2008) (PLEASE SEE #6A) -AN D- 6A. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, IN ITS ENTIRETY (ALL EXHIBITS INCLUDED) (APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY ON AUGUST 8, 2008) Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 20 292 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 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. This item was added to the Introduction Items. INTRODUCTION ITEMS Brenner moved to accept the Introduction Items. 6. ORDINANCE STAYING PRO -ACTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF WHATCOM COUNTY CODE SECTION 24.05, ON -SITE SEWAGE SYSTEM REGULATIONS, IN CASES WHERE PROPERTY -OWNERS ARE OTHERWISE NOT TRANSFERRING TITLE OR CONVEYING REAL ESTATE (AB2009-135) Caskey-Schreiber moved to withdraw this item, due to added costs by staff to respond to this. She won't support it if it's brought forward. Brenner stated that the Council must make interim changes until the low -interest loan program and homeowner classes are set up, or they will have to have onsite sewage system (OSS) police dragging people out of their homes. Crawford stated he wants to move this item forward. Because he wrote this ordinance at the last minute, there was a question about whether the Council would reject this item. The councilmembers seemed to think this may save staff time and costs. Introduce this item tonight. They've got three weeks until the hearing. Caskey-Schreiber stated it's foolhardy to put this forward if the Council's intent is to not relax the rules for enforcement on OSS. Weimer stated he supports the motion to withdraw. Motion to withdraw carried 4-3 with Brenner, Crawford, and Nelson opposed. Motion to accept the Introduction Items one through five, seven, and nine carried 7-0. 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.71, 20.80.635 AND 20.80.735 TO ADD THE LAKE PADDEN WATERSHED AS A WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, STORMWATER SPECIAL DISTRICT AND WATER RESOURCE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (AB2009-118) 2. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF VACATING A PORTION OF SAXON ROAD (AB2009-128) 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2009 WHATCOM COUNTY PROJECT BUDGET REQUEST #1, IN THE AMOUNT OF $900,000 (AB2009-129) 4. ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF NEW APPLICATIONS FOR DIVISIONS OF LAND RESULTING IN LOTS Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 21 293 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 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. SMALLER THAN FIVE ACRES WITHIN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2008-114C) S. RESOLUTION AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 100.07, BIRCH BAY WATERSHED AQUATIC AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FUNDING MECHANISM (AB2009-130) 7. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE (WCC), TITLE 23, SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM; THE OFFICIAL SHORELINE MAP AND ASSOCIATED PROVISIONS OF WCC CHAPTER 16.16, CRITICAL AREAS, AND WCC, TITLE 20 ZONING ORDINANCE TO UPDATE THE WHATCOM COUNTY SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE SHORELINE GUIDELINES (WAC 173-26) AND OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS (AB2008-303) S. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO INCLUDE REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES THAT RESULT IN THE CREATION OF PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED STREETSCAPES IN URBAN GROWTH AREAS; AND ALSO ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20.97 TO ADD DEFINITIONS THAT CLARIFY TERMS USED TO DESCRIBE ELEMENTS OF THE STREETSCAPE (AB2008-398) (This version of the ordinance contains the proposed language for WCC 20.80.211, Front Loaded Garage Setbacks) 9. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO INCLUDE REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES THAT RESULT IN THE CREATION OF PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED STREETSCAPES IN URBAN GROWTH AREAS; AND ALSO ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20.97 TO ADD DEFINITIONS THAT CLARIFY TERMS USED TO DESCRIBE ELEMENTS OF THE STREETSCAPE (AB2008-398A) (This version has the proposed language for WCC 20.80.211, Front Loaded Garage Setbacks, removed from the ordinance) OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS Kelly stated at least 28 folks were arrested on suspicion that they were illegal immigrants. There was discussion about the Council accepting the contract for the Stonegard Program. It's an issue that affects folks in Jefferson County. This Council will have an issue to deal with in the next few weeks, if things happen the way he believes they will. Brenner stated she thanks the County Executive for allowing a Lummi Island resident to exchange a ferry pass. Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 22 294 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk 2009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2008, Page 23 295 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 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Committee Of The Whole March 17, 2009 Council Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Bob Kelly Sam Crawford Carl Weimer Laurie Caskey-Schreiber L. Ward Nelson 1. STRATEGY PLANNING DISCUSSION AND POSITIONS TO BE TAKEN REGARDING DEPUTY SHERIFF'S GUILD COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (AB2009- 055) This item was withdrawn. 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING REQUEST FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, APL2007-00015, FILED BY EMIL HECHT (AB2008-453) Brenner moved to go into executive session to discuss this agenda item. Motion carried 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS UPDATE AND DISCUSSION ON COUNCIL TRAVEL AND REGISTRATION ACCOUNTS Caskey-Schreiber asked if it's a bad trend to set when the Executive is more likely to fund a trip for a councilmember who is cozier with the Executive. It goes against the checks and balance relationship. They ought to establish some kind of policy or procedure when a councilmember goes above a travel allotment. Crawford stated Councilmember Fleetwood asked him several times to go on the trip. The Council Chair told him no less than six times that he needed to go to Washington D.C. His relationship with the Executive has nothing to do with it. Fleetwood stated this has nothing to do with any cozy relationship with the Executive. Committee of the Whole, 3/17/2009, Page 1 296 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 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Brenner stated that at budget time, they all agreed that each councilmember would get $500. Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated there was also $2,000 in the main travel fund. Nelson stated the policy was established separate from the budget. In the budget, they established a certain amount for each councilmember. Many times, they go for a supplemental if there is a need. All policies were followed. Councilmember Fleetwood went to the administration requesting a supplemental from their department to help Councilmember Crawford go to Washington D.C. Fleetwood stated that's not what happened. The Council cut back travel funds to $500 each. The $2,000 general amount was for sending one person to Washington D.C. He then attempted to buy the airfare and registration with 2008 money, but it was too late. He spent about $1,900 for everything. Councilmember Crawford's and his travel budgets totaled $1,000, and $400 was from last year. The total came to $3,800, so they needed an extra few hundred dollars. He mentioned it to Executive Kremen during a meeting on other issues. Executive Kremen agreed to take care of the remaining cost. He also urged Councilmember Caskey-Schreiber and other councilmembers to go. Crawford stated they need to adjust the Council budget accordingly. With these cutbacks, they were also very concerned about staff's ability to keep their licensing and accreditation. He wants to have a discussion with Executive Kremen about also covering that cost. Brenner stated it's fine if they get money from the Executive. The councilmembers all agreed to cut back their own money. She has kept her costs very low, more than usual. Crawford stated he and Councilmember Fleetwood will figure out how much they are over their $500 allotment. If the Council thinks its more appropriate for staff to use funds from the pool for their accreditation, they'll still have that. The Executive is amenable to that. Caskey-Schreiber stated she purposely didn't go to Washington D.C. last year in hopes she could have gone this year. It was frustrating to hear that the Executive found money for Councilmember Crawford, without offering anything to other councilmembers. She couldn't afford to go if she had to pay her costs, but would have gone if she had been assured her expenses would be reimbursed. Some councilmembers have not gone to Washington D.C., and others have gone every year. It would be fair to have a balance. Brenner stated she wants to make sure that staff has the money to go to their training. The Council is an entire branch of government, but it isn't treated equally. This is important. Brown -Davis stated they will figure out how to fund accreditation. She asked if the Council wants to create a policy for using the general travel fund in the future. will go. Caskey-Schreiber stated the councilmembers should decide, via a majority vote, who Committee of the Whole, 3/17/2009, Page 2 297 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Crawford stated that a new policy isn't probably necessary. In the absence of a policy, a vote Councilmember Caskey-Schreiber suggested is appropriate. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk 2009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair Committee of the Whole, 3/17/2009, Page 3 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-184 CLEARANCES Initial D----TDate Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assi ned to: Originator: u ll E Q V E D MAR 2 4 2009 3/31/09 Introduction Division Head: 4/14/09 Hearing Dept. Head: - 05 Prosecutor: 3 _) pt4 RC ONq, COUNTY Purchasing/Budget: COUNCIL Executive:141 0 TITLE OFD C11117777UMENT.• Resolution approving modifications to the 2008 Whatcom County Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution and Appendix A SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? (X ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: S UMMA R Y S TA TEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Resolution approving modifications to the 2008 Whatcom County Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. COMMITTEE ACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION.• 3/31/2009: Introduced Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: AB 2008-213 Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at. www. co. whatcom. wa. us/council. 299 WHATCOM COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION DEPT. 3373 Mt, Baker Highway Bellingham WA 98226 MEMORANDUM Michael McFarlane Director TO: Pete Kremen, County Executive and Members of the Whatcom County Council FROM: Michael McFarlane, Director RE: Resolution Approving Modifications to the 2008 Whatcom County Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan DATE: March 13, 2009 ■ Background and Purpose The County Council approved the Whatcom County Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan in May of 2008 (AB 2008-213). Staff is recommending that the current plan be amended to address errors, property ownership and land use changes per the attached resolution. Please contact Michael McFarlane at extension 32072, if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this item. Encl. 300 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: INTRODUCTION DATE: RESOLUTION # RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO THE 2008 WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan was adopted by the County Council on May 20th 2008; and WHEREAS, there were identified technical corrections and references that required a review and assessment with various property owners; and WHEREAS, Parks & Recreation staff have met with the various parties, reviewed their requests and recommend the following items be amended in the plan; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Whatcom County Council that the Whatcom County Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan is amended as follows with the amendments shown in exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference: 1. Paee 27. Man reference- Conservation Forestlands: #18 Lummi Mountain is deleted 2. Page 29, Proposed Forestland Acquisitions: "#18 Lummi Mountain Lummi Island NRCA- In association with the WA NDR-acquire development rights to the private forestlands located between state forest ownership on Lummi Mountain. Preserve the forests and extend access trail around the mountain and between the ferry landing and Reil Harbor Beach- the Lummi Island Natural Resource Conservation Area (NRCA)" is deleted. 3. Page 38, Map reference- Conservation Native American Places of Significance: #8 Lummi Island Village Point is deleted. 4. Page 39, Proposed Native America Sites of Significance: "#8 Lummi Island Village Point In association with Lummi Indian Nation- develop boat ramp, hand carry launch sites, waterfront access sites and trails, and interpretive facilities near the original village site on Lego Bay Road" is deleted. 5. Page 64, Privately Owned Inventory "#67 Lovers Bluff Privately owned shoreline access site located off Legoe Bay Road on the west side of Lummi Island overlooking Legoe Bay" is deleted. 6. Page 64, Privately Owned Inventory "#71 Governor's Point Privately owned shoreline access site located at the end of Pleasant Bay Road on Governor's point on Chuckanut Bay provides parking, picnic, and shoreline trail facilities" is deleted. 7. Page 65, Saltwater Access Sites: "#67 Lover's Bluff Lummi Island in association with the Lummi Island Land Trust- acquire development rights to Lovers Bluff. Preserve the shoreline and provide access trails to the beach" is deleted. 301 8. Pages 66 and 67, Map Reference- Waterfront Access Points Saltwater: #67 Lovers Bluff and #71 Governor's Point is deleted. 9. Page 73, Privately Owned Inventory:"#28 Point Migley Privately owned shoreline access site located on West Shore/Nugent Drive on Point Migley on Lummi Island with hand -carry capability" is deleted. 10. Page 73, Privately Owned Inventory "#29 Bellingham Yacht Club- Privately owned property located in Inati Bay on the east side of Lummi Island off Seacreast Drive with hand - carry capability" is deleted. 11. Page 74, Proposed hand -carry access site saltwater: "#35 Lovers Bluff Lummi Island- In association with the Lummi Island Land Trust acquire development rights to Lovers Bluff and develop hand -carry access" is deleted. 12. Page 74, Whatcom County and Other Participants: "#32 Governor's Point Privately owned shoreline access site located at the end of Pleasant Bay Road on Governor's Point on Chuckanut Bay with hand -carry capability" is deleted. 13. Pale 75, Map Reference- Hand -carry launch sites -saltwater: #28 Point Migley, #32 Governor's Point and #35 Lovers Bluff is deleted. 14. Page 77, Freshwater boat launch ramps: "#10 Village Point-Lummi Island Develop boat launch ramp near the original village site on Lego Bay Road" is deleted. 15. Page 78-79, Map reference- Boatlaunch ramps -freshwater & saltwater: #10 Village Point is deleted. 16. Page 80, Proposed boat launch ramps -Saltwater: "#12 Village Point-Lummi Island Develop a boat launch ramp near the original village site on Lego Bay Road" is deleted. 17. Page 98, Map reference- Saltwater trail/Cascade Marine Trail: #34 Inati Yacht Club, #37 Governor's Point and #39 Lover's Bluff is deleted. 18. Page 101, Saltwater trail access site: "#34 Inati Bay Yacht Club Privately owned property located in Inati Bay on the east side of Lummi Island off Seacrest Drive with hand -carry capability. #37 Governor's Point - Privately owned shoreline access site located at the end of Pleasant Bay Road on Governor's Point on Chuckanut Bay with hand -carry capability" is deleted. 19. Page 102, Saltwater trail access sites "#39 Lovers Bluff Lummi Island In association with the Lummi Island Land Trust- acquire development rights to Lovers Bluff and designate hand carry access" is deleted. 20. Page 124, Miles of day -use trails: "#30 Toad/Emerald Lake Trail Dirt hiking trail from Britton Road turn-off to Toad Lake access and fishing dock" is deleted (trail no longer exists). 21. Page 127, Miles of day use trails: "#62 Dirt hiking trail to be developed form Village Point north around Point Migley then south on Seacreast Drive and across the island and through private forestlands to Carter Point then north." is deleted and revised to read "Develop trails where appropriate on Lummi Island". 302 22. Whatcom County Park Plans Section (218)- Lake Whatcom Park South (Hegg Park and Zobrist and Richards Properties): "Develop rustic cabins, recreational vehicle campground, and possibly a lodge facility with meeting rooms, educational exhibits and other family and large group retreat activities" is deleted. 23. Appendix C page C-10: CA Private Land Ownership "#7 Point Migley- Privately owned shoreline access site location on West Shore/Nugent Drive on Point Migley on Lummi Island provides shoreline access, trails and parking." is deleted.. "#8 Inati Bay Yacht Club- "Privately owned property located in Inati Bay on the east side of Lummi Island off Seacrest Drive provides access to a system of shoreline trials." is deleted. "#9 Lover's Bluff- Privately owned shoreline access site located off Lego Bay Road on the west side of Lummi Island overlooking Legoe Bay." is deleted. "#13 Governor's Point- Privately owned shoreline access site located at the end of Pleasant Bay Road on Governor's Point on Chuckanut Bay provides parking, picnic and shoreline trail facilities." is deleted. APPROVED this day of , 2009 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM: Randall Watts, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor 303 APPENDIX A 304 § )�\ � /Qa\ ~ . o a j \/ % o� { LLI 0 $»a% ,GG§ Ix- tyz &§6R §RR§ m$%t %233 mm»m mmmm \ <.\ Z: zs [ LL- E/to m \)\J8a)� =%23a t \2 � ¥ U #\ // \/ �43§ /§ k\3\ #u£t %�$»%§k\\} , � /§\j�[(k\§ �� edGQoo@�K� �a>»@mwm 305 Arroc* WA DNR Forest Boardlschool Trust 15,700.0 16 Lake Whatcom DNR-managed land in the Lake Whatcom 15,700.0 watershed is managed consistent with legislative direction, the multiple use act, DNR policies, and the Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan (FEIS 2004). This working forest provides economic benefits as well as clean water, wildlife habitat, open space, and recreational opportunities. Total forestlands Total site acreage may also provide for other resource or recreational activities. Proposed . foj�estlanc! ac_qulsitians The following forestlands may be provided conservancy protection through easements, land use agreements, or acquisitions subject to appropriate feasibility studies with public and private participants. Whatcom County Acres* 1 Canyon Lake In association with the Whatcom Land Trust Community Forest - acquire development rights along Canyon Creek Road corridor between Mosquito Lake Road and Canyon Lake Community Forest to preserve woodlands and riparian habitat along Canyon Creek. 4 Sumas Mountain Acquire development rights to the property Ostrom Property located adjacent to the Ostrom Property. Preserve the farmstead, woodlands, and in association with. DNR, develop access trails and a trailhead to Sumas Mountain. 17 Lily Point - Point In association with Point Roberts R&RD Roberts acquire development rights to the parcel located at the end of Seacliff Road to reserve the shoreline and woodland bluff. «PIRGA ri9hte 4e thePriYate forestlands laeafed be wee!i State 94YReFskip op t MebwtaiH. n. F'0 t�.. Rleil I Farfaer Beaeh `' ' ' ' ' d 19 Nooksack River - Acquire development rights to the north Lynden bank of the Nooksack River off River Road at Fishtrap Creek. Preserve the woodlands and riverfront and develop access trails and interpretive exhibits. 20 Nooksack River - Acquire a trail easement on private and DNR South Fork/Acme properties to link the East Acme and Overby Farm Properties. Preserve the riverfront and woodlands. 21 Lake Samish In association with the Whatcom Land Trust Greenway - and DNR - acquirg development and logging Bellingham rights to preserve the scenic woodland cover of the forestlands located along the 1-5 corridor from Skagit County to Lakeway Drive. 29 Chapter 3: Plan elements - regional Whatcom County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan 306 r- 00 CY) N b0 R+ 307 Number of Native American sites 3 Maritime Heritage 11.2-acre multi -use park located on 1 Park - Whatcom Whatcom Creek between Holly and DuPoint Creek Streets. Native American salmon harvesting site and place of potlatch importance. Currently developed with fish hatchery, fishing area, and interpretive area with new totem poles. 4 WWTP - 2.0-acre original proposed site for new 1 Wastewater wastewater treatment plant on Semiahmoo Treatment Plant- Spit found to contain Native American burial Semiahmoo Soit arounds and archaeological artifacts. Total existing Native American sites of significance Proposed_Native American sites of_si ni icance The following sites provide significant Native American archaeological and cultural conservancy potentials that may be protected through easements, land use agreements, or acquisitions subject to appropriate feasibility studies with public and private participants. Number of Native American sites Whatcom County with other participants 3 S Lily Point - Point In association with Point Roberts P&RD - 1 Roberts acquire development rights to the parcel at the end of Seacliff Road. Preserve archaeological sites and develop interpretive trails along the shoreline and upper bluff. 6 Nooksack River - Acquire development rights to the north 1 Lynden bank of the Nooksack River at Fishtrap Creek - a Native American fishing ground. Preserve woodlands, riverfront and develop access trails and interpretive exhibits. 7 Cherry Point - Acquire development rights to the parcel 1 Midden Site located on Cherry Point. Preserve archaeological sites, and develop access and interpretive trails along the shoreline. ,J 'Oe Gq'ITI �Jla � i+414 ImU l-! 11'l l; -�s5ec-iat+e„ r� R @1144 -n 1la�+e y0aterf.FeRtl9d r :1_ and Total proposed additional Native American sites 4 The following sites provide significant historical railroad conservancy potentials. Number of railroad historical sites wnatcom count .5 1 Bayview Marine 1.4-acre waterfront property located on 1 (Boulevard Park) Bellingham Bay in downtown Bellingham including portions of the former Bellingham Bay & British Columbia (BBBC) Railroad corridor that have been developed into the South Bay Trail. The property is leased to Bellingham for a waterfront park connecting with Taylor Dock. The park has been improved with a trail, interpretive exhibit, benches, and picnic tables. 39 Chapter 3: Plan elements - regional Whatcom County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan M Saltwater access sites 62 Birch Point Privately owned shoreline access located off 1 Semiahmoo Drive and Birch Point Road overlooking Birch Bay and the Georgia Strait. 63 Cherry Point Beach Privately owned shoreline access site located 1 at the end of Henry Road on Cherry Beach provides access to shoreline trails and -viewpoints of Georgia Strait. 64 Unick Road Access Privately owned shoreline access site located 1 at the end of Unick Road north of Neptune Beach provides access to shoreline trails and viewpoints of Georgia Strait. 65 Point Migley Privately owned shoreline access site located 1 on West Shore/Nugent Drive on Point Migley on Lummi Island provides shoreline access trails and parking. 66 Bellingham Yacht Club - Leased property located in Inati Bay on the 1 east side of Lummi Island off Seacrest Drive. .. FF tco'erp --&Ir--flrrvetP{p-eaerrteel shareltrre-aEPesS-site I6eated � 68 Bancroft Road Privately owned shoreline access site located 1 Access at the end of Bancroft Road at Marietta overlooking Bellingham Bay provides parking and access to a shoreline trail. 69 Locust Road Privately owned shoreline access site located 1 Access at the end of Locust Road overlooking Bellingham Bay provides parking and access to a shoreline trail. 70 Clark's Point Open Privately owned shoreline access and open 1 Space space property located on Fieldstone Road on Clarks Point overlooks Chuckanut and Bellingham Bays with views of Lummi and the San Juan Islands. The site provides access to the trail system paralleling the BNSF railroad tracks around Chuckanut Bay. Z7_( p,cprnGr'c Paine 1 6-ately G 'Red ;herplinPaec-egs-site lQc;;iwd -,1- t the @R4 4 Pleasant Say Read .. Total existing launch sites - saltwater 71 Proposed access site - saltwater The following sites with saltwater shoreline may be provided access through easements, land use agreements, or acquisitions subject to appropriate feasibility studies with public and private participants. Saltwater access sites wnatcom county ana other participants 6 10 Semiahmoo Spit - in association with Blaine - acquire 1 Blaine development rights to the spit property located northeast of the existing park, Preserve the tidelands, extend the shoreline trails, and develop a bird watching blind and interpretive exhibit. 61 Lily Point - Point In association with Point Roberts R&RD - 1 Roberts acquire development rights to the parcel located at the end of Seaciiff Road and develop access and interpretive trails along the shoreline and upper bluff. 64 Chapter 3: Plan elements - regional Whatcom County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan 309 Saltwater access sites 6; eoveF5 01 ff In the 6biffli11I Island band 1 asseeiatr"vR with 72 Point Whitehorn - In association with Northwest P&RD - 1 Birch Bay acquire development rights to the shoreline properties located around the point. Preserve the tidelands and extend a shoreline trail between Cherry Point and Birch Bay. 73 Cherry Point Acquire development rights to shoreline 1 properties located at the street ends at Powder Plant Road, Henry Road, and Aldergrove Road. Preserve the shorelines and develop access trails to the beach and between Cherry Point and Point Whitehorn. 74 Portage Island In association with the Lummi Indian Nation 1 - designate an appropriate access plan for the island. Port of Bellingham 16 Squalicum - I&) Saltwater access and overlook to be 1 Waterway Park developed on the end of I&J Waterway with access from Roeder Avenue and Bellwether Way. 75 Fairhaven - Saltwater viewpoint to be provided to 1 Bellingham Bay undeveloped park for a picnic facility trailhead located in the area between Douglas Avenue and Boulevard Park. 76 Squalicum - GP Saltwater access to be provided at existing 1 Lagoon wastewater treatment lagoon on Whatcom Waterway for boating access. 77 Squalicum - Saltwater access to be provided to street -end 1 Cornwall Avenue into Bellingham Bay at the end of Cornwall Avenue for fishing, swimming, and trail linkage. 78 GP Plant Site Saltwater access to be provided in system of 1 shoreline boardwalks along Whatcom Creek Waterway and around the site. Bellingham 4 33 Little Squalicum Port, county, and city properties to be 1 Park Shoreline consolidated to create continuous shoreline. access to fishing and swimming beach. 79 Marine Drive Saltwater access site to be acquired off 1 Access Marine Drive north of Airport to public tidelands along Bellingham Bay. 80 Squalicum - Saltwater access to be provide to recently 1 Tilbury Cement acquired pier into Bellingham Bay with Pier access from Marine Drive. 81 Waterfront Saltwater access sites to be acquired (sites 1 Revolving Fund to be determined) along Bellingham Bay to create a continuous frontage from Little Squalicum Creek to Marine Park. Total proposed access sites - saltwater 15 The following sites provide access to regionally significant freshwater hand -carry launch sites for kayak, canoe, and other hand -carry craft. 65 Chapter 3: Plan elements - regional Whatcom County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan 310 m7«R- « 3%%%/2/ % /(\3\/\2%R/ szuwa §\\U 2 G CO t »-,Z ra fs; C:ss §k /ta\]8y��\23 \2}(sE'sZ3 [[ 2ka�m3j/\\32 wmmC. tL,)w< m m1* NtNt» It ». \§tf \G§J S u �--Jests amp%=mkef s % 2 er§k�az sz Z3 ®§§tk[z f\Ntj CO ® 2?y.:;838ys:- 722\\\\\\a±6 m \§I%%%%$%7k\ 2/222000)cl » .2 Reeae � \ « \ q \ 7. {&±-rz / % f @ 4 o Q. 15 \ m,� � 'I W - Eco �)Z Cs oak%kz !\ Q -0z 2 » »:3Ll SZ ° , �elAcc13 a- /ƒ3% \/\\\ swz /.-Zs zL m mmmaua:A --j co -mm#mmN000) N 311 ak . (k / j\ \ ao H $% ®\/ 2�> �}- Ln z t\E« � �f\� . woe .\ w<mo � . ; � t3 7 � \ %`G® « 8= �k§\ \CL \k kt»or E ,E cL` 4-. {o�}«a o3 , cL 3a�j ®m 4-1 }\}\\}\/ Z »G Rp;Z%@ .2 Z m m \ ] \ t` tj Z \§` 5§ ®8 s \k/2\\�Eƒ)�) zcL0 \«$a. :ate»ct owx m§�§;a �.���.*=e;kik )5a%§a- to-4 G523%%%%2R 312 ! 11MM; Natiml Saltwater hand -carry launch sites d 15 Sandy Point Shoreline access site located at the end of 1 Sucia Drive on Sandy Point with hand -carry capability. 16 Lummi Bay -Aqua Shoreline access site located off Kwina Road 1 Dike at the confluence of the Lummi River into Lummi Bay with hand -carry capability. 17 Lummi Beach Shoreline access site located on Lummi View 1 Drive on Gooseberry Point with hand -carry access. 18 Fish Point Park 2.0-acre shoreline access site located off 1 Lummi Shore Drive with hand -carry capability. ucenn ncrrrr 19 Boulevard Park ;� 20.5-acre multi -use site with boat dock and 1 hand -carry launch located on Bellingham Bay off Ba view Drive. 20 Little Squalicum 22.3-acre undeveloped park site located at 1 Park the mouth of the Little Squalicum Creek off Marine Drive on the bay with hand -carry capability. Park includes some Port and County properties managed by the City. 21 Old Colony Wharf 0.2-acre historic site of Old Colony Wharf - a 1 major landing for steamers and fishing boats with hand -carry access. Blaine 7 22 Marine Park 8.6-acre waterfront park located across from 1 Blaine Marina with shoreline on Semiahmoo Bay and hand -carry access. WA Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 1 23 Lummi Island 2,805 linear feet of public tidelands located 1 Beach 224 on the northeast side of Lummi Island off Nugent Road adjacent to the old county ferry dock right-of-way with eelgrass and clam beds. The site is accessible by boat or by way of the county -owned ferry dock. WA Parks & Recreation Commission (P&RC) 2 24 Birch Bay State 193.2-acre multi -use waterfront park on 1 Park Birch Bay and Terrell Creek with a gravel boat ramp, and hand -carry access. 25 Larrabee State 2,683.0-acre multi -use state park located off 1 Park Chuckanut Drive on Wildcat Cove overlooking Chuckanut Bay and the San Juan Islands with 2 boat launching ramps and hand -carry access. Privately owned 7 26 Lily Point Access Privately owned property located at the l south end of Apa Road on Point Roberts with hand -carry capability. 27 Unick Road Access Privately owned shoreline access site located 1 at the end of Unick Road north of Neptune Beach with hand -carry capability. _2.8p ' _.tJ�A_'_ L D t ,J v i oiilC I 1191e'��1 71�PR�SCTrC�99IICd 5he1Fellne aEE255 542 I9Eeit2d 1 6lub en -the -east sode E)f I=umfma-Islas d of Seaefest- 73 Chapter 3: Plan elements - regional Whatcom County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan 313 Saltwater iiana-carry launch sites 30 Bancroft Road Privately owned shoreline access site located 1 Access at the end of Bancroft Road at Marietta overlooking Bellingham Bay with hand -carry capability. 31 Locust Road Privately owned shoreline access site located 1 Access at the end of Locust Road overlooking Bellingham Bay with hand -carry capability. -32--Gavemef's Peon PFK'ately ewHed ehereline assess -sate Iesated -1 Total existing hand -carry launch sites -.saltwater 32 Proposed,..hand carry„Recess.sites.___ saltwater The following sites with regionally significant saltwater hand -carry launch site capability for kayak, canoe, and other hand -carry craft may be provided access through easements, land use agreements, or acquisitions subject to appropriate feasibility studies with public and private participants. Saltwater hand -carry launch situ Whatcom county anti other participants 3 33 Point Whitehorn - In association with Northwest P&RD - 1 Birch Bay acquire development rights to the shoreline properties located around the point and develop hand -carry access. 34 Cherry Point Acquire development rights to shoreline 1 properties located at the street ends at Powder Plant Road, Henry Road, and Aldergrove Road and develop hand -carry access. I botiff Mid eleVewap Mimic effl 1 Y ftecess.I Pnvt nF Rollfnnlen� 11 Squalicum - I&J Hand -carry launch site to be developed at 1 Waterway Park the end of I&J Waterway with access from Roeder Avenue and Bellwether Way. 12 Squalicum - Little Hand -carry launch site to be developed next 1 Squalicum Beach• to mill at the end of Roeder Avenue. 37 Squalicum - GP Hand -carry launch site.to be developed into 1 Lagoon Whatcom Waterway and/or BP Lagoon with access from F Street. 38 Squalcium - Hand -carry launch site to be developed into 1 Cornwall Avenue Bellingham Bay from Cornwall Avenue. 39 Squalicum - BP Hand -carry launch sites to be developed 1 Plant Site along the Whatcom Waterway and around the plant shoreline. Y G..... (f N- 21 Old Colony Wharf -t Hand -carry launch site to be developed into 1 Whatcom Waterway from Old Colony Wharf at C Street. 40 Marine Drive Hand -carry launch site to be developed into 1 Bellingham Bay from access site north of Airport on Marine Drive. 41 Citizens Dock - Hand -carry launch site to be developed into 1 Central Avenue Whatcom Waterway from Central Avenue at old Citizens Dock landing. 74 Chapter 3: Plan elements - regional Whatcom County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan 314 C) 3 { \\ /0 \ .o %\ ®® / ImLow mo� aaaam amm mot\ -j \ CL y / �ca)�/j\\\\� tz �� Q (§§a..-.— } f ® \\\±EE�b\Aa %$$;\\%\/7E � 22y2»\»2\R% m � ® \ Ck. 7/ \\,� \fwts f\\ / $\)J\Q- C) \�Z/\§k\\�(3( a2caca \&&\ �Q-«« §Ea§\% m.0:Q z(%<�� �mm#amwoom22 315 Frochwator hnat latmrh rmmnc •19 1.1011age Point De-eelep heat laaneh ramp nearthe-eriginal -1- 1 1 Fishtrap Creek Acquire and develop boat launch ramp on a 1 Park - Nooksack regional multi -use park site on River Road. River - L nden 12 Nooksack River Acquire and develop boat launch ramp on a 1 Park - Everson regional multi -use park site on Abbot and Noon Roads. 13 Lake Whatcom Develop "a non -motorized boat ramp on 1 North - North Shore Drive. Bellingham 14 Lake Whatcom Develop swimming beach, boat launch ramp 1 South - Sudden and dock on South Bay Drive. Develop a Valley satellite hand -carry launch and campsite on the southeast shoreline. 15 Dittrich Park - Develop hand -carry launch site, swimming 1 East Lake Samish beach and access site on East Lake Samish Drive. i orai proposea aoar rauncn ramps - Fresnwater 7 Existing boat launch ramps - saltwater The following sites provide access to regionally significant saltwater boat launch ramps. Saltwater boat launch ramps Whatcom County 2 1 Lighthouse Marine 20.5-acre multi -use park site located on the 2 Park southwest point of Point Roberts on Marine and Edwards Drive on the Strait of Georgia with a 2-lane boat launch ramp with a 140- foot long finger pier into the Georgia Strait for day use. Port of Bellingham 5 2 Blaine Harbor 50.0 acres of land improvements includes 2 marine support and dry boat storage facility, 2 public boat launch ramps, transient boat moorage, pump -out, parking areas, and restrooms. 3 Fairhaven - Padden 0.8-acre boat launch ramp located on the 1 Creek Lagoon Boat south end of Bellingham Bay with access Launch across BNSF tracks from 5th Street. Mooring buoys are anchored off shore from May to October for transient boats. Launching access is subject to tides and is affected by continued silting from Padden Creek. 4 Squalicum - 3.5-acre boat launch ramps located inside 2 Harbor Boat Squalicum Harbor with access from Roeder Launch Avenue and Bellwether Way. Lummi Nation l 5 Sandy Point Marina located at the end of Sucia Drive on 1 Marina Sandy Point provides wet moorage berths and a boat launch ramp and hoist. The site is under federal trust as part of the Lummi Indian Reservation. Bellingham 1 6 Boulevard Park 20.5-acre multi -use park located on 0 Bellingham Bay off Bayview Drive with day - use boat dock. 7 Old Colony Wharf Historic boat landing located on Whatcom 0 Waterway with floatinq platform. 77 Chapter 3: Plan elements - regional Whatcom County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan 316 m » w0)LA U, \±k\tILM :s SS. m ts 2 � @ ro p 00 (D {\ OD ` CD ) 317 {0 at @ }\ t mo / @ t [k � E � L{� `)\)\j\/�\o afeia »z m« �m�m<aaccmoR«� �Rm*mmw<m/ 318 3airwarer roar iauncn ramps 8 Pacific Concrete - Recently acquired pier extending into 1 Tilbury Pier Bellingham Bay adjacent to Little Squalicum Creek with day -use boat landing. WA Parks & Recreation Commission (P&RC} 3 9 Birch Bay State 193.2-acre multi -use waterfront park on 1 Park Birch Bay and Terrell Creek with a gravel boat ramp. 10 Larrabee State 2,780.0-acre multi -use state park located off 2 Park Chuckanut Drive on Wildcat Cove overlooking Chuckanut Bay and the San Juan Islands with 2 boat launching ramps on Wildcat Cove. Total existing boat launch ramps - saltwater 12 Proposed boat launch ramps - saltwater The following sites with regionally significant saltwater boat launch ramp capability may be provided access through easements, land use agreements, or acquisitions subject to appropriate feasibility studies with public and private participants. Saltwater boat launch ramps wnarcom county ana other participants 3 1 Lighthouse Marine Expand property to allow reorganization of 0 Park - Point boat ramp and event parking area. Roberts 11 Cherry Point Park Acquire and develop boat launch ramps on a 2 - Birch Bay regional park site to be located at Powder Plant Road, Henry Road, or Alderarove Road. Pn vt of Rolliitnhnwi n 3 Fairhaven - Silting problem and difficult railroad access -2 Padden Creek may force closure of this site for powerboat Lagoon Boat launch ramps - mooring buoys will remain Launch viable. 4 Squalicum Harbor Inner harbor marine congestion and traffic -2 Boat Launch and parking overflow onto Bellwether Way and Roeder Avenue may force relocation of this facility. 13 Squalicum - GP Boat launch ramps to be developed into 2 Lagoon Whatcom Waterway and/or GP Lagoon with access from F Street. 14 Squalicum - Boat launch ramps to be developed into 2 Cornwall Bellingham Bay from the end of Cornwall Avenue. #.urnrm ivuuun L 15 Lummi Bay Marina Boat launch ramp may be developed into 2 Lummi Bay by the Lummi Nation. Port of Bellinaham 2 16 Hale Passage East Boat launch ramp may be developed on the 2 east shore of Lummi Island by private parties - does not conform with land use plans. Total proposed launch ramps - saltwater 7 The following sites provide regionally significant wet and dry moorage, transient moorage, and boat launch hoist, and other services. 80 Chapter 3: Plan elements - regional Whatcom County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan 319 %%%%%%%%}%%} \ t ks \ / m«� k\}\jtt§�\ ]/£$/).e/`§/ «\\3tzzs 0 IsvQiLn-A »2 Q Ngm»atw 2> \ � R s \ § 4 .)f\~ /)\ /§k� ..®a. \}2,zz— »}2/ c, tzs w Ln � zs i3/ / § G �13§�.E«, ƒ ]ƒ%\\zzsis aa�@�w2-Q-1 �am»It) mw<m\ 320 Saltwater trail access site 24 Fish Point Park 2.0-acre shoreline access site located off 1 Lummi Shore Drive with hand -carry capability. 25 Portage Island Shoreline access site located on the west 1 shore of Portage Island accessible by boat only with trail access to Portage Island beaches. Bellingham 3 26 Old Colony Wharf 0.2-acre historic site of Old Colony Wharf --a 1 major landing for steamers and fishing boats with hand -carry access. 27 Boulevard Park 20.5-acre multi -use site with boat dock and 1 hand -carry launch located on Bellingham Bay off Ba view Boulevard. 28 Chuckanut Bay 1 11.5-acre natural area preserves and 1 North, South, and tidelands located on Chuckanut Bay with Tidelands access from Chuckanut Drive and hand -carry launch capability. WA Department of !Natural Resources (DtNR) 1 29 Lummi Island Public tidelands located on the northeast 1 Beach 224 side of Lummi Island off Nugent Road adjacent to the old county ferry dock right- of-way with eelgrass and claming beds. The site is accessible by boat or by way of the count -owned ferrydock access right-of-way. Privately owned o 30 Lily Point Access Privately owned property located at the 1 south end of Apa Road on Point Roberts provides shoreline access overlooking Semiahmoo Bay and Blaine Harbor with hand -carry capability. 31 Cherry Point Beach Privately owned shoreline access site located 1 at the end of Henry Road on Cherry Beach with hand -carry capability. 32 Unick Road Access Privately owned shoreline access site located 1 at the end of Unick Road north of Neptune Beach with hand -carry capability. 33 Point Migley Privately owned shoreline access site located 1 on West Shore/Nugent Drive on Point Migley on Lummi Island with hand -carry capability. 4 D^,LYaeht RYJL laeawd Trztely „Red prepeFti iR Inati Bay---1- am :J_ of 1 - '1 1 -J offs eeterest- 35 Bancroft Road Privately owned shoreline access site located 1 Access at the end of Bancroft Road at Marietta in Bellingham Bay with hand -carry capability. 36 Locust Road Privately owned shoreline access site located 1 Access at the end of Locust Road overlooking Bellingham Bay with hand -carry capability. -3;Z :avprR@F's PE)IM-- 1240ataly-ewr}ed-shQr@Iimo Iera'wd arc -ass i;itp 1- --at tho ..Rd Af Din..c v.t Bay De... -I .. wGayefReF1 1 VLLf --A LI/1(J. SNILWULer Crary Nt.C4;eSS Sites 26 Proposed_saltwater, trail...occesssites The following sites may be acquired, designated, and improved to provide water trail access for kayak, canoe, and other hand -carry craft through easements, land .101 Chapter 3: Plan elements - regional Whatcom County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan 321 use agreements, or acquisitions subject to appropriate feasibility studies with public and private participants. Saltwator trail arra cc citoc Whatcoin County 2 38 Point Whitehorn - In association with Northwest P&RD - 1 Birch Bay acquire development rights to the shoreline properties located around the point and designate hand-carry access. pna�t nF Rnllitint ....,,. 20 Squalicum - I&J Develop hand -carry launch at the end of I&J 1J Waterway Park Waterway with access from Roeder Avenue and Bellwether Way. 40 Fairhaven - Boat Improve hand -carry launch into Bellingham 1 Launch Bay. 41 Squalicum - GP Develop hand -carry launch into Whatcom 1 Lagoon Waterway and/or BP Lagoon with access from F Street. 42 Squalcium - Develop hand -carry launch into Bellingham 1 Cornwall Avenue --GP Bay from Cornwall Avenue. 43 Squalicum Develop hand -carry launch along the 1 Plant Site Whatcom Waterway and around the plant shoreline. 26 Old Colony Wharf Develop hand -carry launch into Whatcom 1J W;it..r%A1ay from Old Colony Wharf at C Street. 44 Marine Drive Develop hand -carry launch into Bellingham 1 Bay from access site north of Airport on Marine Drive. 45 Citizens Dock - Develop hand -carry launch site into 1 Central Avenue Whatcom Waterway from Central Avenue at old Citizens Dock landing. Total proposed saltwater trail access sites 10 102 Chapter 3: Plan elements - regional Whatcom County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan 322 Miloc of rinv-uca tvnilc 15 Chuckanut Mtn - Dirt trail spur from Hemlock Trail east to 0.4 Huckleberry Point Huckleberry Point Viewpoint providing vistas Trail of Sehome Hill and Lake Padden. 16 Chuckanut Mtn - Dirt trail from North Lost Lake Trail across 1.2 Sala[ Trail Larrabee State Park through the cliffs and dense forest of Chuckanut Mountain between Hemlock and North Lost Lake Trails. 17 Chuckanut Mtn - Dirt trail spur from Salal Trail south to 0.7 Madrone Crest Madrone Crest viewpoint. " Trail 18 Chuckanut Mtn - Dirt trail from Old Samish Road south to 2.5 Pine. & Cedar Hemlock Trail and Cedar and Pine Lakes with Lakes Trail primitive campsites around the lake and old railroad grades. 19 Chuckanut Mtn - Dirt trail from Arroyo Park and Hemlock Trail 4.6 North Lost Lake south through the heart of the Chuckanut Trail Mountain trail system to Lost Lake and Chuckanut Drive at Clayton Beach. 20 Samish Park Trail Dirt trail along shoreline and looped into 0.7 hillsides. 1.3 21 Squires Lake Trail Dirt hiking trails on an old railroad grade 3.7 from the trailhead on Old Highway 99 to viewpoints and fishing sites located around Squires Lake and Beaver Pond perimeter. 22 Canyon Lake Dirt trail around the lake to overlooks and 8.7 Community Forest old growth forest. 23 Ostrom Dirt trails from trailhead on South Pass Road Conservation Site onto school district interpretive sites and DNR lands on Sumas Mountain. 24 Silver Lake - Black Dirt trail from the horse camp at Silver Lake 1.7 Mountain Trail to Black Mountain. 25 Silver Lake Park - Dirt trail loop through Silver Lake Park. 1.0 Lookout Trail 26 Silver Lake Park - Gravel trail from the. horse camp to the main 0.4 Horse Camp Trail park facility in Silver Lake Park. 27 Smith & Northwest Dirt walking trail around the baseball and 1.1 Sports Complex soccer athletic field complex. 28 Stimpson Family Dirt hiking trails from trailhead on Lake 3.0 Nature Reserve Louise Road onto DNR, city, county, and land trust near Lake Whatcom. Wasninaton State_ aae_nCle.S 7q n 29 Bug Lake Trail Dirt walking trail around Bug Lake with 0.8 fishing access sites - may not be passable during high water seasons. 31 DNR Lookout- Galbraith Undesignated dirt mountain and single track 10.0 trails complex across and around DNR and Mountain Trails private forestlands on Galbraith Mountain with access from Whatcom Creek Park and Birch Street on the north, and Padden Lake Park and Galbraith Lane on the south - user maintained. 32 Larrabee State Park - Chuckanut Ridge Trail Dirt hiking trail from Arroyo Park, Hemlock, 3.3 and North Lost Lake Trails south through the state park along the ridge line to South Lost Lake Trail. 724 Chapter 3: Plan elements - regional Whatcom County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan 323 Miles of day -use trails Chuckanut Cedar Lakes to Lake Samish Park. South trail Mountain Trail to be developed from Arroyo Park south over East and South - Chuckanut Mountain to Pigeon Point and the continued Interurban Trail. 61 Olsen Property Dirt hiking trail to be developed from 5.0 trailhead on Lake Louise Road onto DNR and private forestlands on Lookout Mountain. 62 Lummi Island 12.0 fai,estloi-m _.... -- ---�- Develop trails where appropriate on Lummi Island Total proposed day -use trails miles 167.5 As described in section 3.5, the following multipurpose trail systems have been developed that provide day -hiking opportunities across the county on former railroad, logging road, and other established corridors. Multipurpose trail miles Whatcom County 30.8 1-8 Whatcom County Existing multipurpose trail corridors include 30.8 Bay to Baker Trail from Maple Falls to Glacier, Nooksack River on Hovander Dike, Coast Millennium on Semiahmoo Spit, Interurban, Chuckanut Mountain Hemlock and Lost Lake, Lake Whatcom Hertz Trail and Squires Lake. Bellingham 12A 9- Bay to Baker. Trail Existing multipurpose trail corridors include 12.1 13 - Bellingham Bay to Baker and Interurban in Bellingham, Segment South and North Bay Trails, Railroad Trail, and Whatcom Creek Trail Lower and Upper T Proposed multipurpose trails As described in section 3.5, the following multipurpose trail system may be developed to provide day -hiking opportunities across the county subject to feasibility studies with appropriate public and private participants. The trails generally follow railroad, river dike, utility right-of-way, and public road corridors, but may be relocated onto public and/or private property where owners approve. Multipurpose trail miles Whatcom County 143.4 14- Whatcom County Complete and initiate development of the 143.4 23 Trail Systems Bay to Baker and Millennium Coast Trails, Sandy Point Trail, Bellingham Bay Trail, Lummi Island, Nooksack River, Lake Whatcom, and BNSF Rail Trails. Blaine 6.4 24 Semiahmoo- Complete trail development from the end of 6.4 Drayton Harbor Semiahmoo Spit around the inner Drayton Loop Trail Harbor shoreline. Lynden 5.4 25 BNSF Spur Trail Develop multipurpose rail trail from the Bay 5.4 to Baker Trail at Hampton parallel and south of BNSF Railroad track west to Lynden. 127 Chapter 3: Plan elements - regional Whatcom County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan 324 This undeveloped 80.3-acre multi -use park property is located on the southeast shoreline of Lake Whatcom accessed from South Bay Drive. The site includes 6,141 linear feet of shoreline on Lake Whatcom. Possible improvements Southwest end - Restore and enhance Brannian Creek through the site and into Lake Whatcom. Conserve the woodlands and wetlands in the south portion of the site along the creek corridor and along South Bay Road. Develop boat launch ramps, dock, and pier into the Lake Whatcom shoreline to support water trails on the lake. Develop a swimming beach, picnic area, and group day -use of the waterfront activity area. Recruit concessionaires to provide canoe and kayak, crew, and other hand -carry watercraft use of the shoreline and lake. i Develop a trailhead to provide parking for boat launch facilities, the waterfront beach, and access to trail opportunities along the shoreline. Hertz Trail - Develop a multipurpose trail through the park and along the shoreline and north on Blue Canyon Road to Hertz Trail and north along the lake shoreline to Lake Whatcom Park North. Cgmp..Road,2 - Develop a trail access across South Bay Road to Camp Road 2 Railroad Property then south on a multipurpose trail towards Squires Lake and Anderson Mountain in Skagit County. Southeast end - Develop a water -access site for a water trail along the shoreline from the park site north to Lake Whatcom Park - North. Install anchoring 325 buoys, landing platforms, and other improvements to support shared access to trailside picnic tables and shelters, local trails, and other activity areas. Consider designating a portion of the site for water trail overnight camping for hand -carry watercraft. Note Lake Whatcom serves as the drinking water supply for over half of the county's residents and as such, all proposed park activities must be evaluated in the context of their impact on water quality. In addition, parks activities need to be consistent with existing goals and policies of the .Joint Lake Whatcom Management Program. 326 dramatic overlooks of Semiahmoo Bay.__ 2 Lily Point Access Privately owned property located at the south end of Apa Road on Point Roberts provides shoreline access overlooking Semiahmoo Bay and Blaine Harbor with trails, parking, and icnic opportunities. 3 California Creek Privately owned shoreline access site located Access along the banks of California Creek at the confluence with Drayton Harbor may provide shoreline access trails, parking, and picnic services. 4 Birch Point Privately owned shoreline access located off Semiahmoo Drive and Birch Point Road overlooking Birch Bay and the Georgia Strait. 5 Cherry Point Beach Privately owned shoreline access site located at the end of Henry Road on Cherry Beach provides access to shoreline trails and viewpoints of Georgia Strait. 6 Unick Road Access Privately owned shoreline access site located at the end of Unick Road north of Neptune Beach provides access to shoreline trails and view oints of Geor is Strait. an the east side of 1 eff SeaeFest nfiye •.J ffEeSS t.. mot., of, prey L.....,.I:.�_ t ..iI.._ 10 Bancroft Road Privately owned shoreline access site located Access at the end of Bancroft Road at Marietta overlooking Bellingham Bay provides parking and access to a shoreline trail. 11 Locust Road Privately owned shoreline access site located Access at the end of Locust Road overlooking Bellingham Bay provides parking and' access to a shoreline trail. 12 Clark's Point Open Privately owned shoreline access and open Space space property located at the end of Fieldstone Road on Clarks Point overlooks Chuckanut and Bellingham Bays with views of Lummi and the San Juan Islands. The site provides access to the trail system paralleling the BNSF railroad tracks around Chuckanut Ba . j3 Go. I lei -it Pei it C. 5 Private facilities .. Various non-profit and private entities own a considerable amount of facilities within the county or close to county urban growth areas. Some of these facilities are available for public use for a membership, use fee, or special arrangement - all C-10 Appendix C: Opportunities Whatcom County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan 32 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-185 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: �y O� 0 V E 0 3/31/09 Introduction Division Head: MAR 2 4 2009 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 4./14/09 Hearing Dept. Head: Prosecutor: PurchasingBudget: F_.cecu»re: �a 1 TITLE OF DOCUMENT: ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY MINI -INITIATIVE LANGUAGE AND ENSURE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE WHATCOM COUNTY CHARTER AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE (ELECTIONS) ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( x ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: Next available after 13 days from introduction. SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) This is a proposed ordinance to amend the Whatcom County Code to clarify procedures for the "Mini -initiative" under WCC 1.08.170 and to change the language of WCC 1.08.090 "Petition - Required number of signatures" . so that each conforms to language used in the County Charter. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: 3/31/2009: Introduced Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at: wiatfa.co.ivliatcortt.wa.tts/cottttcil. 328 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 50 51 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: Shirley Forslof INTRODUCTION DATE: ORDINANCE NO. CLARIFYING MINI -INITIATIVE LANGUAGE (ELECTIONS) WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Charter, Article 5, and specifically Section 5.41, is the enabling legislation for initiative procedures, including the "mini -initiative;" WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Code implements the mini -initiative in WCC Sections 1.08.160-1.08.190; WHEREAS, differences between the language of the Charter and the Code make the procedures for the mini -initiative somewhat difficult to understand; WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Auditor has recommended clarifying the language so that citizens can better understand the mini -initiative process; WHEREAS, Whatcom County Code section 1.08.090 calculates required initiative and referendum signatures based upon the last gubernatorial election in conflict with the more authoritative Whatcom County Charter Section 5.40, which requires signatures based upon the last general election. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that Whatcom County Code sections 1.08.170 and 1.08.090 are hereby amended as shown in the exhibit attached to this ordinance. Page 2 329 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 ADOPTED this day of , 200_. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of the Council APPROVED AS TO FORW Civil Deputy Prosecutor Page 3 (Current Chair's Name), Council Chair WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Pete Kremen, County Executive ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Date Signed: 330 1.08.170 Mini -initiative — Requirements. A. Any legal voter or organization of legal voters of Whatcom County may file a mini - initiative proposal with the County Auditor, who within five (5) days, excluding Saturday, Sunday and holidays, shall confer with the petitioner to review the proposal as to form and style. The Auditor shall give the proposed mini -initiative a number, which shall thereafter be the identifying number for the mini -initiative. The Auditor shall then transmit a copy of the proposal to the petitioner who has one hundred and twenty (120) days to collect the signatures of registered voters of the county equal in number to not less than three (3) percent of the number of votes cast in the county in the last gubernatorial election. The one hundred and twenty (120 ) day period shall begin upon receipt of official notification to petitioner(s) by the Auditor's Office either by certified mail or messenger. B. The auditor shall verify the sufficiency of the signatures within 60 days. C. Initiative petitions must bear the signatures of qualified voters equal in number to not less than three percent of the number of votes cast in the county in the last gubernatorial election. (Ord. 80-22 § 5; Ord. 79-31 § 3.1). 1.08.090 Petition — Required number of signatures. Following expiration of the 10-day period referred to in WCC 1.08.070, the petitioner shall have 120 days to collect signatures of the registered voters of the county equal in number to not less than 15 percent of the number of votes cast in the county in the last general election. Each petition shall contain the full text of the proposed measure, ordinance, or amendment to an ordinance, and the ballot title. (Ord. 79-31 § 2.6). 331 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-1 7 7 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office, Agenda Date /31/09 Assi,Qned to: Introduction Originator: �Gl Drj Division Head: MAR 2 4 2009 WH TCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 4/14/09 Hearing.. Dept. dead: Prosecutor: Purchasing/Budget: Executive: pty Ot TITLE OF DOCUMENT. • Ordinance amending the Whatcom County Code Title 21, Section 21.03.060. ATTACHMENTS: Staff memo and ordinance with amended Title 21 section. SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( x) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( x ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Ordinance amending the Whatcom County Code Title 21, Section 21.03.060 to include criteria for approval of boundary line adjustments COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION: 3/31/2009: Introduced Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at. www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 332 WHATCOM COUNTY Planning & Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 360-676-6907, TTY 800-833-6384 360-738-2525 Fax MEMORANDUM TO: Pete Kremen and County Council Members FROM: David Stalheim—!7 DATE: March 19, 2009 RE: Proposed Boundary Line Adjustment Criteria David Stalheim Director J.E. "Sam" Ryan Assistant Director MAR 2 0 2009 PETE KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE The Whatcom County Council adopted Ordinance 2009-007 on February 10, 2009 which amended Title 21 - Land Division Ordinance. After several discussions with County Council and the public, the Council chose to withdraw the criteria for approval of a boundary line adjustment (BLA) until further research could be completed. Planning and Development Services (PDS) is now proposing to amend Title 21 and Title 20 - Zoning Code to include criteria for approval of BLA's and to include language addressing the creation and reconfiguration of non -conforming lots. At public hearing for the previous amendment to Title 21 the Building Industry Association of Whatcom County (BIAWC) presented several concerns regarding the proposed criteria for a BLA. The primary concern of the BIAWC was that PDS was attempting to regulate BLA's similar to subdivisions when the RCW specifically states that BLA's are exempt from subdivision regulations (RCW 58.17.040(6)). The BIAWC also sited a Washington State Supreme Court case City of Seattle v. Crispin (2003) as evidence that BLA's are exempt from platting (subdivision) requirements. PDS does concur that BLA's are exempt from subdivision requirements; however neither the RCW nor the Crispin court case state that BLA's are exempt from other applicable development standards and codes when determining whether a lot has a, building site. This submitted amendment proposes to reference those development standards and codes that are applicable to the review of a BLA and to specifically state that a BLA must meet requirements for the Whatcom County Health Department and the Whatcom County Fire Marshal as criteria for approval of a BLA. The amended criteria allows PDS to determine if a proposed BLA is consistent with minimum lot size per the zoning ordinance and to determine if there is a building site as allowed by the previously mentioned RCW. -1- 333 PDS has also proposed an amendment to Title 20 - Zoning Code to clarify an issue regarding the inability to restrict the creation of non -conforming lots with a BLA which is a zoning issue. The current language for non -conforming lot sizes states: 20.83.110 Reduction of area. Lot area, yards, other open space, off-street parking or loading areas which exist on or after the effective date of this ordinance shall not be reduced below the minimum required by ordinance. This current language allows us to deny a BLA that is proposing to reduce any lot below minimum lot size for zoning if the lot is conforming to the minimum lot size. This language does not address how to proceed in a circumstance where one or both lots in the proposed BLA are already non -conforming lots with respect to lot area. The proposed language would make it clear that no action shall increase the non -conformity with regard to lot area, width, yards, open space, or off-street parking or loading areas. The proposed language does allow the Administrator to approve the creation of a non -conforming lot in accordance with RCW 58.04.007(1). WA 334 SPONSORED BY: CONSENT PROPOSED BY: PDS INTRODUCTION DATE: MARCH 31, 2009 ORDINANCE NO. AMENDING TITLE 21, LAND DIVISION REGULATIONS REGARDING GENERAL PROVISIONS, EXEMPT LAND DIVISIONS AND BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS, SHORT SUBDIVISIONS, PRELIMINARY LONG SUBDIVISIONS, FINAL LONG SUBDIVISIONS, SURVEYS AND DEDICATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council requested review of Title 21 with the adoption of the 2007-2008 budget; and WHEREAS, Planning and Development Services staff have undertaken a review of land division procedures conducted in Whatcom County; and WHEREAS, the amendments to the land division ordinance are procedural amendments that do not change development standards applicable to any land division in Whatcom County; and WHEREAS, the County Council has adopted the following Findings and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. The amendments are exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(19) 2. Notice of the proposed amendments was circulated to those expressing an interest in the proposed amendments prior to public hearing. Several opportunities were provided to review a preliminary draft of the proposed amendments prior to consideration by the Whatcom County Planning Commission. 3. Notice of the public hearing was provided in the Bellingham Herald at least ten days prior to the hearing. 4. The Whatcom County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the proposed amendments on November 13, 2008 and recommended approval to the Whatcom County Council regarding the proposed amendments. 5. Notice of the proposed amendments was provided to Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED). CTED acknowledged receipt of the proposed amendments on February 29, 2008. 6. A copy of the proposed amendments was provided to all cities within Whatcom County. No comments were received from cities regarding the amendments. 7. The amendments are consistent with RCW 58.17, Plats — subdivisions — dedications. 8. A public hearing on the proposed amendments was held by the Whatcom County Council on December 9, 2008. 335 9. After considering public testimony, the Whatcom County Council adopted Ordinance 2009-007 which removed criteria for review of boundary line adjustments pending legal counsel review. 10. The Whatcom County Council re -introduced proposed changes to boundary line adjustment criteria on March 17, 2009 and a public hearing was scheduled to consider the proposed changes. 11. After review of testimony, it has been found that the proposed amendments regarding boundary line adjustments are consistent with RCW 58.17, Plats — subdivisions — dedications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that: Section 1: Title 21 is amended as indicated in Exhibit 1 of this ordinance. ADOPTED this day of , 2009. ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of the Council APPROVED as to f Civ' ep P ecutor WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Pete Kremen, County Executive Date: 336 EXHIBIT 1 Amendments to Title 21 — Whatcom County Land Division Ordinance 21.03.060 Boundary line adjustments. The purpose of this section is to provide procedures and criteria for the review and approval of adjustments or alterations.to boundary lines of existing lots of record where no new lot, tract, parcel, site or division is created. (1) Procedures. Boundary line adjustments shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied as follows: a. Applications shall include information required by WCC 21.03.085. b. Any adjustment of boundary lines must be approved by the Subdivision Administrator prior to the transfer of property ownership between adjacent lots. c. The Subdivision Administrator shall make a preliminary decision on boundary line applications within 45 days following submittal of a complete application or revision, unless the applicant consents to an extension of such time period. d. A title insurance certificate updated not more than sixty (60) days prior to application, which includes all parcels within the adjustment, must be submitted to the Subdivision Administrator with boundary line adjustment applications. e. All persons having an ownership interest within the boundary line adjustment shall sign the final recording document in the presence of a notary public. (2) Decision Criteria. In reviewing a proposed. boundary line adjustment, the Subdivision Administrator or Hearing Examiner shall use the following criteria for approval: a. The boundary line adjustment shall not result in the creation of an additional lot. b.The boundary line adjustment shall result in lots which contain sufficient area and dimensions as defined by the underlying zone for a valid land use and shall include a building site in conformance with applicable County codes, including but not limited to the Whatcom County Development Standards Chapter 5 and Title 12, 15, 16, 20, 23 and 24, except as provided for in WCC 20.83.110. c. The boundary line adjustment shall be consistent with any restrictions, depictions or conditions regarding the overall area in a plat or short plat devoted to open space, environmental mitigation or conservation. d. The boundary line adjustment shall be consistent with any restrictions or conditions of approval for a recorded plat, short plat, zoning permit, or development permit, including requirements for critical areas or shoreline requirements. e. The boundary line adjustment shall not cause boundary lines to cross on -site sewage disposal systems or their reserve areas, prevent suitable area for on -site sewage disposal systems, or prevent adequate access to water supplies unless suitable mitigation including, but not limited to the giving of utility easements is provided to the satisfaction of Whatcom County. f. The boundary line adjustment shall be consistent with fire protection standards. (3) Final approval and recording required. To finalize an approved boundary line adjustment, the applicant must submit to the Subdivision Administrator within one year of preliminary approval final review documents meeting the requirements of approval. a. All persons having an ownership interest within the boundary line adjustment shall sign the final recording document in the presence of a notary public. b. Certified legal descriptions of the lots after the boundary line adjustment, together with conveyance document(s) and language clearly binding the property which is 337 conveyed to the remainder portion of the property, shall be prepared by a title company or licensed surveyor for all lots affected by the boundary line adjustment. c. A title insurance certificate updated not more than sixty days prior to recording of the adjustment, which includes all parcels within the adjustment, submitted to the Subdivision Administrator with boundary line adjustment final review documents. d. A final boundary line map, prepared by a licensed surveyor, along with legal descriptions shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval. Two map copies shall be provided for review demonstrating compliance with the preliminary boundary line adjustment approval. e. A boundary line adjustment is not considered approved until the conveyance documents have been duly stamped as exempt and is filed for record concurrently with all applicable disclosures of WCC 21.03.045 within twelve months of approval of final documents. Failure to record within twelve months of approval means the boundary line adjustment application is expired and must be resubmitted for review and approval. 338 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-179 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: �' � 15� � - � � V E ID3/31/09 1 MAR 2 4 2009 @"0 ®IVM COUNTY I COUNCIL 4/14/09 Introduction, Hearing Division Head: Dept. Head:12-7 _ Prosecutor: Purchasing/Budget: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Ordinance amending the Whatcom County Code Title 20, Section 20.83.110 ATTACHMENTS. Staff memo and ordinance with amended Title 20 section. SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( x) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( x ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Ordinance amending the Whatcom County Code Title 20, Section 20.83.110 to include additional language regarding "reduction of area " in the non -conforming use chapter. COMMITTEE ACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION.• 3/31/2009: Introduced Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at. www.co.whatcom.wa.usleouncil. 339 SPONSORED BY: CONSENT PROPOSED BY: PDS INTRODUCTION DATE: MARCH 31, 2009 ORDINANCE NO. AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, NONCONFORMING USES AND PARCELS WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council requested review of Title 21 with the adoption of the 2007-2008 budget; and WHEREAS, Planning and Development Services staff have undertaken a. review of land division procedures conducted in Whatcom County; and WHEREAS, the amendments to the land division ordinance are procedural amendments that do not change development standards applicable to any land division in Whatcom County; and WHEREAS, the County Council has adopted the following Findings and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. The amendments are exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(19) 2. Notice of the proposed amendments was circulated to those expressing an interest in the proposed amendments prior to public hearing. Several opportunities were provided to review a preliminary draft of the proposed amendments prior to consideration by the Whatcom County Planning Commission. 3. Notice of the public hearing was provided in the Bellingham Herald at least ten days prior to the hearing. 4. The Whatcom County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the proposed amendments on November 13, 2008 and recommended approval to the Whatcom County Council regarding the proposed amendments. 5. Notice of the proposed amendments was provided to Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED). CTED acknowledged receipt of the proposed amendments on February 29, 2008. 6. A copy of the proposed amendments was provided to all cities within Whatcom County. No comments were received from cities regarding the amendments. 7. The amendments are consistent with RCW 58.17, Plats — subdivisions — dedications. 340 8. A public hearing on the proposed amendments was held by the Whatcom County Council on December 9, 2008. 9. After considering public testimony, the Whatcom County Council adopted Ordinance 2009-007 which removed criteria for review of boundary line adjustments pending legal counsel review. 10. The Whatcom County Council re -introduced proposed changes to boundary line adjustment criteria on March 17, 2009 and a public hearing was scheduled to consider the proposed changes. 11. After review of testimony, it has been found that the proposed amendments regarding boundary line adjustments are consistent with RCW 58.17, Plats — subdivisions — dedications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that: Section 1: Title 20 is amended as indicated in Exhibit 1 of this ordinance. ADOPTED this day of , 2009. ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of the Council APPROVED as to for ✓� Civi ecutor WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Pete Kremen, County Executive Date: 341 EXHIBIT 1 Amendments to Title 20 — Whatcom County Zoning Code 20.83.110 Reduction of area No action shall cause or increase the nonconformity of lots that are substandard as to lot area, lot width requirements, setbacks, open space, or off-street parking or loading areas, provided however, that the Administrator may approve boundary line adjustments required to satisfy an unidentified or disputed property line or to identify the same in accordance with RCW 58.04.0070). 342 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2009-088A CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: Roland 3123109 3 / 31 / 2009 Introduction Middleton Division Head: 4/14/2009 Public Hea-ring Dept. Head: David �q Stalheim t(! Prosecutor: - Royce Buckingham Purchasin Bud et: Executive: Pete Kremen TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Ordinance adopting the Whatcom County Lummi Island Subarea Plan. ATTACHMENTS: (1) Proposed ordinance Notes: Background materials, including the Planning Commission recommendations, are available or review at the County Council office, SEPA review required? ( x) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( X ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( x) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: S UMMA R Y S TA TEMENT OR LEGAL NO TICE LA NG UA GE. Adopt the Whatcom County Lummi Island Subarea plan. This is an update to the 1979 Lummi Island subarea plan. The subarea plan is a part of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. COMMITTEEACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION. 3/31/2009: Introduced Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution County Planning File # Number: PDS File # CMP 2008-00009 I— o �� Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at. www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 343 3/23/09 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: INTRODUCTION DATE: ORDINANCE # ADOPTING WHATCOM COUNTY LUNM ISLAND SUBAREA PLAN — A COMPONENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, The Lummi Island Subarea Plan is a component of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, additional information necessitates updating the 1979 Lummi Island Subarea plan; and WHEREAS, Legal notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published in the Bellingham Herald; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal; and WHEREAS, The County Council has considered the Planning Commission's recommendations. The Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On November 21, 2003 a staff report was issued for Lummi Island proposed plan to the planning commission (file number CMP2003-00011). 2. On November 24, 2003 the Deputy SEPA Official issued a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (SEP03-00208). 3. On December 4, 2003 a supplemental staff report was issued. 4. On December 4, 2003 the Planning Commission held a public meeting to review the plan, receive public testimony, and propose amendments. 5. On January 22, 2004 the Planning Commission held a public meeting to review the plan, receive public testimony, and propose amendments. P. 1 344 6. On January 29, 2004 the Planning Commission held a public meeting to review the plan, receive public testimony, and propose amendments. 7. On February 20, 2004 Staff issued the Lummi Island Subarea Summary of Options and Recommendations. 8. On February 26, 2004 the Planning Commission held a public meeting to review the February 20, 2004 Summary of Options and Recommendations and moved to forward the plan to the County Council as amended. 9. On March 23, 2004 the County Council introduces ordinance for review and adoption of the Draft plan. 10. On May 12, 2004 the Deputy SEPA Official withdraws the DNS based on the requirement for new information on groundwater protection. 11. On May 12, 2004 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager issued a memorandum to the County Council informing them the plan must be tabled until the Groundwater Study is complete. 12. On October 26, 2005 Aspect Consulting began the Groundwater Study. 13. On December 31, 2006 Aspect Consulting completed the Groundwater Investigation and proposed a methodology for aquifer protection. 14. Pursuant to RCW 36.70.590 legal notice for a public hearing was published in the Bellingham Herald on October 12, 2008. 15. A new Determination of ]von -Significance was issued under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) on September 19, 2008. Comments were received from Darlyn DelBoca and David K. Ernst. The comments were reviewed by the Deputy SEPA Official. The comments did not change the Determination of Nonsignificance. 16 The stated goals of the Lummi Island Subarea Plan are: Natural Resource Sustainability (e.g., protection of water supply, water quality and environmentally sensitive areas) Preservation of Island Rural Character (e.g., density of development, protection of open space, etc.) Protection of Property Rights (e.g., fairness in applying new rules that impact the ability of property owners to achieve economic gain from their property and their investment in land). 17. The Lummi Island Planning Committee (LIPC) held 26 monthly meetings scheduled throughout 2002 and 2003, terminating on November 10, 2003, the public was invited. Whatcom County Planning and Development Services held two educational Land Use P. 2 345 Meetings in June 2002, and sponsored a Land Use Attorney Public Meeting in August 2003. Mark Personius, the Planning Consultant, participated in three Public Community Meetings to obtain input on the Draft Plan and answer questions. Whatcom County Planning and Development Services and Aspect Consulting conducted a public workshop to introduce and answer questions regarding the groundwater study on January 28, 2006. A public meeting was held on December 7, 2006 to announce the findings of the groundwater study. A public meeting was held on September 24, 2008 to discuss the proposed amendments from the Ground Water Study and changes to the maximum density. 18. The Plan is consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan, the County -wide Planning Policies and Growth Management Act (GMA) planning goals regarding Citizen Participation, Environment, Open Space and Recreation, and Historic Preservation. 19. The proposed Subarea Plan goals and policies increase the ability to provide services and facilities that can benefit the public health, safety and welfare of the residents and property owners of Lummi Island through transportation, recreational, and water quality goals etc. 20. The island has a resident population of 822 and a potential peak seasonal population almost double that according to the 2000 US Census. 21. Increased rates of dry wells, arsenic contamination and chloride levels have been documented by the Whatcom County Environmental Health Department (P. Chudek, personal communication, August 2003). The December 31, 2006 Conceptual Methodology for Evaluating Groundwater Withdrawal Proposals on North Lummi Island by Aspect Consulting provides a methodology for protection of the aquifer system. 22. Most of the north island remains rural with a settlement pattern of one unit per three or five acres; however, there are some areas that have already developed at suburban rather than rural character. These include higher density developments approved prior to the advent of the Growth Management Act such as the Beach Club Condominiums, Scenic Estates, Lane Spit, and Isle Aire. In other areas shorelines have been densely developed on old small non -conforming lots —often less than an acre. 23. The ferry capacity and level of service are important growth variables that could significantly encourage or retard future growth. Currently the LOS established for the Lummi Island ferry service does not meet the adopted level of service of 513 trips/capita. Therefore, no further subdivisions of land may be approved on Lummi Island until the ferry is upgraded or the LOS is revised. However, short plats and building permits are exempt from the concurrency requirements and these activities have continued on the island in spite of the ferry LOS. The next review of the Capital Facilities Plan will address the revised LOS for the ferry. 24. Both the Lummi Island Planning Survey and the small group discussions of alternative growth management strategies indicated support for increased protection of unique components of the built and natural environment that constitute the island's rural P. 3 346 character, including open fields and woods, hedgerows, farm buildings and old homesteads, open vistas, groundwater recharge areas and environmentally sensitive areas and undeveloped shorelines. Clustering was supported by a majority of respondents on the Planning Survey —most notably "if the reserve tract is legally guaranteed never to be developed". 25. The additional policies recommended regarding development of a Lummi Island Water Management Plan, update of the County Critical Area Ordinance policies on aquifer recharge area protection, and revision of the Lummi Island Aquifer Recharge Area map will help protect groundwater quality and quantity on the island. Mapping of individual drainage basins and specific protection measures and policies should be added when additional data is available. 26. The recommended policies and tables regarding lot consolidation will reduce density in three subdivisions with existing substandard lots where two or more lots are in common ownership. 27. The adoption of the revised zone text for the Rural Residential Island zoning district, will reduce the density on most of the unplatted RRI zoned land to one dwelling unit per 5 acres. 28. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 23, 2008. The Planning Commission approved the staff recommendation with amendments. Amendments included portions of the draft Subarea Plan, maintaining the clustering language for RRI, and changes to the proposed WCC 16.16 to include an exempt well provision and notification to surrounding property owners of the pumping test. CONCLUSIONS The subject amendments are consistent with the approval criteria of WCC 20.10.080 and serve the public interest. The amendments will not create an undue burden under section 1.11 of the County Charter. P. 4 347 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that: Whatcom County's Lummi Island Subarea Plan is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit A. ADOPTED this day of , 2008 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED as to form: Ci Dep ecutor P. 5 Seth Fleetwood, Chairperson O Approved O Denied Pete Kremen, Executive Date: MO Lummi Island Subarea Plan A Component of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Revised Final Draft March 2009 349 LUMIVII ISLAND SUBAREA PLAN A Component of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan March 2009 Whatcom County Executive Pete Kremen Whatcom County Council Seth Fleetwood, Chair Carl Weimer L. Ward Nelson Laurie Caskey-Schreiber Sam Crawford Bob Kelly Barbara Brenner Whatcom County Plannine Commission Ken Mann, Chair Jean Melious - Vice -Chair John Belisle David Hunter John Lesow Rabel Burdge Geoff Menzies Ron Roosma John Steensma Whatcom Countv Plannine and Development Services Department David Stalheim, Director Hal Hart, AICP, Past Director Sylvia Goodwin, AICP, Past Manager Elizabeth K. Olsen, Planner II, Past Project Manager Roland Middleton, LEG, Special Projects Manager, Public Works Department Becky Boxx, Planning Commission Coordinator Troy Holbrook, Past PDR/rDR Specialist Mike Pelela, GIS Specialist Sarah Watts, Senior GIS Specialist Lummi Island Plannine Committee as Appointed by Pete Kremen Charles Anholt Victor Armfield Gwendolyn Bass Robert Busch Samya Clumpner Kent Doughty Dave Ernst Bob Fodor Rich Frye Pam Gould Polly Hanson David Harmoney Earle Jewell Dana Kershner Wynne Lee Al Marshall Sheila Marshall Gerald McRorie Ria Nickerson Ian O'Callaghan John Robinson Steve Schneider Craig Smith Art Thomas Consultant Mark Personius, AICP, Growth Management Consultant 10223 62°d Ave. South Seattle, WA 98178 Whatcom County Planning Northwest Annex, 5280 Northwest Dr. Bellingham, WA 98226-9094 360-676-6907 Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 350 Table of Contents 1. Introduction Major Planning Issues Page 6 The Planning Process & Opportunities for Public Involvement Page 7 U. . Existing Conditions & Issues Population & Housing Characteristics Page 12 Land Use Page 20 Groundwater Resources Page 34 Critical Areas Page 41 Shorelines Page 46 Recreation Page 50 Public Services and Facilities/Utilities Page 53 Sewage Disposal Page 54 Transportation Page 55 M. Growth Management Strategies Growth Management Strategies Page 60 Land Use & Zoning Alternatives Page 61 Policy or Regulatory Alternatives Page 65 IV. Preferred Plan, Policies and Implementation Measures Preferred Plan, Policies and Implementation Measures Page 78 Subarea Plan Goal Page 78 Land Use Implementation Measures Page 78 Shorelines and Critical Areas Implementation Measures Page 81 Recreation & Open Space Implementation Measures Page 84 Public Services and Facilities Implementation Measures Page 86 Transportation Implementation Measures Page 86 V. Appendices Appendix A — Lummi Island Planning Survey Appendix B — Growth Management Alternatives Public Evaluation Appendix C — Conceptual Methodology for Evaluating Groundwater Withdrawal Proposals on North Lummi Island Appendix D —North Lummi Island Hydrogeologic Investigation Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 351 Tables Table 1— Housing Stock Age Distribution Page 13 Table 2 — Lummi Island Peak Seasonal Population (1966-2000) Page 14 Table 3 — Lummi Island Buildout Analysis (Pre -Existing Zoning) Page 22 Table 4 — Lummi Island Open Space Inventory Page 26 Table 5 — Lummi Island Economic Activity by Location Page 31 Table 6 — Lummi Island Commute Trip Patterns Page 56 Table 7 — Land Use Alternatives Buildout Scenarios Page 64 Table 8 — Distribution of Vacant Non -conforming Lots Page 67 Table 9 — Lummi Island 1.9% Annual Housing Unit Growth Cap Scenario Page 76 Table 10 — Platted Lots of Record Prior to 1978 Not Subject to Lot Consolid. Page 88 Figures Figure 1 — Lummi Island Sub Area Planning Process Page 10 Figure 2 — Lummi Island Resident Population Growth & Housing Growth Page 13 Figure 3 —Lummi Island Peak Seasonal Population (1966-2000) Page 14 Figure 4 — Lummi Island Peak Seasonal Population Forecasts (2000-2020) Page 17 Figure 4A — Lummi Island Dwelling Unit Growth Forecasts (2000-2020) Page 17 Page 18 liereeasts (2000-2020` Figure 5A Lummi island Gfoundwater Dependent Peak Rage 19 (MwEimufn) RepalatienGfewh FOFecasts 2020) Figure 6 — (2000 Existing Zoning Page 21 Figure 7 — Existing Development Potential Page 23 Figure 8 — Open Space Page 27 Figure 9 — Prime Agricultural Soils Page 29 Figure 10 —Number of Economic Activities by Type Page 31 Figure 11 — Cultural and Historic Sites Page 32 Figure 13 — Public Water Systems (Group A & B) Page 37 Figure 14 — Aquifer Recharge Areas Page 39 Figure 15 — CAO Articles V & VI Aquifer & Wetlands Page 44 Figure 16 — CAO Article VII Wildlife HCA's Page 45 Figure 17 — CAO Articles III & IV Geohazards & FEMA Flood Hazards Page 47 Figure 18 — Shoreline Designations Page 48 Figure 19 — Public Tidelands Page 51 Figure 20 — Non -Conforming Lots Page 66 Figure 21 — Open Space Design and Clustering Page 71 Figure 22 — Example Building & Site Design Standards Page 73 Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 352 Introduction Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 353 Introduction This plan is intended to guide the physical development of Lummi Island for the twenty- year planning period from 2003-2023. It serves as an update to the Lummi Island Subarea Plan originally adopted in 1979. Lummi Island is the largest island in Whatcom County. It comprises the easternmost part of the San Juan Island chain in Puget Sound and is located between Bellingham Bay on the east and Rosario Strait on the west. It is separated from the mainland and Lummi Peninsula by Hale Pass. The island is approximately nine miles long and, on average, one mile wide. The island comprises over 5,600 acres, is home to more than 800 full- time residents, and is served by Whatcom County public ferry service from Gooseberry Point on the Lummi Indian Nation. The island experienced significant growth in the last twenty plus years that led to the call for a new plan to better deal with the impacts of growth. Residents concerned over the growth -related loss of open space and rural character of the island worked with Whatcom County to establish the Lummi Island Planning Committee (LIPC) and began work on revising their comprehensive plan that was over twenty years old. Among many concerns, the preservation of the community's rural character and protection of groundwater resources are of top priority. The plan discusses the context for growth and its related impacts on the island, identifies potential strategies and techniques to preserve the rural character and mitigate the impacts of growth. It concludes by laying out clear policies to guide the implementation steps necessary to achieve the vision outlined by the community. Major Planning Issues Based on LIPC meetings, discussions with individual residents, business and property owners on the island, the survey results, the vision statement, the adopted 1979 Plan and other input, the most significant issues related to future growth on the island can be summarized into several broad themes. • Natural Resource Sustainability (e.g., protection of water supply, water quality and environmentally sensitive areas) • Preservation of Island Rural Character (e.g., density of development, protection of open space and rural activities like agriculture, preserving socio-economic diversity in the community, building size and appearance, etc.) •.--Protection of Private and Public Property Rights (e.g., fairness in applying existing and new rules to all properties) to achieve eeenemir, gain ffem theiF . ..e...t„ and their. investment i.. land), Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 6 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 354 To be sure, there are other issues of concern to islanders —but they are, in most Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: cases, derivatives of these broader thematic issues. Note that discussion of a new 0.25" + Tab after: 0.5^ + Indent at: 0.5° ferry is specifically excluded here, except in the context of transportation infrastructure issues in Chapter II. On April 15, 2008 the Whatcom County Council decided to not pursue a new lamer ferry at th6 that time. This 20-yea subarea plan assumes ferryFerfy service will be limited to the capabilities of the current ferry to provide that service. The Planning Process & Opportunities for Public Involvement Lummi Island Planning Committee (2001-2003) The Lummi Island Planning Committee (LIPC) began to address the need for an updated growth management plan for the island in January 2001. Comprised of more than twenty members and open to all residents, the LIPC meets monthly to foster discussion about growth issues on the island. Several senior members of the LIPC even served on the original steering committee for the 1979 plan. The LIPC coordinated with the Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Department to: develop an on -going dialogue about growth impacts on the island; brief islanders about important growth issues; and to develop a scope of work for a new subarea plan update. In 2001, a budget was approved to fund a new plan and in 2002 a consultant was retained to help develop the plan. To help drive the new plan, an island -wide survey about growth issues was developed, in coordination with the County, and mailed to over 800 resident and non- resident property owners. The results of the survey are reported in the Appendix. The LIPC has been met monthly ever the last era' t to help coordinate and participate in the plan update process. The committee meetings are advertised, open to the public and contain a public comment period to encourage public involvement. To help facilitate the plan update and involve LIPC members to the maximum extent possible in the process, the LIPC established subcommittees to address specific elements of the Plan and advise the County and the Consultant about specific issues. Subcommittees helped utilize the expertise of local residents in helping to put together the best plan possible. The subcommittee's main tasks during the process coincided with the appropriate phase of the planning process. These tasks included: 1. Data Collection and Inventory (Define Existing Conditions) 2. Identify Issues and Alternatives (using the Survey and local knowledge) 3. Recommend Solutions (Implementation Strategies) Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 355 Subcommittees include: • Shorelines and Critical Areas • Public Services and Utilities • Recreation and Open Space • Transportation • Rural Character • Privacy and Property Rights Public Involvement (2002-2006) In addition to the LIPC meetings, public outreach activities included interviews with selected residents, business owners, and large property owners outside of the committee. The interviews were conducted by staff and the consultant to inform and gather as broad and complete a picture of stakeholder interests and concerns about growth and the planning process as possible. Three island -wide public workshops (town meetings) that coincided with major milestones during the planning process were also held to inform the public about the process and gather public input. Many islanders gave additional, unsolicited input to .Planning and Development Services staff, Planning Commissioners, County Council members and the County Executive. Additionally, public workshops and public meetings were held to discuss the Groundwater investigation and proposed methodology for groundwater withdraw]. Visioning €af 4y en in In 2001 the planning process the LIPC developed a "vision statement". The Vision Statement is intended to look forward into the future, to describe a vision of what islanders would like to see the community look like in the next 20 years. The vision is broken down into specific categories that help provide a clear picture of how the community sees itself and therefore provides guidance in applying growth management tools and techniques to achieve the desired outcomes. The vision statement was presented to the public and validated during a series of public workshops during the planning process. The degree of islanders agreement and disagreement with this statement was obtained in several ways, including: The Vision Statement Lummi Island's natural beauty, its rural character and community, and the tranquility that accompanies them are preserved. Because these highly valued attributes are fragile, the Island is treated with special care and on -going vigilance. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 356 • Natural Setting —The Island's natural features are a primary source of satisfaction and feeling of well-being for residents. Large open spaces, wooded areas, wetlands, undeveloped shorelines, wildlife habitat, open vistas, air and water quality, and quietness are preserved. Rustic walking trails and access to the water are available. Islanders are dedicated to sustainable management of the Island's marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Community —The Lummi Island communityfunctions as a single neighborhood distinguished by marked levels of interdependence, mutual support, citizen involvement, and socioeconomic diversity. Residents share a sense of history, a safe ambiance, a wide range of community activities, neighborliness, belonging and tolerance within their small cohesive community. Islanders embrace community interaction and cultural activities including small-scale public and commercial enterprises. Rural Character —The Island's natural setting and close-knit rural community, which contribute to the rural character, are enhanced by safe rural roads, an unhurried pace of life, and a sense of privacy. Human activities include small- scale agriculture, cottage, service, and sustainable resource -based industries. Residents are resourceful and self-reliant. They appreciate the calming effect of the rural setting and they understand the effect that their actions have on the island as a whole. Private and public property rights and responsibilities are supported in coordination with sustainable growth management. Subarea Planning Process The island's subarea planning process was comprised of three main phases (see Figure 1). What Do We Have?— This is the data gathering phase. It identified the current conditions and issues to be addressed by the Plan. The Survey already accomplished much of what this phase is intended to achieve in terms of the public's involvement. The first phase of the subarea planning process presented the goals underlying the 1979 Island Subarea Plan, discussed existing conditions and issues, presented the vision statement and results of the island -wide survey, identified historic and current growth trends and illustrated "what if " scenarios of growth continuing for the next twenty years based on observed trends. These highlights were presented to the public during the first "town meeting" on the plan held in December 2002. 2. What Do We Want?— Based on the issues raised in the Survey and from the LIPC and the public in Phase One, identify and prioritize the major issues to be addressed by the Plan. Analyze those issues and present alternative solutions or strategies to address sustainable growth management —one of the underlying Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 357 foundations of the vision for the island. These alternatives included: 1) land use alternatives (i.e., mapping potential zoning changes); 2) policy alternatives such as establishing preferences for changes in the levels of service for public services and facilities and the imposition of new fees to fund needed improvements; or 3) regulatory alternatives such as adopting new regulations aimed at consolidation of small non -conforming lots or requiring new conditions on future subdivisions and building construction. Findings of this phase were presented during another island -wide public workshop in March 2003. The nominal small group process was utilized at the conclusion of this workshop to allow opportunity for public discourse on the alternatives and to characterize the relative preferences of the attending public towards the various alternatives presented. The summary results of this exercise are presented in the Appendix B. 3. How Do We Get What We Want? —This is the implementation phase. It brings informed consent to the Preliminary Draft Plan. It includes identification of preferred alternatives, policy directives and suggested regulatory changes needed to implement the findings of the Plan. The findings and conclusions of the Preliminary Draft Planwilbe were presented for public review and comment during a final island -wide public workshop in September 2003. Public comment and LIPC review and comment will be was incorporated into a Final Draft Plan prior to submission to the Whatcom County Planning Commission for their review and recommendation to the County Council who have ultimate authority to adopt the Plan. Additional Data Collection (2004-2006) ,During May 2004 the Deputy SEPA Official withdrew the Determination of r�-------------------------------------------------------- Nonsignificance based on the requirement for new information on groundwater protection, thus putting the County Council's discussion of the plan on hold. Aspect Consulting began work on the Groundwater Study on October 26, 2005. On December 31, 2006 Aspect Consulting completed the Groundwater Investigation and proposed a methodology for or aquifer protection. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 Formatted:. Left Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Not Italic Formatted: Left 358 Figure 1 Lummi Island Subarea Planning Process WHAT DO WE WHAT DO WE HOW DO WE GET HAVE? WANT? WHAT (Data Collection/Analysis) (Plan Preparation) WE WANT? (Implementation) +„`�_,. ._. i LL•. �i-Tte-ii-L?�`iFo-Y.ai -. e f :;a �: S ?l... t, _' .. �' f Identify Issues Land Development and Collect Data on: the Survey Alternative Plan # 1 Regulations • Land Use (Zoning, Subdivision Regulations, Development • Housing Standards, etc.) (2009) • Population Alternative Plan # 2 1 • Economic Activities • Transportation • Recreation Adopt Subarea Plan & 'r Whatcom County • Public Utilities Alternative Plan # 3 Comprehensive Plan • Community Facilities Amendment (2009) • Environment Town Meeting Town Town Meeting Meeting Draft Subarea Plan Update December 2002 Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 March 2003 4 September 2003 — January 2009 IF 359 Existing Conditions & Issues Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 360 Population & Housing Characteristics History The first permanent white settlers arrived on the island in the late 1800s. Early settlers were primarily loggers, fishermen and farmers. By the turn of the century, portions of the north half of the island were logged to create pastures for livestock grazing and fields for early farms that supported grain, potatoes, fruits and vegetables. Legoe Bay supported a plentiful and popular salmon fishery that, during its peak, supported as many as three salmon canneries employing hundreds of workers on the island. Fish traps and a fleet of purse seiners supplied the canneries until the fish traps were banned in 1935. It was then that the reef netting boats were re-established. In the 1920s the island became a popular recreation and vacation destination for visitors from around the Northwest. Lodges and resort cabins were built to accommodate summer visitors. After World War II, the tourism trend shifted to the construction of second homes, as almost 700 lots were platted in the twenty years following the war. By the advent of the 1970s most of the resorts closed but the number of seasonal homes continued to increase and a large condominium development was built on the north side of the island. The increased rate of growth and density generated the initial concern over the island's rural character and prompted development of the first island land use plan adopted in 1979. During the 1980s and 1990s the development trend shifted to more permanent residents with many seasonal housing units converted to year round occupancy both by retirees and working -age residents who commuted to work in Ferndale and Bellingham. The increased settlement rate placed even greater strains on the limited ferry service capacity. Today In 2000 the island has had a resident population of 822 and a potential peak seasonal population almost double that according to the 2000 US Census. A strong commuting population as well as small-scale agricultural industries, forestry, bed -and - breakfast establishments, artisans, a store and other trades currently comprise the economy of the island. There are no major employment -generating industries or businesses located on the island. Growth Trends Lummi Island experienced slow resident population growth from WWII up to 1970 even though subdivision activity was extensive during that time. Population growth lagged behind the subdivision and seasonal housing unit market heading into the 1970s. Table 1 indicates the age distribution of the island housing stock. Figure 2 exhibits the population and housing unit growth for almost the past forty years. The surge in construction of seasonal units during the 1970s brought on the first significant visual impact of growth on the island's rural character and, subsequently, the need for the first subarea plan prepared in 1979. Overall new housing units grew at an Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March. 2009 13 361 astonishing 3.2% annual average growth rate during the 1970s. The 1980's returned to a period of relatively slow housing unit growth (1.6% average annual growth rate). New housing starts increased again in the 1990's housing boom (2.1% average annual growth rate) as more permanent residents moved to the island which again brought up the concern over loss of rural character and the call for new subarea plan. Table 1 Housing Stock Age Distribution �eajr>�o�sin �I'II1tS $'uil_t , . :< ': .P�ccu�' °�o, : ofTQtal�oussmi Stock ., 1990-2000 28% 1980-1989 12% 1970-1979 22% 1960-1969 14% 1940-1949 12% Prior to 1940 12% Source: Whatcom County Assessor 2002 Interestingly, as more and more undeveloped land was consumed for new housing construction, new subdivision platting activity was dropping sharply. The number of new lots created in the 1990s was half that created in the 1970s. The vast majority of new lots created were in short plats that have four or fewer lots compared to long plats having more than four lots. This is indicative both of the shrinking supply of large undeveloped tracts of land not being used for agricultural or forest resource use on the island and by groundwater constraints. Figure 2 Lummi Island Resident Population Growth & Housing Growth (1966-2000) The housing stock is heavily influenced by seasonal residency. Over the last thirty years housing units occupied on a seasonal or part-time basis accounted for between one-third and one-half of the total island housing stock. According to the latest year 2000 census, year-round occupied homes comprise only 55% of the total housing stock while seasonally occupied or recreational units account for the remaining 45%. Peak seasonal Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 14 362 occupancy occurs during the summer months (particularly weekends and holidays) when the ferry service demand far exceeds capacity and waits for ferry service can be as much as approximately 1 %z to 2 hours. For planning purposes, resident and peak seasonal population growth trends are shown in Figure 3 and Table 2. Figure 3 Lummi Island Peak Seasonal Population (1966-2000) Table 2 Lummi Island Peak Seasonal Population (1966-2000) The average age of island residents is increasing. Residents age 19 and under decreased from 23% of the population in 1990 to 21 % today while resident's aged 55 and older increased from 29% of the population in 1990 to 3 1 % today. The average household size is decreasing (2.1 in 2000). Lummi Island experienced significant in -migration of resident population in last decade. 61% of residents in year 2000 lived in the same house on island in 1995-39% of permanent residents either lived in a different house on island or moved onto the island in last seven years. In a departure from national and state trends, median incomes on island grew faster than median housing prices during the 1990s. Median home values on the island increased from $117,300 in 1990 to $179,900 in 2000—a 4.4% average annual increase. Median household income increased from $25,500 in 1990 to $42,279 in 2000—a 5.2% average annual increase. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 15 363 As housing and land values increase, housing affordability is becoming a more significant problem. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development generally defines housing as being "affordable" if a household spends no more than 30% of its monthly income for housing costs. The number of Lummi Island owner -occupied households who spent more than 30% of their monthly income on housing costs increased from 5% in 1990 to 34% in 2000—a startling increase reflecting the growing housing affordability gap on the island. The numbers for renter -occupied households are even higher. The rental housing market has tightened considerably in the last decade. Of all year-round occupied units, 79% are owner -occupied and 21% are renter -occupied today compared with 72% owner -occupied and 28% renter -occupied in 1990. Even as the island is becoming more affluent, some lower income residents are leaving due to rising housing costs. 12% of the population earned incomes below the poverty level in 2000 compared with 16% in 1990. The Lummi Island Community Land Trust is in the process of developing a cluster housing project as one means to try and provide more affordable housing opportunities on island. The island has a relatively high level of employment self-sufficiency. Nevertheless, a greater share of the labor force works off - island today than did 10 years ago. 21 % of employed residents in 2000 are self- employed compared with 29% in 1990. About 33% of residents are retired. Future Growth Projections Groundwater: One of the greatest unknowns to growth on Lummi Island is the availability of groundwater in adequate quantity and quality to serve future residents. The previous 1974 subarea plan LL279 was predicated on the conservative assumption that the island's groundwater aquifer could support a net carrying capacity of approximately 2,380 persons —not including those residents dependent upon surface water supplies (i.e., Scenic Estates). The surface water supply is estimated to be able to support a maximum potential of 1,000 persons. However, due to variations in the island's physical geography, the availability of groundwater and surface water supplies is not distributed evenly across the island. Essentially the 2,380 capacity estimate applies to the flatter terrain groundwater -dependent north end of the island (the Rural Residential Island zone) while the mountainous southern end of the island (the Rural Forestry zone) is dependent upon surface water supplies (lakes and impoundments). In total, the previous plan estimated a total island -wide population potential at buildout of approximately 3,400 persons. These carrying capacity estimates were derived from a water budget analysis carried out in 1978 for the island by Dr. Ronald G. Schmidt of Robinson & Noble, Inc. Dr. Schmidt's findings were reported in Water Resources of Northern Lummi Island (Robinson & Noble, Inc, 1978). Dr. Schmidt estimated the amount of recoverable groundwater on a sustained yield basis based on climatic, hydrogeologic and well log data. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 16 Formatted: Normal Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted: Font: 11 pt 364 Dr. Schmidt's work made several critical assumptions insofar as estimating groundwater demand. Calculations of the sustained yield 2,380 ultimate groundwater -dependent population capacity assumed an average daily requirement of 100 gallons per person — while acknowledging that the national standard for such use was 150 gallons per person per day (gppd). The 2,380 population capacity figure also assumed no implementation of water resource management measures and continuation of a very low density dispersed pattern of private individual wells and only seven water associations, or public wells. At the time of Dr. Schmidt's study in 1978, there were only seven water associations on the island. Ted In 2003 there are were twenty six. However, Dr. Schmidt reasoned that the population carrying capacity could be doubled on the island with implementation of "water resource management and engineering measures ". Suggested measures included creation of surface water impoundments, storage reservoirs, aquifer interties, more community wells, and formation of a public water (and sewer) utility, among others. However, save for the growing number of small community water systems, there has been no significant implementation of water resource management measures or water metering on the island. [For further discussion about the hydro -geologic assumptions used by Dr. Schmidt please refer to the Groundwater section of this chapter]. The 2006 Groundwater Investigation by Aspect Consulting showed a vast complex of aquifers on Lummi Island, thus it is nearly impossible to determine a water budget and defined net carry capacity for the island (Appendix D). Though the water mana eg ment measures as proposed by Dr. Schmidt would help in recharge of the aquifers. Aspect Consulting concluded that a proscriptive methodology for protecting the aquifers was the best immediate measure. The 2006 Proposed Methodology by Aspect Consulting addresses both quantity.and quality of water. Proscriptive measures are recommended for all new water withdrawals (Appendix C). If the measures identified by the proposed methodology are put in place, then the aquifers-- ---- Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 First line: V on the island will likely be sufficient for the population projection of the next 20 years. However, adoption of a Water Management Plan consisting of Best Available Science (BAS) water retention practices is still highly recommended. Population and Housing Projections (2000-2020) Total Lummi Island population and housing projections for the period 2000-2020 are shown in Figure 4 and 4A respectively. The projections indicate a 2020 maximum peak seasonal population in excess of 2,500 (assuming full occupancy) and from about 900- 1,100 total dwelling units islandwide. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 17 365 Figure 4 Lummi Island Peak Seasonal Population Forecasts 2000-2020 Figure 4A Lummi Island Dwelling Unit Growth Forecasts (2000-2020)' ® Existing Dwelling Units ■ Projected Peak DU (1,87%) 13 Projected Peak DU (2.13%) M Projected Peak DU (3.17%) 1966 1978 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 2020 Year 1966-1980 Average Annual Duelling Unit Growth Rate = 3.17% 1980-2000 Average Annual Dwelling Unit Growth Rate = 1.87% 1990-2DD0 Average Annual Dwelling Unit Growth Rate = 2.13% Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 18 366 Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 19 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 367 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 ■Resident PopListion w OProjected Peak Seasonal 500 Popn. 0 Ferry Car)acit Peak Population 20M 2010 2015 2mn Groundwater -Dependent Dwelling Units based upon 1.9 % Average Year Annual Growth Rate from 2000-2020 The ferry capacity and level of service are also important growth variables that could significantly encourage or retard future growth. Gnfren4yIn 2003 the ferry is not able to did not maintain its adopted level -of -service. The Capital Facilities Plan will need and a to resolve those level -of -service issues. Nevertheless, the alternative growth projections are intended to provide the public and policy -makers with a better understanding of what future population and housing unit levels might look like in the next twenty years based on historic growth trends as well as look at the potential impacts on groundwater supply and quality, open space and rural character. Land Use Existing Conditions The topography of the island has been a key determinant to its settlement pattern. The northern portion of the island is relatively low-lying and gently rolling, with elevations to Lamm, Island Subarea Plan Update 20 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 • O 362 feet above sea level. The southern portion is mountainous with a maximum elevation of 1,665 feet. The northern end of the island is zoned Rural Residential Island (RR -I) and the southern end is zoned Rural Forestry (RF) and includes a large portion of land, which is owned by the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Wildlife. Most of the residential population is located on the north part of the island while most of the southern part of the island is comprised of the undeveloped flanks of Lummi Mountain with the exception of the Scenic Estates subdivision. The 1979 Plan established the Rural Residential Island (RR -I) zone with a density of one unit per five acres inside identified aquifer recharge areas and one unit per 3 acres in areas outside the aquifer recharge areas. The Rural Forestry designation allows a density of one unit per twenty acres. See Figure 6, Existing Zoning. The RRI zone is essentially a mixed -use rural zone allowing residential and agricultural uses outright and limited commercial activities by conditional use permit. The Rural Forestry (RF) zone allows forestry practices including the operation of forestry equipment, watershed management, single family dwellings and accessory buildings, home occupations, utilities, mining and living quarters for employees. Existing land use is predominantly residential with several large tracts still held for agricultural and grazing use and limited forest practices. Significant public land holdings on the southern end of the island are used for wildlife management. Commercial activities are most concentrated close to the Ferry Dock and include the Islander Store, Post Office, Library, Latte Dah, and Beach Cafd. Other commercial activities are scattered across the island and include a restaurant and inn and bed and breakfast establishments. Although most employed residents commute off -island, there are also a significant number of self-employed residents, home -based businesses and cottage industries on the island. See Figure 10 and Table 5, see page 2-8-. 32. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan (WCCP 1997) recognizes cottage industries, home occupations, small businesses and natural resource -based jobs as the main base for rural resident's livelihood. These are compatible with the rural lifestyle of the island. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 21 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 369 Lumml PeNnsule Porhm 191and RV Figure 6 P -Existing Zoning Legend RRI - Rural Residential Island L RF - Rural Forestry DRAFT LUMMI Wand Subarea Plan �PL soe my2m.&N, 1 1.5 2 NUES Figure 6 — Existing Zoning Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 22 370 Currently commercial development is allowed as a conditional use, in accordance to the RR -I zoning, on the northern half of Lummi Island. Cottage industries are allowed as an administrative use and are subject to requirements regarding numbers of employees, square footage limitations on the use of existing structures, location, parcel size, materials needed for the business and signage. Commercial development is restricted from being built anywhere on the northern -half of the island where the distance between the ordinary high water mark and the county road right-of-way is less than 100 feet. If the distance is 100 feet or greater, commercial uses are restricted to home occupations only, or cottage industries. All light industrial, commercial and multi -family residential uses are allowed only through conditional use permits. Stand-alone commercial uses are encouraged to locate in close proximity to the Ferry Dock or Legoe Bay. There are also design and location considerations in the 1979 Plan that apply to commercial development. There is recognition that any form of future development should have "a positive relationship between man-made structures and the island... and should be an important determinant in preserving the desired character and in enhancing the quality of life..f These considerations in the conditional use application process ensure applicants are aware of design considerations that complement the current rural character of Lummi Island. Size, scale, visual appearance, view blockage, light and glare, noise, smoke and fumes are all identified as aspects that should be reviewed on proposed commercial projects. Development Potential To assess the pre-existing development potential of the island a buildout analysis was prepared. Buildout analysis is a tool to help understand what might happen if everybody developed their property to the maximum density allowed under the current zoning code. The analysis examined developed, undeveloped and underutilized lands on the island to ascertain the remaining development potential. The results are illustrated in Figure 7 and in Table 3. Table 3 Lummi Island Buildout Analysis (Pre -Existing Zoning) �stin : U.. o enUs rf dd6o�n hFr'� T�o�a1 Bm dovrDlb ;.;t RRI - 3 ac. 427 445 872 RRI - 5 ac. 133 118 251 RF 83 340 423 643 903 1,546 Notes: *Based upon Assessor Land Use Code and Improvement Value **Includes vacant and underdeveloped/redevelopable parcels. See map for category definitions. Source: Whatcom County Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 23 371 R MM" Lumml Peninsula i...IP" o...UnPt sh, Rpere 7 1 -Existing Development I Potential Figure 7 — Existing Development Potential Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 24 372 The analysis indicates that potential buildout under pre-existing zoning is approximately 1,546 dwelling units or about 3,247 residents. Meaning that under current zoning the island could accommodate more than double the number of existing housing units and up to four times the current population. The potential buildout of northern Lummi island alone (based on 1978 groundwater carrying capacity estimates) is 1,123 dwelling units or about 2,358 persons. In 2003, the The entire island is was eeFFeafly-at 42% of zoning buildout potential. The North Island (RR -I zone) is y-was at 49% of potential buildout based upem upon current zoning. These two buildout scenarios provide a reference point for examining future growth management strategies. Whether one sees the development "glass" as half -empty or half -full, the potential threat to rural character is evident. Rural Character Rural character is a sometimes hard to define concept but it is often remarked that 'you know it when you see it". The Growth Management Act [at RCW 36.70A.0301 defines it this way: "`Rural character' refers to the patterns of land use and development established by a county in the rural element of its comprehensive plan: (a) In which open space, the natural landscape, and vegetation predominate over the built environment; (b) Thatfoster traditional rural lifestyles, rural -based economies, and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas; (c) That provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural areas and communities; (d) That are compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat, (e) That reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low -density development; (fl That generally do not require the extension of urban governmental services; and (p) That are consistent with the protection of natural surface water flows and ground water and surface water recharge and discharge areas. " Several surveys were conducted leading up to the preparation of this Subarea Plan that specifically looked at the issue of rural character on Lummi Island. The first of these was a Visual Preference Survey prepared by planning students from Western Washington University and published in the Lummi Island Rural Character Study (2002). The second was the Lummi Island Planning Survey conducted in 2002 by the LIPC. Respondents to the Visual Preference Survey indicated very strong preferences for landscapes and roads with open spaces and woods, modest "non -suburban subdivision Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 25 373 style" housing set naturally into the environment with small stores and farms, and an absence of suburban "amenities" such as commercial strip malls. The Lummi Island Planning Survey indicated that the majority of residents wanted to see slower growth than that experienced in the 1990s. The Survey also asked several specific questions about rural character; including the following (answers are in percentages of total respondents): • How valuable to you are the following aspects of the Island's rural character? Very Somewhat_ Not at all ', Ia. Rural character of roads 68 21 10 j 'b. Small scale of public and commercial enterprises_ _ �c Unhurried pace of life 6 S _ 27 19 —T— _ 8 6 'Id. Sustainability of resource -based enterprises _ _ 50 38 12� le. Sense of nrivaev I 79 19 1 2 If. Housing & landscaping appropriate to rural community 61 f 27 12 The current 1979 land use plan relies heavily on water availability as the primary too] for managing growth. Which of the following factors do you think should be considered as management tools in forming the new land use plan? (Mark all that you support) F a Water quality and quantity. 90 b. Transportation time and costs (roads, ferry, etc.). 52 c. Economic or market forces j 13 d. Maintaining Waal character of the island. j 77 e. Maintaining a strong sense of community. —�— 48 f. Maintaining healthy natural environment and wildlife habitat_ Commercial opportunities _ — — _ — --�— 78 10 Results from these two questions reinforce the importance of protecting the island's rural character. In the first question, respondents overwhelmingly found the attributes of rural character on the island to be of very high value. As seen in the latter question, maintaining that rural character ranks a close third in importance only to protecting water quality and quantity and maintaining a healthy natural environment as the foundation for this Subarea Plan. Elements of Rural Character Open Space —Open space areas are used both for human purposes such as agriculture, forestry, and passive recreation, as well as natural purposes such as wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge, and connection of critical areas. According to the Lummi Island Planning Survey, loss of open space is perceived by Lummi Islanders as a significant adverse impact to the quality of life. Lummi Island residents value natural landscapes with little development. Areas suitable for open space include wetlands and ponds, undeveloped shorelines, woodlands, portions of larger lots with little or no built structures, and agricultural lands. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 26 374 Open space provides important habitat for plants and animals. Recreational open space such as trails provide peace of mind and contributes to the rural character of the island. Many people live on Lummi Island because of open space amenities and want to maintain and protect these areas. Table 4 indicates the existing open space inventory on the island. A variety of methods act to encourage the retention of open space. These range from regulatory restrictions to incentives and public land purchase. Under the provision of the Open Space Taxation Act (RCW 84.34), Whatcom County provides for an equitable tax climate for rural landowners by designating "Open Space" farms, forests, and beneficial open lands upon request by individuals landowners when such land meets adopted criteria and policies. Table 4 Lummi Island Open Space Inventory (as of 20031 aeeVlassrficat�9n `>A�res,' °/,aofofa>1Land:Are� , Protected Open Space Ownership Lummi Island Heritage Trust LIHT Owned 48 .84% Lummi Island Heritage Trust Preserves 106 1.86% LIHT - Private Conservation Easements 158 2.77% Salvation Army 32 .56% WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife 611 10.73% WA Dept. of Natural Resources 652 11.45% United States 50 .88 % Sub -Total 1,657 29.1 % Current Use Taxation Open Space Agriculture 452 7.94% Open Space/Open Space 189 3.32% Open Space/Timber 106 1.86% Designated Forest 1,103 19.37% Classified Forest 920 16.15% Sub -Total 2,770 48.6% Note:* The overlap in Open Space is as follows: LIHT has 144 ac. in current use taxation; LIHT (Conservation Easements) has 104 ac. in current use taxation; WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife has 114 ac. in current use taxation Almost one-third of the island has some form of permanent open space protection in the form of either public or non-profit rnetivated organization ownership (Figure 8). Most of the public lands on the island that comprise the largest blocks of open space (i.e., DNR and WDFW lands) are located on the mountainous southern less -populated end of the island. While most of the conservation easements and Lummi Island Heritage Trust owned or managed parcels are found in the more populated northern part of the island. The Heritage Trust is a private non-profit conservation organization dedicated to preserving open space on the island. It provides conservation easements and manages donated lands for conservation purposes on the island. Almost one-half of the island land Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 27 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 375 area is enrolled in the county's open space tax program providing public open space benefits and/or private property tax benefits. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 28 376 KN%%T v4k iW Figure 8 (2001 -Protected Open Space Legend Lummi Island Heritage Trust -Preserves -Trust Owned -Private Conservation Easements 0 Other -WA, Dept of Fish & Wildlife -WA. Dept. of Natural Resources -United States -Salvation Army ® Parcels with Current Use Designation (ROW 84.33, RCW 84.34) Swr m Mazmn Cempr PM Lumml Idmd Huftip Ttiw Figure 8 — Open Space Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 ._ 1 WN/A lkq�' N° DRAFT Lumml Island Subarea Plan d-K Wow. O 0.6 1 1.6 2 MILES 29 377 However, this program does not offer permanent open space protection as property owners can always "opt -out" of the beneficial assessment. Environmentally Sensitive Areas —Freshwater and saltwater wetlands, natural shorelines, groundwater aquifers, steep slopes and geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat areas are all examples of environmentally sensitive areas present on Lummi Island. On Lummi Island most of these lands remain undeveloped and rural in character. The Lummi Island Planning Survey reported that 78% of respondents identified maintaining a healthy natural environment and wildlife habitat as an important goal for this Subarea Plan. Prime Agricultural Soils —Agriculture is practiced on the island and there are extensive areas containing prime agricultural soils. Some of those acres ,•� are being actively utilized for agriculture, while other areas remain largely undeveloped or subject to residential development, and some have become primarily residential lots. at the Present time: Prime agricultural soils on Lummi Island identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture are shown on Figure 9. Activities that Foster Traditional Rural Lifestyles and Rural -Based Economies — The LIPC conducted an assessment of economic activity on the island to help define the broader aspects of the island's rural character. A wide range of activities were identified —many traditional some, perhaps, not so traditional —that provide opportunities for rural residents to both live and work on the island. The survey found well over 100 distinct economic activities occurring on island. More than three-quarters of all island - based economic activities were comprised of three main types: home -based businesses; followed by artisans (artists and craftsmen); and building trades (contracting and construction). Many of these activities, however, include off -island business. Most of the on -island activities occur either in the primary residence or in associated outbuildings, garages, shops, studios or barns. Areas of mere -traditional small-scale natural resource related agriculture, maFisaltu e-,fishin& mineral resources, and forest practices activities are also found on the island —ranging from animal husbandry and small farms growing specialty crops to commercial fishing operations, rock quarrying, and small logging activities. Limited tourism -based activities are also found on island, including several -two restaurants, an inn and bed and breakfast establishments. The Visual Preference Survey conducted by Western Washington University indicated that islanders rated small-scale agricultural and fishing activities among the most highly valued rural characteristics on the island. Although the size and quantity of productive farms and farmland may have decreased in the recent past, farmland is still utilized and valued as a major component of the island's rural character. In 2003, men}} , there are 48-1-2-were about a dozen diverse small-scale farms on the island, w#ieVthat are used for cattle and other livestock, chickens, eggs, grapes, vegetables, and flowers. The seasonal fishing settlement of Legoe Bay includes marine Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 30 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 378 Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 31 379 KE%WT Lumml Peninsula b o roftga island Q$ w O�. -Prime Agricultural Soils Legend NRCS Prime Soils NRCS Prime Soils when drained N DRAFT Lumml island Subarea plan d.K mhx 2M shr. Sm= UMA W.&I FGawrce O=rteon 5. 0 0.6 1 1.5 2 MILES Figure 9 — Prime Agricultural Soils Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 32 rail haul outs for fishing boats with boats and reef -net fishine gear set close to the beach and an old marina and associated buildings. It-Legoe Bay is also home to small-scale resident commercial fishing operations. The broad range and location of island -based economic activity speaks to the independent nature of island residents —as many as one-third of all households are -were self- employed in 2003, see Table 5 and Figure 10. It also speaks to the need for both business and residential property owner to be being"good neighbors" and4he-to implementation of effective yet efficient development regulations to promote harmonious development. Interestingly, neither the Planning Survey nor public testimony during the planning process indicated any significant incompatibility issues regarding residential development and island -based economic activities. Very Low Density Residential Development—Lummi Island is primarily a rural residential community But a sew that highly values the independence, privacy and remoteness that comes with living on an island. Most of the north island remains rural with a settlement pattern of one unit per three or five acres; however, there are some areas that have already developed a suburban rather then rural character. These include higher density developments approved prior to the advent of the Growth Management Act such as the Beach Club Condominiums, Scenic Estates, Lane Spit, and Isle Aire. In other areas shorelines have been densely developed on old small non -conforming lots — often less than an acre —with little sensitivity to the natural setting or critical areas. Much of the current planning effort, therefore, focused on maintaining rural character on the remaining larger undeveloped tracts of land. Yet at the same time the potential threat to rural character from incremental buildout of the hundreds of remaining small non- conforming lots remains an important issue. The visual and functional impact of development on rural character is evident too as rural and natural vegetation (e.g., pastures, hedgerows and forests) are being replaced with houses and lawns. Historic and Culturally -Significant Buildings and Sites —The island has a rich and varied history of settlement and economic use. Many of the historic remnants of the past such as canneries, homesteads, lodges, native spiritual and burial sites, and civic buildings remain in some form today, either as structures, sites or places of historical interest. The Lummi Island Rural Character Study documents many of these sites as important components of the island's rural character. Figure 11 indicates the island's important cultural and historic sites. Five historical sites are legally recognized on the island. The Beach Store is listed on the Washington State Historic Registry. The Whatcom County Registry includes the Carlisle Cannery, the Coxan House (locally known as the "Rat Palace"), the Beach School, and the Lummi Island Congregational Church. There are no sites on the island currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Rural Roads —The island's public roads are built to rural standards in most areas — meaning narrow two lane asphalt roads with no shoulders. The road system provides an efficient but scenic transportation network for movement around the island. In many Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 33 381 Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 34 382 Table 5 Lummi Island Economic Activitv by Location (2003 Centerview Extension 1 11 1 Tuttle & Blizard dirt 2 3 2 1 Tattle & Sunny Hill 2 3 2 1 6 1 Centerview I 1 4 2 N. Nugent 2 2 1 1 3 1 Isle Aire & area 2 2 1 1 W. Shore Dr. 1 5 2 2 2 Le oe Bay Rd. 4 I 2 4 Constitution & area 5 1 2 4 S. Nugent & area 7 3 1 3 7 :1134 ,Granger Wa • Orcas 1 2 2 2 Seacrest 1 2 Scenic Estates 4 2 1 3 Totals by Type 32 26 16 12 37 1 Figure 10 Number of Economic Activities by Type 2_( 0031 Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 35 383 aro�ev NOW ' Lummi Peninsula irie A$ mom E" RWA .�.. n ISrAwl Hftw rd~ aan BssoR swe Cab ann•Fmu� r CON8b CM-Y GWM �O RAWY i=OWN Haws W% o rrmr k=kra mffsm r dalwuaR AMYCMW -Cultural and Historic Sites Legend Cultural and Historic Sites {+� r DRAFT re Lummi Island Subarea Plan 1"2002_.mv 5a lMdbdn Cook PM Wminl lddid Rlud Cb"*rSmdl, WO 2W2 D G.5 7 7.5 4 MILES Figure 11— Cultural & Historic Sites 2( 003) Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 36 0 cases, vegetation and trees grow close to the road creating an aesthetic canopy effect. The roads also offer some of the best "public" views of the surrounding shorelines and Puget Sound, especially since there is so little public shoreline access on the island. Speed limits range from 25-35 miles per hour across the island encouraging a slower travel pace that reflects not only the road design but allows residents and visitors to enjoy the surrounding rural landscape. However, localized bursts of speeding traffic are not uncommon. There are safety concerns in some areas due to limited site distances from intersections, erosion and speeding traffic. In addition, bicyclists must use the vehicle travel lanes due to the lack of shoulders. In the absence of significant public trails on the island, many residents use the roads for walking and jogging trails which can also be a safety issue, especially at night. The County still owns right-of-way aleeg_of a few county "road ends" that could be incorporated into new public beach access points. The 1979 Plan and Protection of Rural Character The 1979 Plan was based upon two main goals: • Preservation of open space and rural character; and • Protection of groundwater resources The 1979 Plan and subsequent zoning for the island assumed that the minimum/maximum density of 1 dwelling unit/3 acres outside of aquifer recharge areas and 1 dwelling unit/5 acres inside recharge areas was adequate to protect the rural character of the island. The Plan anticipated the island would be able to maintain its rural character even while accommodating a 3% average annual population growth rate. It also assumed that clustering and shoreline management regulations would serve to preserve the island's rural character. Development regulations put in place to implement the 1979 plan included: • 3 acre zoning (outside of mapped aquifer recharge areas) in the RR -I zone which covered the majority of the northern part of the island; • Density transfer (i.e., density averaging on parcels partially in/out of recharge areas) effectively allowing density bonuses on affected parcels; • Cluster subdivisions with only 30% required open space outside of recharge areas and 55% open space inside recharge areas and no requirement for permanent dedication of the open space; • Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's) allowed subject to underlying density; and • Pre-1978 platted non -conforming lots —most less than an acre in size — recognized as legal lots of record and exempt from lot consolidation requirements. In hindsight, some of these implementation measures may have done more to hasten the demise of rural character on the island rather than protect it. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 37 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 385 Building new homes visually impacts rural character on a permanent basis —whether those homes are occupied year round or seasonally —but the most significant impacts to groundwater occurs when the seasonal units are occupied during peak periods and when those units are converted to year round homes. This suggests that density alone may be too blunt a tool to protect both rural character and groundwater. The increased resident settlement rate in the 1990's suggests even greater pressures in the future on both rural character and groundwater resources. Other techniques may be necessary to protect the long-term rural character of the Island. The LIPC has been leeking-atconsidered ideas such as: • Density reductions (i.e., downzoning) • Lot consolidation for small non -conforming lots • Rural design standards as potential means to ensure the long-term rural character of the island • Purchase/transfer of development rights to preserve open space • Allocating new development based on a sustainable annual growth rate over the next twenty years Groundwater Resources Groundwater recharge areas were originally established in the 1979 Plan based on hydrogeologic studies in the late 1970's (see Water Resources of Northern Lummi Island (Robinson & Noble, Inc, 1978). Lower densities were assigned to recharge areas as a means to protect the groundwater quality and quantity. There has-been a significant increase in the number of private wells since 1979. However, there has been no analysis of groundwater levels or recharge potential since 1979 (Figure 12). There has been more recent analysis of groundwater quality indicating increasing rates of dry wells (V.. Armf:eld, personal communication, August 2003) as well as arsenic contamination and saltwater intrusion in island wells (P. Chudek, Whatcom Co. Environmental Health, August 2003, AWect Consulting 2006 ). Whatcom County Environmental Health Department has enacted more stringent standards for arsenic treatment in new wells. Whatcom County should pursue research and grants to fund additional groundwater studies including analysis and mapping of individual drainage basins for groundwater levels, recharge potential, threats analysis and protection recommendations. Public Water Associations serve more than two connections and withdraw significantly more groundwater per well than individual systems but are also subject to higher water treatment standards. Group A systems have 15 or more connections or serve 25 or more persons per day. Group B systems have 3-15 connections and serve less than 25 people per day (Figure 13). In 1979, there were seven (7) "Public" Water Associations (Group A and Group B systems). In 2002, there were twenty-six (26) "Public" Water Associations (Group A and Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 38 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 • Group B systems). The island experienced an almost four -fold increase in the number of high capacity wells pumping groundwater out of the aquifer in the last twenty years. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 39 387 R Wei" VDIN L 1J qfl -Priva ells and A ' er Recharge Areas egend Bed dbl47,Z. Wells Prior to 1978 0 Wells 1978-Present * Arsenic Contaminated Wells Primary Recharge Areas Secondary Recharge Areas I Sensitive Recharge Areas eou�c,wa•om UwAyM; V". Cm IY HNM UN; YI�rAmltld Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 Lummi Peninsula Quou" R MR A7PClfwww4rA*d&e1* f3bim um uuf" "w t7 DIRAFT _ umml Island Subarea Plan O 0.6 1 1.6 2 MILES 40 Mw Figure 13 — Public Water Systems 2_� 003) Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 41 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 Kwo Groundwater Aquifers and Best Available Science The original groundwater carrying capacity estimates for the island were developed during hydro -geologic studies conducted in the late 1970s by Dr. Ronald Schmidt of the consulting firm Robinson & Noble. The estimates are contained in the report The Water Resources of Northern Lummi Island (1978) and reflect certain assumptions regarding best available science at the time. Lacking comprehensive data, Schmidt himself noted in his study that some of his assumptions regarding the island's water budget were preliminary and should be reevaluated when more comprehensive data became available. Some have noted that Schmidt's estimates of groundwater carrying capacity, for example, do not take into account the effect of drought conditions, and may, in fact, overestimate groundwater carrying capacity. Recent review of Schmidt's 1978 study by geologists from Western Washington University also cast doubt as to the veracity of the conclusions reached regarding designation of aquifer recharge areas and groundwater capacity and recharge rates. A recent analysis of the methodology utilized by Schmidt in his 1978 study was conducted by William Sullivan (WWU) in a report entitled Overview Lummi Island Groundwater Study (2003). Sullivan writes: "Unfortunately, Schmidt was unable to identify hydrostratigraphy, delineate aquifers, or provide reliable static water levels. It appears that Schmidt used a topographic map to estimate well -head and aquifer surface elevations, introducing large errors into his aquifer surface map. [His] mapping of aquifer recharge zones is generalized because he used only data from his aquifer surface map. The water budget conducted by Schmidt is based only on climatic data. Soils, geologic, and land cover data that could be used to better quanta [evapotranspiration], infiltration and runoffwere not available. " It is also interesting to note that the aquifer recharge areas identified by Schmidt in the 1979 subarea plan —that came to form the basis for the 5 acre/3 acre recharge/non- recharge area split zoning on the northern part of the island —are inconsistent with the critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) mapped on the island utilizing the criteria established in the Whatcom County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). See Figure 14. According to the CAO, designated CARAs may comprise a much larger percentage of the north island than the aquifer recharge areas identified under the 1979 subarea plan. Some data pertaining to groundwater quality is available from a report entitled Lummi Island Groundwater Study (1994) prepared by the Whatcom County Environmental Health Department and the Washington State Department of Ecology. That report indicates an increasing presence of chlorides (at levels in excess of 100mg/1) in some shoreline wells (from seawater intrusion) and naturally -occurring arsenic levels in some wells scattered across the north part of the island. However the 1994 study made no effort to quantify a water budget for the island or aquifer capacity or recharge rates. Analysis by Dr. Schmidt of 1978 well surveys found only one well on the island with high chloride levels at that time. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Drag}, March, 2009 42 390 a—"Wy R. I VMPK Lumml Peninsula -Aquifer Recharge Areas Legend GAO Article V - Aquifer Recharge Arens" 0 NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups A or B Overlap of Hydrologic Sol Groups and Geologic Units Aquifer Recharge Areas -1979 Plan „".,'ti 4 •'. • Primary Recharge Areas Secondary Recharge Areas %Subarea Sensitive Recharge Areas DRAFF Lummll 8MM w.M= C-wPD6 .2-1011CW Tat, cb" 1M WCC o 0.6 Figure 14 — Out of Date Aquifer Recharge Areas from the 1979 Plan Lumml Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft March, 2009 M .�7anoa-.nv. 1.6 T MILF$ 43 391 A similar survey conducted by Whatcom County Environmental Health in 2003 found seventeen (17) wells subject to serious saltwater intrusion. Further development on the northern half of Lummi Island will result in a declining water supply. Both local residents and the Whatcom County Environmental Health Department have documented increasing numbers of dry and low -producing wells (personal communication, V. Armfield and P. Chudek, August, 2003). With increased development comes the addition of new impervious surfaces including roads, driveways, and roofs that replace the vital vegetative cover that helps retain the rainwater for infiltration and aquifer recharge and holds the soil in place. There are also threats to groundwater quality that must be addressed. The ground water is recharged by precipitation and surface water seeping directly into the ground. Contamination of ground water including improper use of pesticides can be a major threat to potable water sources. Septic tanks that are not properly maintained can also contribute to major degradation of ground water quality. Increased demands on the current water source from development and well pumping are also likely to contribute to increased levels of saltwater intrusion. Seawater intrusion is the movement of seawater into fresh water aquifers. The causes of seawater intrusion are known to be from a decrease in ground water levels. The ground water level can be lowered from reduced precipitation or less ground water recharge due to removal of natural groundcover and more intense development. For example, development projects that include impervious surfaces, such as paved driveways and roads; prevent rainwater from draining directly through the soil into the aquifer. Water generated from impervious surfaces is usually collected in a drainage "ditch" and may discharge directly into the saltwater without having a chance to be fully absorbed on the land. Such Aactivities, which can cause a lowering of the groundwater level; ineltmaeby reducin the amount of fresh water recharge in lower proportion to the and pumping and withdraw rates that eNGeed the FatO ef fe6haF# . Areas closer to saltwater sources, such as shorelines, are at higher risk. Pumping a well or wells can also cause a local decline in the ground water level in the immediate vicinity of the pumped well and may cause local seawater intrusion or affect the quality of the water at nearby well sites. The proposed methodology by Aspect Consulting should lessen the effects of withdrawals by new wells. Freshwater is a finite resource on Lummi Island. Rainfall —which averages 32" per year —is the only source of water supply for the island. Total rainfall can vary widely across the island, however, and drought years can exacerbate water supply problems. Alternative public water supply sources such as a pipeline from the mainland or a regional seawater desalination plant are not presently feasible. The lack of a reliable and thorough understanding and estimate of current groundwater conditions on the island, the indications of increasing groundwater quality degradation, and the inconsistency between aquifer recharge areas identified on the island under the 1979 plan and in the more recent CAO suggests that a conservative approach be taken to allocating future land use until a more thorough groundwater evaluation can be completed. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 44 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 392 On May 12, 2004 the Deputy SEPA Official required a groundwater study to mitigate the impacts of new wells, specifically for seawater intrusion and arsenic concentrations. Whatcom County hired Aspect Consulting (including William Sullivan) to perform the investigation and make a recommendation as to a methodology for protection of the Lummi Island aquifer system. On December 31, 2006 Aspect Consulting concluded the groundwater study for North Lummi Island. As stated in the Executive Summary: "The purpose of the Lummi Island Groundwater Study is to develop standards and policies for island groundwater development that are protective of the groundwater resource, natural environment, and human health. This memorandum summarizes conceptually a set of requirements the County can consider implementing to achieve this objective. The methodology stems from a hydrogeologic investigation of Lummi Island (Aspect Consulting, 2006b) and is based on an antidegradation standard for the aquifer. Table 1 summarizes the conceptual methodology for evaluating groundwater withdrawal proposals." The December 31, 2006 Conceptual Methodology for Evaluating Groundwater Withdrawal Proposals on North Lummi Island by Aspect Consulting is attached as Appendix C. The hydrogeologic investigation completed by Aspect Consulting on December 31, 2006 is attached as Appendix D. Critical Areas Environmentally sensitive areas (or critical areas) are usually associated with valuable ecosystems, wildlife habitats or natural hazard areas. The Growth Management Act (GMA) identifies critical areas that include: wetlands; areas with critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; frequently flooded areas and geological hazardous areas. The GMA requires Whatcom County to identify and manage critical areas in such a manner as to prevent destruction of the resource and reduce potential losses to property and human life. The Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) (Title 16 WCC) is the primary regulatory tool that implements the critical area protection requirements of the GMA. Balancing private property rights with the need to,protect environmentally sensitive areas is an important goal of the Subarea Plan. Land development on and around critical areas should be discouraged. Development should be discouraged in known natural hazard areas and environmentally sensitive areas in order to minimize potential loss of life, damage to property, expenditures of public funds and degradation of natural systems. Wetlands Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March. 2009 45 393 Wetlands are an abundant and crucial environmental feature on Lummi Island. Wetlands provide invaluable functions for fish and wildlife habitat, aquifer recharge, groundwater storage, erosion control, and stormwater containment. Growth may significantly reduce and degrade natural systems like wetlands. For example, development on or around wetlands can cause incremental loss of wetland values and functions over time. Development that avoids wetland loss altogether is most preferred. Where unavoidable, loss of important wetlands due to development should be contingent upon full mitigation measures that equitably compensate for wetland function lost. Property rights and public services are an essential component of the county's political and economic system. Where such rights and public services are significantly compromised by the goal of wetland preservation, adverse wetland impacts may be permitted through mitigation. This may include restoration, enhancement, creation, or off -site compensation for loss of wetland functions. Ground Water Recharee Areas Regulating land use can protect Lummi Island's ground water recharge areas and water supply. Ground water is recharged by precipitation and surface water seeping directly into the ground. Contamination of ground water is a major threat to potable water sources. Potential groundwater contamination threats include, but are not necessarily limited to, over pumping, hazardous chemical spills, agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and improper use of pesticides, and poorly maintained septic tanks and drain fields. All of these factors can contribute to degradation of ground water quality. Identifying and mapping all wells and other areas from which groundwater are drawn will help prevent contamination. Educating residents of Lummi Island about groundwater contamination and prevention is critical. The Lummi Island Planning Survey indicated that groundwater protection was the most highly ranked goal of this Subarea Plan —identified by 90% of respondents as the single most valuable basis for development of the new plan. The Critical Areas OrdinanceThis CAO seeks to protect aquifer recharge areas from contamination, and to prioritize the management, protection and conservation of groundwater recharge areas that are used or have the potential to be used as a source of potable water. Figure 15 illustrates in ageneral way the critical wetlands and aquifer recharge areas on Lummi Island. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas The island has significant fish and wildlife habitat areas remaining, including woodlands, meadows, wetlands and shorelines, that are host to populations of deer and various small mammals, waterfowl, wading birds, woodpeckers and songbirds, eagles, turkey vultures and falcons, as well as marine mammals such as seals and various types of seabirds. Important off -shore aquatic habitats include shellfish beds and macro -algae and eel grass beds —important spawning areas for pacific herring. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 46 Revised Final Dre, March, 2009 394 Legoe Bay and its associated wetlands support important local spawning and rearing habitat areas for crab, clams, surf smelt, and pacific sand lance. The Bay is also home to the largest remaining seasonal reef -net salmon fishing fleet in the state. Lummi Mountain located on the southern tip of the island also provides diverse habitat for birds and mammals, including nesting sites for seabirds, bald eagles and the peregrine falcon. The CAO identifies wildlife habitat associated with "listed species" and "species of local concern' in the county. Listed species refers to those officially designated by the State Department of Fish & Wildlife and/or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as endangered, threatened, sensitive or a candidate for such listings. Where a project is proposed within an area where listed species have a primary association, a habitat management plan is required to avoid or mitigate the impact of development on the listed species. Species of local importance include vulnerable and recreationally important species susceptible to population decline due to their rarity in the region, limited distribution or special habitat requirements. Where a project is proposed within, an area where species of local concern have a primary association, a habitat management plan may be required to avoid or mitigate the impact of development on the listed species. A complete listing of affected species is published in the CAO. The Lummi Island Planning Survey indicated that protection of fish and wildlife habitat necessary to ensure a healthy natural environment was highly ranked —second only to groundwater protection —as a fundamental basis for development of the updated subarea plan. Figure 16 illustrates the fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas on Lummi Island. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 47 395 Rq4 W 1p 6.WMOIIL -CAO Arlicles V & Vl Aquifer and Wetlands SYfS l.r—. Legend MRCS Hydrologic Soil C coups A or B Overlap of Hydrologic Soil Broups and Geologic Units Nallanal Wetland Inventory Wetlands+ 100 tL Butters laro whafmcompas No" ;x D11*7 Lumml Idand Subarea Plan �R ,�r2oax-ter. 0 0.6 1 1.5 2 MILEG Figure 15 — CAO Articles V & VI — Aquifer and Wetlands Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 48 396 .-kmrL -CAO Article U11 Wildlife HCA's Lumml Peninsula Legend ® AAreas with which Liabd Species here a Primary Assn ® C.Sheffrsh HOW Conservation Areas a„ W D.Kelp & Edwass Beds, Pacific Herring Spawning Areas ESurl Smell & Paciic Sand Unce Spawning Areas H DRAFT F.Pon& BWetlaads (Article. BI Reg. Requirements) Lummi Lummll; Subarea ,#0'14V H.RIverS 3 Streams e 0.6 Figure 16 — CAO Article VII — Wildlife HCAs Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draj?, March, 2009 0 49 397 Areas of Flood (FEMA) Storms or high tides can cause localized flooding on Lummi Island. Houses built too close to low -bank shorelines are at higher risk during storms or extremely high tides — especially those with eastern, southern or western exposures. The beachfront settlements of Legoe Bay and Lummi Point (Lane Spit) are the most susceptible. Legoe Bay Road at Village Point continues to has experienced roadbed erosion from southwesterly winter storm wave action. A new concrete barrier was Feeently erected to help reduce further impact from flooding, however, erosion continues on the west end of the barrier, impacting the road Way . The chance for an inland flood on the island, however, is minimal. Geological Hazardous Areas The southwestern area of the island along the flanks of Lummi Mountain has steep slopes, which are susceptible to sliding. Development should be avoided or restricted in these areas. Figure 17 illustrates the FEMA 100-year flood and geologically hazardous areas on the island. Shorelines There are more than 20 miles of saltwater shorelines on Lummi Island ranging from high - bank bluffs to gravel and cobblestone beaches, rocky headlands and steep cliffs, wave -cut rock ledges and tidal flats. Public access to the shorelines is extremely limited on the island due the prevalence of private land ownership (including tidelands). The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) gives primary authority over shoreline development to local governments by requiring the preparation of a "master program". The Shoreline Management Program (SMP) (Title 23 WCC) constitutes the master program for Whatcom County and fulfills the need for comprehensive planning and reasonable regulation of shoreline development. The SMP comprises a separate and distinct plan and zoning regulations just for the limited shoreline areas under its jurisdiction. On Lummi Island, the SMA is only applicable to marine waters and other underlying lands, including "shore lands" which are those areas landward 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark. Although a proposed development may be exempt from substantial development permit requirements of the SMA, it may still require a variance or conditional use permit and must comply with local Shoreline Management Program (SMP) policies and regulations. The SMP shoreline use designations for the island are shown in Figure 18. The ever -all WhatGOM County SN412 is due to be updated in the nem sever -al yeaFs in eempliance with new SMA The most developed shorelines on the island include the shore side of West Shore Drive and Nugent Road to the McLean Avenue right-of-way, along Seacrest Drive and Island Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 50 MO Drive south to the Rural Forestry (RF) zone designation, and along Legoe Bay Road from Village Point to the northwest corner of Peterson's Addition to Bellingham Bay Cities. ftww. '.} A` 4 WI,1 •+IL PL Ise � p Island 7 Wr � -CAO Articles III & IV �. Geohazardmpsyd& Flooding w�1Wrh'b= brbe Hr11 1L Legend LanWide Hazard Areas (Slopes 15-35%) a Landslide HazardAreas (Sbpes> 3596) Freraue* Flood Areas (FEMIA 100 Yr. Floodplaln) sari wh am eauap pm Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 �ffw DRAFT Lumml Island Subarea wan aaR • !OM ,YyaUE-Yw. 51 399 Figure 17 — CAO Articles III & IV Geohazards and Flooding Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 52 m NATURA 4 , MuNE Whatcom County Shoreline Master Program Lummi and Portage Islands Area Designations Rmoum ------------ —'— — ------ Figure 18 — Shoreline Designations Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 T37 - WE 53 401 Although there are significant remaining platted but not yet developed small non- conforming shoreline lots, most are on the eastern side of the island. No new residential or commercial structures may be constructed on any area of a parcel where the distance between the ordinary high water mark and the county road right-of- way is less than 100 feet. On any area of a parcel where the distance between the ordinary high water mark and the county road right-of-way is 100 feet or greater, residential uses are limited to single-family structures and any accessory uses that are clearly single-family residential in character. Commercial uses are limited to home occupations, except on Legoe Bay Road from Road 656 (just north of Lover's Bluff area) to and including Village Point where commercial and light industrial uses other than home occupations may be allowed as conditional uses. Under the policies of the adopted SMP, only businesses that require shore location or allow a significant number of the general public to enjoy shorelines should be allowed to locate there. Any new businesses should be required to provide shoreline access for customers and the public where feasible and appropriate. Commercial uses should be given preference over other commercial uses if they include boat rentals, marine service stations or fishing piers or if they "promote physical or visual use of shorelines by the public, including but not limited to resorts, rental campgrounds and restaurants" (SMP 1998). Commercial development is also encouraged to conserve natural and cultural features on the site. On shorelines with conservancy area designation, commercial resorts, restaurants, bed and breakfast facilities and campgrounds may only be authorized as a conditional use. Along any shorelines with a natural area designation commercial development is prohibited (SMP 1998). Almost all of the shorelines south from Legoe Bay all the way around the southern tip of the island to Inati Bay on the east side of the island are undeveloped and in pristine natural condition. This shoreline is predominantly characterized by steep rocky slopes and narrow boulder beaches. Most of this area is undeveloped (except for some limited forest practices) and held in very large tracts comprised of both private and public ownership. Although there are significant areas of public tidelands in this area, public access is extremely difficult due to steep slopes and lack of improved access routes. Public ownership includes Washington Department of Natural Resources trust lands and Department of Fish & Wildlife lands managed for wildlife habitat as well as federal lands that include Carter Point and Lummi Rocks managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Public access to the shoreline will be an increasing concern as the island grows. On the more populated northern end of the island, most of the shoreline and tidelands are in private ownership, which further discourages public access. Much of the shoreline on the southern mountainous end of the island is in public ownership but not conducive to easy access or heavy public use. The greatest demand for shoreline use is on the more populated northern end of the island where public tideland ownership is limited to small and non-contiguous stretches at Migley Point, parts of shoreline south of Blizard Road, and other isolated areas. There are small undeveloped potential "road end" public beach Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 54 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 402 and viewing access areas including but not necessarily limited to the east end of Blizard Road, the Alf Addition, the west end of Constitution Avenue, and the east end of the McLean Avenue right-of-way. Property rights include public property as well as private property. When considering vacation of public road ends RCW 36.87.130 shall be followed: "Vacation of roads abutting bodies of water prohibited unless for public purposes or industrial use. No county shall vacate a county road or part thereof which abuts on a body of salt or fresh water unless the purpose of the vacation is to enable any public authority to acquire the vacated property for port purposes, boat moorage or launching sites, or for park, viewpoint, recreational, educational or other public purposes, or unless the property is zoned for industrial uses." Recreation Public recreational facilities are quite limited on the island. There is one public park located at Reil Harbor on the southern part of the island and one public (Whatcom County -owned) shoreline access site on the northern end of the island at the old ferry dock site (located just north of the current ferry dock). The Reil Harbor facility is a marine recreation site owned by the Department of Natural Resources —part of the Marine Trail in Puget Sound. It is a primitive camping and picnicking site for kayakers and boaters. It includes a mooring buoy and is only accessible from the water. The Ferry Dock park site consists of a viewing deck, picnic table and stairs to the rocky beach that access a very limited amount of public tideland. The Beach Elementary School (operated by the Ferndale School District) has recreational facilities that include a playground, tennis/basketball court, soccer and baseball field, and picnic tables. The public road system on the island is used for scenic driving, bicycling, walking and bird watching. It also includes several County "road end" right-of-way public shoreline access points, ineludi ig for example the east end of Blizard Road. There are also state and federal lands located primarily on the southern end of the island. These include large tracts owned and managed for wildlife habitat conservation purposes by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the DNR. Federal lands include the area around Carter Point and Lummi Rocks owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Most of these lands are also only accessible by water. There are also areas of state and federal tidelands scattered around the island. Figure 19 indicates the generalized areas of major public tideland ownership on the island according to the Marine Shorelines Study of Public Access and Recreation Sites in Whatcom County prepared in 1976. However, the upland areas associated with these tidelands are either in mostly private ownership or in very remote areas —both characteristics that discourage public access. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 55 403 Figure 19 — Public Tidelands Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 56 I'I However there are also recreational opportunities available on private lands and shoreline access points that may be utilized by other island residents through payment of fees or certain conditions. In 2003 Tthese included: • Hiking and wildlife -viewing on the Lummi Island Heritage Trust owned and managed lands such as the 42-acre Curry property and the 70-acre Otto Preserve; • Private "for -members -only" facilities at Inati Bay leased and managed by the Bellingham Yacht Club; • Village Point boat launching ramp on a pay -per -use or yearly membership basis; • Private "for -members -only" facilities at Scenic Estates including tennis court, swimming pool, lake, boat launch and dock; • Shoreline public access occasionally provided by the Lummi Island Congregational Church; • Boys and Girls Club Building; and • Salvation Army Youth Camp The Whatcom County Comprehensive Park and Recreation Open Space Plan (1991) noted the increased need for public recreational shoreline access on the island and proposed the development of a small public park and trail system for the island. The various segments, sited appropriately, could include natural beach areas, small boat and kayak launch facility, and a community center (Whatcom Comprehensive Park and Recreation: Open Space Plan, 1991). However, a suitable location and funding sources have never been approved. The LIPC identified the following future recreational needs based on the findings in the Lummi Island Planning Survey: Walking Trails —many residents like to walk and hike the island to enjoy its natural setting, shorelines and Lummi Mountain. But since most of the island is in private ownership (including large tracts of Lummi Mountain), trespass and loss of privacy is becoming an increasing concern for many private property owners on the island — especially on Lummi Mountain. • Shoreline Access —new public access is needed to public tidelands from the shoreland or upland portions of the shorelines. Boat Launch —primarily for use by island residents since creating a destination launch could induce more tourism adversely affecting the ferry level of service. Public trail access to Lummi Mountain (and surrounding public lands) could provide wonderful opportunities to see wildlife and the natural beauty of the island. Respect for privacy and private property within and surrounding the Lummi Mountain area, however, Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 57 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 405 remain paramount considerations. Preservation and management to prevent resource damage to critical habitats and the aesthetics of a natural setting as well as protection of privacy for adjacent properties are important elements when considering access. Trails can also serve to increase mobility. An interior trail system to primary destination such as the ferry dock, Legoe Bay and the Heritage Trust preserves, for example, could be accessible by a combination of road rights -of -way and public easements. As the island continues to grow, increased demand for public access to shorelines and woodlands could result in increased trespass on private property. The community must either work toward some form of public or quasi -public trail system (such as obtaining public access rights through easements) or find workable ways to retain significant amounts of open space in the face of continuing growth. If neither goal can be achieved then islanders must prepare themselves for increased friction over trespass and privacy concerns. Public Services and Facilities/Utilities Public community facilities on island include one school, one post office, a volunteer fire department, a library, a cemetery. and a community grange hall. The Beach Elementary School is the only school located on Lummi Island and is a part of the Ferndale School District. It serves kindergarten through 6lb grade. In general, even though growth is increasing on island, total school enrollment is falling due primarily to the smaller and older average households on the island. The Beach School enrollment declined from 57 students in 1995 to 56 Grade School students in 2002. Approximately 50 El./Junior/High School students go off -island to Ferndale High School daily. Whatcom County Fire District No. 11—known as the Lummi Island Fire Department —is responsible for providing fire protection from its centrally located fire station on Legoe Bay Road. Personnel include 25 volunteer firefighters. Equipment includes two engines, a water tender and one EMS aid vehicle. During the past several years the number of fire calls has averaged between 10 and 15 calls per year and the number of aid calls averages 25-35 annually. There are 4 island landing areas for emergency helicopter pads - north near the condos, Beach El. School playfield, the Salvation Army property near L. I. Scenic Estates and the Fire Hall. Water supply is the primary limiting factor in fire insurance ratings with supply limited by the capacity of the equipment. However, the island is also characterized by potential wild land fire hazards from its rural character, including prevalence of wood construction and wood shake roofs, steep and narrow roads, poor access to some remote areas, a limited water supply, and the proximity of woodlands to development (natural fuels located close to homes and structures). The district is increasing its public education efforts to residents about fire hazards, including the creation of "defensible space" — clearing dense underbrush and other volatile vegetation away from structures —in order to reduce the danger of a potential wild land fire. Lumini Island Subarea Plan Update 58 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 M As one of two special taxing districts on island —the other being the cemetery district —the fire district has the authority to ask voters for additional revenue to fund improvements needed by growth and/or to replace aging equipment. The district may also require certain development to meet special conditions such as increased water storage capacity and special fire -fighting equipment. The Whatcom County Sheriff provides public safety protection for the island. The crime rate for the island is consistent with the overall crime rate for the rest of the county. From 1998-2002 there were, on average, 21 reported crimes per year on Lummi Island ranging from trespass to burglary and assault. In years past, one resident deputy was assigned to Lummi Island. Currently, however, there is no active police protection located on Lummi Island. Calls for public safety mean that deputies must utilize the ferry to access the island. For emergency calls, ferry priority is given for emergency vehicles. If the ferry is not running (e.g., late at night) and an emergency call is received, the ferry is called into service. However, non -emergency calls may result in longer response times. As the need for police services increases, additional monies will have to come from county taxes to provide and maintain the higher level -of -service necessary to once again maintain an on -island deputy. Telephone and internet service is provided by Qwest via submarine cable across Hale Pass from Gooseberry Point on the Lummi Nation. type of impr-evement at the present time. The current cable is able to provide service to the island for the foreseeable future. Electricity is provided by Puget Sound Energy. PSE operates several cables across Hale Pass from Gooseberry Point. A new cable was installed relatively recently and is expected to be able to accommodate the projected energy demand for the next twenty years on the island. There are currently no plans to bury more cable across the pass. Sewage Disposal All development on Lummi Island utilizes on -site sewage disposal systems. Most systems serve single-family residences that both treat sewage and dispose of the effluent on the owner's property. Some systems dispose of effluent off -site on adjacent properties through easements. There are a limited number of community septic systems that serve multiple single-family attached and detached residences (e.g., the Beach Club Condominiums). Most systems use a septic tank and gravity flow drainfield. Systems using newer technology are also in use, including pressure distribution, pressure mounds, sand filters, aerobic treatment and biofilters. Improperly treated effluent from septic systems poses a potential threat to ground water quality. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 59 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 407 Whatcom County Public Health Department regulations govern system design and installation (WCC 24.05). Public Health is currently developing updated treatment standards for systems in use along all freshwater and saltwater shorelines in the county. Sewage treatment and disposal regulations are an important factor in determining minimum lot sizes on the island. The Zoning Code establishes overall density provisions, but if new subdivision lots are clustered in close proximity to one another (as encouraged to preserve open space) minimum lot sizes are often determined by public health regulations. Present public health rules allow for various minimum lot sizes, depending on soil type and water supply type. Lots as small as 12,500 square feet may be allowed with certain soil types and in conjunction with a public well. Even smaller lot sizes could be allowed if overall density requirements are met and if community septic systems are used rather than having each residence construct their own individual system. The minimum lot size rules only apply to newly platted lots. Sewage disposal systems that meet public health requirements for soils, terrain and setbacks are sometimes allowed on much smaller lots, depending on when the lots were created. In other cases, sewage disposal requirements may prevent building on non -conforming or "grandfathered" lots if the public health rules cannot be met. Potential cumulative development on small grandfathered lots with septic systems in close proximity to marine shorelines is a potential threat to both surface and groundwater quality. The Public Health Department, depending on available funding, occasionally monitors septic systems in particularly sensitive environments —such as along marine shorelines — in order to identify failing systems and urge owners to take corrective action. Public Health estimates that only about 2% of all septic systems countywide fail annually (mostly older systems). However, there is no regular program for septic system testing or evaluation on Lummi Island. Given the island's reliance on groundwater for public water supply and the potential threat from malfunctioning septic systems, regular periodic septic system monitoring by the Public Health Department should be encouraged. Transportation Lummi Island is a remote rural community. Almost all residents are dependent upon both automobiles and the ferry for access to their homes, jobs, health care, education, mainland transportation (including air) and shopping needs. Since the ferry capacity is fixed —there are no current plans to expand capacity —and demand presently exceeds capacity, mobility for automobiles between the island and the mainland remains static. In the face of continuing population growth and fixed automobile ferry capacity, ferry service is becoming more of a mobility tool for "walk-on" pedestrians going from one automobile parking space (on island) to another (Gooseberry Point) during peak periods. Since 2003, Whatcom County added a new parking lot with 74 spaces on the island Theis trend towards more "walk-on" use is likely to continue resulting in increased interest and need for more parking spaces both on island and at Gooseberry Point and perhaps on the island. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 60 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 MO Roads The island's public roads are primarily two-lane asphalt roads built to rural standards — meaning narrow shoulders. The main travel access roads on island are classified as minor collectors. Traffic volume is very low but, due to the ferry, it often occurs in spurts. Congestion only occurs around the ferry dock during peak travel times. Vehicle accidents have averaged about two per year for the last three years. Problems occur in some locales where roads narrow even more than usual, (e.g., portions of Nugent Road and Seacrest Drive) or areas where bank erosion or wave action required stabilization (West Shore Drive and Legoe Bay Road). Speed limits range from 25-35 miles per hour although speeding is closely associated with the ferry schedule. Pedestrian safety is a growing concern since many islanders utilize the roadway travel lanes for walking (due to the lack of improved shoulders and public trails). Periodic road maintenance and resurfacing is performed by the Whatcom County Public Works Department. Islanders rely heavily on automobiles for intra-island and off -island transportation —there is no public bus service on island. Limited bus service from Gooseberry Point to Bellingham is provided by the Whatcom Transit Authority (WTA). Commute trip patterns (shown in Table 6) are indicative of (and contribute to) both transportation constraints and isolation of the island labor force —carpooling decreased and those who drove alone to work increased significantly during the 1990s. The reliance of islanders on automobiles also seems to be growing. Approximately 30% of island households had 3 or more vehicles in 2000; compared to 28% in 1990. While vehicle ownership is increasing it is not necessarily an indicator of increased automobile dependency —if other quality mobility alternatives are available in the community. Table 6 Lummi Island Commute Trip Patterns Commute Trip to Work 1990 % of total trios). 2000 % of total, trios) Single Occupancy Vehicles 64% 70% Carpool 13% 4% Walked to Work/ Worked at Home 20% 26% Source: U.S. Census The Ferry The Whatcom Chief ferry, operated by the Whatcom County Department of Public Works, provides ferry service to the island across Hale Pass from Gooseberry Point. (The Gooseberry Point dock and associated facilities utilize property leased by Whatcom County from the Lummi Indian Nation). The ferry can carry about 20 vehicles, on average, per trip. It operates from 5:40 AM on weekdays and 7 AM on weekends (and Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 61 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 me on major holidays) to midnight and makes emergency runs when needed and extra runs whenever vehicles are left at the dock after a scheduled run. The ferry makes the three- quarter mile crossing in less than 10 minutes and has a maximum three round trips per hour, or about 60 cars per hour at peak. There are no alternative public transportation routes between the island and Gooseberry Point. All islanders (and visitors) use the ferry to access the.mainland. Over the last 10 years ferry ridership increased significantly total trips jumped more than 28% from 1990-2000. Ridership also exhibits strong seasonal variations with July and August the peak months. Mobility, however, is becoming an increasing challenge for island residents. Data suggests that islanders overwhelmingly use automobiles as their preferred mode of transportation mobility. Analysis of ferry ridership data in the Lummi Island Ferry 20 Year Plan —Phase I Charrette Report (2001) indicate that (in winter) approximately 87% of resident ferry users drive vehicles onto the ferry to get to the mainland while 11 % park vehicles at Gooseberry Point and 2% utilize the WTA for mobility. Significant parking constraints at both terminals as well as limited bus service at Gooseberry Point are contributing factors to low pedestrian mobility. However, the sheer number, size and type of vehicles requesting service are overloading the current ferry capacity. In 2002 Tthe ferry capacity became unable is to accommodate the daily vehicle crossing demand for timely service as both morning and evening peak periods are extended -se. ' . Capacity is also reduced due to large vehicles such as construction trucks, boats and trailers, horse trailers, SUV's and RV's that are heavier and wider. Ferry traffic associated with construction activities (serving new growth) and household service trades as well as visitors also contribute to the congestion. Parking is at a premium at both ferry terminals. There are 26 parking spaces at the Gooseberry Point terminal and 33 107 spaces at the Lummi Island ferry dock and nearby parking lot. Parking issues peak during the annual two -week ferry dry dock every fall when no car ferry service is available. The adopted level -of -service (LOS) for the ferry is 513 trips per capita. The ferry level - of -service is determined by a mathematical formula that incorporates total ferry trips (including passenger vehicles, pedestrians, trucks, and motorcycles) in addition to parking space availability, WTA bus service, one-way use, uses for official trips, and other provisions in relation to resident island population. Amendments to the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, Six Year Capital Improvement Program in 2002 indicate that the ferry has not been able to meet its adopted level of service since at least the year 2000 and "it appears that it would be difficult to meet the adopted level of service over the [next] six year planning period " The CIP indicates that there are no improvements planned to the ferry in the next six years that would increase ferry capacity. Until such time as ferry capacity improvements can be made to meet the adopted level -of -service, the concurrency requirements of the Whatcom County Code (WCC) require that no further long subdivisions be approved on Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 62 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 410 the island. However, short plats (subdivisions of four lots or less) are exempt from this provision. On April 15, 2008 the Whatcom County Council decided to not pursue a new ferry at this time. Ferry service will be limited to the capabilities of the current ferry to provide that service. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 63 411 Growth Management Strategies Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 64 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 412 Growth Management Strategies The Lummi Island Planning Survey indicates that the majority of residents think the island is growing too fast and they want to slow growth. The analysis of current trends indicates that future growth based on past trends may not be sustainable. Current zoning (i.e. density) would, at buildout, allow a level of development not likely to be consistent with the vision of maintaining the island's rural character. Both groundwater quality and quantity are diminishing at rates that may not be sustainable. The ferry system is overloaded and the adopted level -of -service cannot be maintained under the present schedules. There are technological solutions to many of these growth -related issues such as: constructing a water pipeline from the mainland; surface water reservoirs or a de- salination plant to address water shortages; and building a bigger ferry to accommodate more vehicles. But the challenge islanders must face is how consistent those solutions are with the vision statement. Growth management strategies include a wide range of techniques that could be applied to mange growth more effectively, mitigate the impacts of new development and help maintain the island's future vision. These strategies are grouped into several different alternatives: 1) Land use alternatives include mapping potential density and zoning changes to preserve rural character and protect groundwater resources; 2) Policy alternatives such as establishing preferences for mechanisms to acquire open space, recreational facilities or shoreline public access; or 3) Regulatory alternatives such as adopting new regulations aimed at consolidation of small non -conforming lots or requiring new conditions on future subdivisions and building construction. The different alternatives were presented to the Lummi Island Planning Committee (LIPQ and the public at a Town Meeting in March 2003. A questionnaire and small group discussion format was utilized to allow islanders to discuss the alternatives and identify their preferred solutions. Following that meeting and associated public comment, the Committee was asked to develop a preferred plan or set of preferred solutions —that included land use map and zoning changes, policy and regulatory changes or some combination of both —as the basis for the Subarea Plan. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 65 Revised Final Draft, March, 1009 413 Land Use & Zoning Alternatives In 2003, Sseveral alternatives were developed to identify the land use or zoning map and density changes that could help to manage growth more effectively on the island. The alternatives were mapped and analyzed using the County's Geographic Information System to determine relative development capacity and buildout potential for easier. comparison between and among the alternatives. The land use and zoning alternatives include: No Action Alternative —It presumes to make no changes and would keep the current land use and zoning in place as well as other growth management regulations (i.e., maintains the status quo from the 1979 Plan). The. rationale for this approach is to establish a baseline against which to measure other alternatives. Small group discussion indicated a distinct lack of significant public support for this alternative. Northern Island Rural Downzone Alternative —This approach would redefine the RR -I (Rural Residential Island) zoning density. It would eliminate the one unit per three acre density applied to property outside of the groundwater recharge areas identified on the current zoning map. It would equalize allowable density in the RR -I zone throughout the island at one unit per five acres. This is a downzone that would reduce the development capacity of lands currently outside of mapped aquifer recharge areas. It would treat the entire RR -I zone the same from an allowable density standpoint. The rationale for this approach is that it serves to both protect rural character and water supply —the latter more so from the standpoint of reducing potential future demand for existing water resources. The basis for this approach is that evidence indicates that the groundwater supply is coming under increasing stress (i.e., increased rates of arsenic contamination and saltwater intrusion in local wells). At the same time the rate of groundwater withdrawal has increased four -fold (due more so to population growth rather than agricultural uses) since the original plan was adopted in 1979. In other words, the ability of the aquifer recharge areas alone to absorb and hold adequate groundwater for the entire island at present buildout capacities (excluding Scenic Estates) is in doubt. More so, the rate of development (i.e., consumption of groundwater) is greatest outside of recharge areas —both in terms of density and overall area. Even more importantly, the potential for new development is significantly greater outside of recharge areas suggesting that density changes would be most effective in these areas rather than inside recharge areas. Therefore the nexus, or connection, today between differences in density within and outside of recharge areas is not nearly as cogent as it was when the zoning was originally adopted in 1979. The present density transfer provisions of the County Code (WCC 20.34.251) currently allow an effective density of one dwelling unit per 1.5 acres on portions of parcels outside of groundwater recharge areas. The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board has ruled in Whatcom County (and elsewhere) that densities of one unit per acre are not rural and are not in compliance with the Growth Management Act Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 66 414 (GMA). Rezoning the North island to 5 acre minimum density would be more consistent with the GMA and help maintain the island's rural character. The Scenic Estates subdivision could also be proposed for a density change more consistent with or appropriate for its existing development pattern. The Scenic Estates development is technically included within the Rural Forestry (RF) zone on south Lummi Island and should be corrected and assigned a RR -I zoning designation. Such a rezone would not affect the non -conforming status of most lots within the development but would make them less non -conforming compared to uses and densities allowed under the RF zone. This approach was strongly supported in the Lummi Island Planning Survey. This alternative could also be refined to identify specific and distinct properties for voluntary downzones consistent with the intent of the property owner(s). For example, properties subject to a conservation easement from the Lummi Island Heritage Trust could be rezoned to a lower density that more accurately reflects their true development potential such as a resource land density. Buildout reduction from these alternatives are shown in Table 7. Two additional downzone variation scenarios were examined for the RR -I zone, including 1) density reduction from one unit per 5 acres to one unit per 7.5 acres; and 2) a density reduction to one unit per 10 acres throughout the RR -I zone. Downzone alternatives provide less buildout reduction than one might think due to the large presence of non -conforming lots on the island which are immune to a downzone Small group discussion of the downzone alternatives indicated greatest preference for the 5 acre alternative. This is consistent with the findings of the Lummi Island Planning Survey that indicated stronger support for a 5 acre downzone compared with a 10 acre downzone alternative. One mitigation measure of a downzone should be to designate parcels subject to a loss in zoning density as new eligible "sending areas" in the Whatcom County TDR Program based on their pre-downzone density (i.e., affected property owners could sell the net loss in density (development rights) derived from the downzone and still develop at the new lower density on -site. Irllage Commercial Alternative —This approach would seek to utilize provisions within the Growth Management Act —specifically RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d) that recognizes limited areas of more intensive rural development or LAMIRDs—to establish a rural commercial center around the ferry dock. This would rezone portions of the area around the ferry dock and existing commercial enterprises from RR -I to Rural Commercial. The intent is to create a compact commercial village core that incorporates the existing commercial activities (e.g., from the Islander Store north to the Beach Caf6 and Post Office) and designates some additional limited land for infill development that could accommodate and encourage new commercial, mixed use or higher density housing in close proximity (i.e., within walking distance) to existing commercial activities and the ferry dock. This alternative could promote opportunities for more affordable housing and for more diverse commercial enterprises aimed either to serve islanders or promote small- scale tourism. Care must be taken to ensure that the density and intensity of uses allowed Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 67 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 415 is consistent with the existing rural character of the island and can be supported on a sustainable basis by available levels of service for water and other infrastructure needs. A new Rural Commercial Island zone could also be created that differentiates uses deemed appropriate only for the island —distinct from other uses allowed in the Rural Commercial zone on the mainland. Small group discussion indicated a lack of significant public support for this alternative. This is consistent with the findings of the Lummi Island Planning Survey. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 68 416 Table 7 Land Use Alternatives Buildout Scenarios 2( 003) Zoning Existing Total Buildout Potential Potential Net Total Groundwater % of Groundwater DU DU Add. DU New Peak Pop. Buildout Dependent Peak Carrying Capacity Peak Pop. Buildout Pop. (1) Utilized @ Buildout RRI - 3 ac. 427 872 445 935 1,831 1,831 RRI - 5 ac. 133 251 118 248 527 527 RF/Scenic Est. 78 346 268 563 727 RF/Other 5 77 72 151 162 Total 643 1,546 903 1,897 3,247 2,358 98% RRI - 5 ac. 1 5601 1,058 498 1,046 2,222 2,222 RF/Scenic Est. 781 346 2681 5631 727 RF/Other 51 77 721 1511 162 Total 643 1,481 838 1,760 3,111 2,222 93% RRI - 7.5 ac. 560 977 417 876 2,052 2,052 RF/Scenic Est. 78 346 268 563. 727 RF/Other 5 77 72 151 162 Total 643 1,400 757 1,590 2,941 2,052 86% RRI -10 ac. 560 948 388 815 1,991 1,991 RF/Scenic Est. 78 346 268 563 727 RF/Other 5 77 72 151 162 Total 643 1,371 728 1,529 2,880 1,991 84% Notes: (1) Groundwater dependent population assumes only the north island area presently zoned RRI; Scenic Estates and remainder of south island (e.g. the Mountain) assumed to rely on surface water supplies. (2) Assumed groundwater carrying capacity (@ I00 gppd) based on the 1979 Lun mi Island Subarea Plan = 2,400 persons. Sources: Includes private vacant and underdeveloped/redevelopable parcels based upon Whatcom County Assessor Land Use Codes and Improvement Value. Factors such as environmental constraints and ROW issues have not been considered. Assumes no additional development potential on Lummi Island Heritage Trust properties (including easements and preserves. Zoning Designations: RRI - 3 ac. Rural Residential Island (1 unit per 3 acres density) RRI - 5 ac. Rural Residential Island (1 unit per 5 acres density) RRI - 7.5 ac. Rural Residential Island (1 unit per 7.5 acres density) RRI- 10 ac. Rural Residential Island (1 unit per 10 acres density) RF/Scenic Estates Rural Forestry (applied to Scenic Estates) RF/Other Rural Forestry (applied to Lummi Mtn.) Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 69 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 417 Policy or Regulatory Alternatives These alternatives represent potential changes to county development regulations or Comprehensive Plan policies insofar as they affect development on Lummi Island. These "alternatives" could be combined with or complement any of the zoning alternatives or they can stand alone. A variety of different regulatory techniques were examined that address unique aspects of managing growth more effectively on Lummi Island: • Non -Conforming Lots and Lot Consolidation • Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) & Land Donation • Open Space Design and Clustering Provisions for New Subdivisions • Building and Site Design Standards • Low Impact Development and Best Management Practices for Groundwater Protection • Growth Rate Limit and Residential Building Permit Allocation System • Growth Management Indicators Program Non -Conforming Lot Consolidation —These types of programs seek to reduce the number of buildable lots by requiring some form of mandatory lot consolidation of non- conforming or substandard lots (i.e., those lots created prior to 1979 that are less than 3 acres in size) in order to develop. Upon institution of the RR -I one unit per three acre/ one unit per five acre zoning split in the 1979 Subarea Plan, all lots in existence on the island at that time, less than 3 acres in size, were recognized as legal lots of record — meaning that even though they did not meet the new zoning minimum they could still be built upon —provided. they could meet all other requirements (e.g., setbacks, environmental health standards for wells and septic systems, critical area requirements, etc.). See WCC 20.34.254. Today there are more than 500 vacant non -conforming lots on the island —almost 90% of which are less than one acre in size. Which, if built out, would constitute urban development patterns that seriously threaten the island's rural character. The distribution of vacant non -conforming lots is shown on Figure 20 and potential buildout impacts from vacant non -conforming lots is shown.in Table 7. It is not certain how many of these lots are truly developable and could meet all applicable standards necessary to authorize development. Nevertheless, substandard lots could pose problems of potentially excessive development that would further degrade the groundwater carrying capacity and the rural character of the island. Historic growth trends indicate average development of about eight non -conforming lots per year over the past two decades. Many of these lots are concentrated along shorelines in close proximity to marine waters posing special challenges for wastewater treatment and may be a potential threat to water quality if developed to their full potential. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 70 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 I • KEOT h"R G..kWPL Non -conforming Lots Legend — Non -conforming Lots Vacant Land Use Code, <3 acres Non -conforming Lots in Adjacent Ownership 80AMM malmm r4CMWPDB M �oR .N DRAFT Lumml Island Subarea Plan uoszaoa K 0 0.6 1 1.6 2 MILES Figure 20 — Non -conforming Lots 2f 003) Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 71 419 Table 8 Distribution of Vacant Lots Total # of Lots % of Total Island ITotal # of Lots % of Total Island 2591 45.7%1 3081 54.3% Size of Non -conforming Lots Total by Zone % of Total Zone Total by Zone % of Total Zone 0.9913.99 Acres 0 0.0% 15 4.9% <3.9912.99 Acres 0 0.0% 13 4.2% <2.99-1.99 Acres 0 0.0% 16 5.2% <1.99-0.99 Acres 4 1.5% 26 8.4% <0.99 Acres 255 98.5% 238 77.3% Potential Additional DU's 259 76.2% 308 54.7% (340 Total RR (563 Total RRI) Source: Whatcom County PDS GIS 2003; Whatcom County Assessor Current Whatcom County Code (WCC 20.34.254) exempts non -conforming lots in common ownership on the island from lot consolidation requirements as expected in other areas of the county (WCC 20.83.079) unless required to meet health department requirements for operation and separation of septic systems and wells. Since these non- conforming lots were recognized as legal lots of record back in the 1979 Plan there may be some legal challenges to overcome in order to institute a mandatory lot consolidation program. Legal non -conforming lots are subject to "vested rights" under Washington state law and are immune to a downzone. A voluntary program could also offer some incentives for participation. Many counties utilize clustering provisions as an incentive to property owners to consolidate antiquated platted lots —similar to the current clustering provisions in Whatcom County Code. The Lummi Island Community Land Trust is currently utilizing such provisions to build a low-income affordable housing development on the island. There was strong support in the small group discussions of the alternatives for requiring non -conforming lots in adjacent common ownership to consolidate in order to obtain a building permit (to the extent allowed by Washington state vesting law). Transfer of Development Rights —A Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program establishes a mechanism to buy and sell development rights without buying and selling the land from which they originate. Generally, TDR programs designate some lands as preservation areas, where development at very low densities is allowed, and other land as growth areas, suitable for high density residential or commercial use. The development rights from the designated preservation area, often referred to as the "sending" area, are allowed to be sold and transferred to another piece of property located in designated growth areas referred to as "receiving" areas. TDRs recognize that real estate ownership involves the possession of a "bundle of rights," and any one right (e.g., the right to Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 72 Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 420 develop at a given density) can be separated from the bundle and sold. TDR takes the unused development portion of the "bundle of rights" from one property and transfers them to another property. The development "rights" are usually purchased in open - market transactions by developers and utilized to construct additional units on other parcels. TDR programs are intended to be mutually beneficial —the buyer in the receiving area gains additional density, the landowner in the sending area profits from the sale, and the County benefits by preserving the rural character and lifestyle and lowering its costs to provide public services. TDRs are a density transfer technique between different properties. This is an important distinction from a regulatory standpoint. For example, density transfers within a single property, or adjoining property, have been fairly widely used in the County (e.g., clustering options) and have served as the jumping-off point for the longer distance transfers proposed under TDR programs. However, TDR programs are far more complex and require much greater public education and understanding in order to be successful. TDR programs can be either voluntary or mandatory. TDAY are also very market - oriented and, as such, are dependent upon the vagaries of the market for their success or failure. The basic approach of most TDR systems involves a density reduction of the areas subject to protection (i.e., sending areas) to a level considered adequate for the resource being protected (e.g., rural lands, agricultural lands, forest lands, scenic open space areas, environmentally sensitive areas, shorelines, etc.). A "conservation easement" is usually required to be included in the deed to the property after a transfer occurs. A conservation easement is a legal agreement between a landowner and a qualified private conservation organization, such as Lummi Island Heritage Trust, or government entity that permanently limits a property's uses in order to protect its conservation values. The value of the development rights "lost" on the property are then determined through a variety of approaches and allowed to be "bought" by another developer and transferred to a receiving area designated for growth or where the higher density gained by the transfer can be accommodated without significant impact on the receiving area (e.g., where adequate public facilities and services can be provided). TDR has been used as a planning tool to preserve agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands, as well as historic buildings, since the 1970s. The Growth Management. Act itself expressly promotes and authorizes the use of "innovative land use management techniques ... including the transfer of development rights" under RCW 36.70A.090. Whatcom County and the City of Bellingham have been working together for several years to create TDR programs that would allow for the transfer of development rights from rural areas of the County into the Bellingham Urban Growth Area (UGA). The County and City initially created a TDR program in the Lake Whatcom watershed —the sole source water supply for the City of Bellingham —several years ago and are currently seeking to expand that program into the Lake Samish watershed and perhaps elsewhere. Lummi Island would be an appropriate "sending area" for development rights that could be transferred into. the Bellingham UGA (or possibly the Ferndale UGA) to promote higher density and more affordable housing. Potential "sending areas" candidates might be small but "buildable" non -conforming lots on the island and properties affected by downzoning, if implemented. A TDR program on Lummi Island could open up more options for island property owners who might otherwise be forced to sell or develop their Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 73 Revised Final Draft. March, 2009 421 properties for economic reasons, but with a TDR program could still receive compensation for their development rights, remain living on the property and help preserve the rural character of the island. In so doing the development capacity of the island (and the commensurate need for future groundwater withdrawals) would also be reduced. There was strong support in the small group discussions of the alternatives to institute a TDR Program for the island. Purchase of Development Rights (PDRs)—Similar to TDRs in that they compensate land owners for the equity of their land in return for a deed restriction which precludes use of the land for development. However, in PDR programs the rights are not sold (transferred) to a receiving area. They are purchased by a public or non-profit entity (e.g., the Lummi Island Heritage Trust) and are usually permanently extinguished. This is typically a more expensive approach, which requires either a dedicated public funding source and/or significant private fund raising efforts. The major difference between the two approaches is that where PDR programs usually involve some level of public monies in the purchase of development rights, TDR programs may operate exclusively in the private sector (i.e., exclusive of public purchasing of development rights) between a property owner and a developer. Therefore, TDRs can be a more efficient technique in which to preserve rural character, and/or open space via the private real estate market. However, there are many other factors that influence the ability of a TDR program to succeed based on local market conditions. In general, the most important variable being the strength and type of the development market (i.e., demand). Lummi Island Heritage Trust has used direct acquisitions of land with donated funds (most notably the Otto and Curry properties) as a tool for purchasing and extinguishing development rights. The Heritage Trust also has received donated development rights in the form of conservation easements. While the Trust has not purchased conservation easements, it could purchase development rights with donated funds (in effect, starting a private PDR program). Land Donation —Land donation is a growth management strategy property owners can use to maintain their open space land and protect it for future generations outside of any local government -sponsored action. Donating land releases the owner from the responsibility of managing the land and can provide substantial income tax deduction and estate tax benefits. One can still live on the donated property and receive a life income. Another way to donate land is through a bargain sale, in which the property owner sells the land to a qualified organization, like the Heritage Trust, for less than its market value. This not only makes it more affordable for the land trust, but offers several landowner benefits including cash, avoidance of some capital gains taxes, and a charitable income tax deduction based on the difference between the land's fair market -value and its sale price. Conservation easements are another way to protect rural character and open space. A conservation easement (or conservation restriction) is a legal agreement between a Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 74 422 landowner and a qualified conservation organization that permanently limits uses of the land in order to protect it. Conservation easements are an excellent way to create a flexible use of land to serve multiple purposes. For example, an owner may give up the right to build additional structures, while retaining the right to grow crops. Open Space Design and Clustering Provisions for New Subdivisions —Good open space design and clustering incorporates sensitive open space and rural character features into the design and lot layout process. It preserves more functional and better quality open space than traditional subdivisions. It serves to conserve open space, maintain rural character and protect environmentally sensitive areas such as wildlife habitat, wetlands, and critical aquifer recharge areas. Clustering lots can actually reduce development costs (fewer roads, lower infrastructure costs due to economies of scale, etc). Research in other communities indicates that lots in open space subdivisions incorporating design standards and clustering provisions typically appreciate in value 10-15% more than traditional "large lot" subdivisions. The current Whatcom County Code allows optional clustering subdivision process (WCC 20.34.305) but —in spite of the policy intent in the 1979 Subarea Plan —contains weak provisions to ensure good design: Existing design standards (WCC 20.34.310) provide little guidance on how lots are laid out on the land relative to the open space characteristics & resources intended for protection; • Code only requires a mere 30% of the total site area to be open space (termed a reserve tract) outside of aquifer recharge areas and 55% inside recharge areas (WCC 20.34.252); and • Code does not require permanent dedication of open space (e.g., reserve tracts can be developed later in life of the parcel, see WCC 20.34.320) which defeats the purpose of clustering. Both the Lummi Island Planning Survey and the small group discussions of alternative growth management strategies indicated support for increased protection of unique components of the built and natural environment that constitute the island's rural character, including open fields and woods, hedgerows, farm buildings and old homesteads, open vistas, groundwater recharge areas and environmentally sensitive areas and undeveloped shorelines. Clustering was supported by a majority of respondents on the Planning Survey —most notably "if the reserve tract is legally guaranteed never to be developed". Examples of good open space design and clustering principles are shown in Figure 21. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update 75 Revised Final Draft. March. 2009 423 Figure 21 Open Space Design and Clustering r � 1 i 5even•tof ResiOpnhal Cluster Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 a— - f Budd-n�w gs-� 76 424 For large remaining undeveloped tracts on the island, "landowner compacts", or contracts, through the use of GMA-authorized "development agreements" should be encouraged as a means to maintain rural character, preserve open space and sensitive areas and still retain development values for large-scale private property owners. This technique allows adjacent property owners to jointly develop their properties in a coordinated and consistent fashion that can best preserve rural character and unique site characteristics yet still return full value to all property owners subject to the development agreement. It also presents an opportunity to plan for development, critical area protection and open space in a broader and more coordinated fashion. Building and Rural Site Design Standards —Rural design standards are regulations that typically address how development occurs on a piece of property rather then the density or intensity of use allowed. They are usually intended to address the visual impacts of new development on the character of surrounding areas. For example design standards could regulate such things as building setbacks from roads, the size of buildings, the placement of structures on the parcel, the appearance of lights, signs, landscaping, etc. Design standards may be either voluntary —typically referred to as guidelines for new development —or mandatory —enforced through a more rigid design review process prior to the issuance of permits. These types of standards are most often applied to higher density residential uses or commercial activities since the more intensive developments generally create greater impacts on surrounding properties. Single-family homes are usually exempt from such standards due to the added costs of design review and enforcement of such standards that would be borne by the property owner and the permitting agency. Such standards are often enforced privately, however, in new subdivisions through CC&Rs (Codes, Covenants & Restrictions). Such standards often address building height limits to preserve views of neighboring structures, exterior building materials, color, building mass and size, exterior lights, etc. A site plan review process that looks at the development of the entire lot at the time of or prior to application for a building permit could be a workable solution for Lummi Island. Under this scenario, such things as the building envelope (where structure(s) can be placed on the lot), clearing and preservation of vegetation and trees, setbacks from roads and adjoining parcels, location of well and septic system, etc. can be laid out in advance of development and aesthetic issues that impact rural character can be addressed. Again, though some of these standards —such as building placement or design —are typically best received as voluntary guidelines rather than strict de rigueur regulations. Small group discussion of the growth management alternatives and the Lummi Island Planning Survey indicated cautious support for such standards provided they are reasonably based and applied. Examples of such measures are shown in Figure 22. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 77 425 Figure 22 and Site Design Standards �V �. •'^'Y: 'K" - �_: - ;2+N..1a 3'ac7k�_=i FlSl�:.. ry 4r • ... . ®tea 7n m wooded arra :Wain a vegetation stamp wide enough to screen and pswevent twee -blow dawn. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 78 426 Low Impact Development and Best Management Practices for Groundwater Protection —Aquifer protection is a key attribute in land use planning for Lummi Island. Development standards and best management practices (BMWs) for groundwater protection affect on -site development activity such as building, storm water management and other aspects of construction in order to encourage storm water infiltration and aquifer recharge to the maximum extent practical. BMWs are most closely associated with managing storm water and trying to maintain the pre -development storm water hydrologic conditions on particular parcels as much as possible after development. The most significant of these standards place limits on the construction of impervious surfaces in new development. Impervious surfaces are those hard surfaces such as roofs, roads, hard -packed gravel or paved driveways, sidewalks, patios, etc. from which rainwater is not readily absorbed back into the ground. Instead storm water runoff from impervious surfaces is often directed off -site and lost to potential aquifer recharge. Another valuable development technique is to retain vegetated buffers and construct "bio-swales" (shallow vegetation lined depressions) to hold and accommodate on -site storm water runoff for eventual recharge. Adopting impervious surface limitations and design standards to ensure that more storm water runoff can percolate back into the ground could help to increase the aquifer recharge rates. Other effective development measures to protect groundwater can also be implemented after construction by residents such as: utilizing rain barrels or cisterns to harvest rainwater for potable and non -potable use; utilizing "gray water" systems for irrigation and other non -potable water needs (not allowed under current county code); utilizing alternative water supplies such as surface water and saltwater desalination systems; using native vegetation for landscaping that does not require supplemental watering (xeriscaping); and other household water conservation measures. Small group discussion of the alternative growth management strategies and the Lummi Island Planning Survey both indicated support for such standards and practices provided they are reasonably based and applied. Growth Rate Limit and Residential Building Permit Allocation System —These are growth management systems that allocate or ration growth on a sustainable level identified by the community. These systems control the annual rate of growth based on sustainable growth rationale. They work by adoption of a maximum annual growth rate of new housing units. It places a cap on the number of building permits issued for new homes on an annual basis. This approach prevents growth "spikes" and evens out growth over a longer period making growth impacts much more predictable and slows change in community character caused by growth. These types of systems were originally intended to allow growth commensurate with a community's ability to provide adequate public facilities (such as roads) but they have also been utilized for maintaining community character (i.e., ensuring that a community doesn't grow too fast). This strategy is widely used by communities in California, Colorado; Maine, Massachusetts and other states but not utilized by any community in Washington state to Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 79 427 manage housing growth, due to legal uncertainty about its consistency with the Growth Management Act (GMA). An exception is the City of Redmond that has adopted a similar program to control the rate of commercial development (i.e., new job creation) consistent with its housing supply in order to maintain a desirable jobs/housing balance. The GMA consistency issue involves the GMA requirement for local governments to plan for and establish land uses to accommodate 20 years of projected future population growth. However, if the population growth target can be met by such a system, it may very well be consistent with other requirements of the GMA. How would such a system work on Lummi Island? An example of a simplified model steps are shown below: • Adopt a maximum growth rate limit that must recognize and incorporate the GMA requirement to accommodate 20 years of projected growth consistent with the projected unincorporated rural growth allocation for Whatcom County. • Average annual growth rate of housing units on Lummi Island for the last twenty years (1980-2000) was 1.9% (compared with 3.2% during the 1970s and 2.1% during the 1990s) • Existing Housing Stock (643 units) X Annual Growth Rate Limit (1.91/6) _ 12 units/year average • Maximum Annual Rate of Building Permits (12 units/year) X Plan Lifetime (20 years) = 240 total new units allowed in 20 years (example) Such a system could work in a number of different ways. For example, once the number of units authorized is reached, a moratorium could be triggered until a new Subarea Plan Update was completed. Or the annual housing unit growth rate limit could be implemented on an interim basis —and exempt new development using surface water supplies —until adequate groundwater studies and water supply planning are completed that can demonstrate the ability to support additional groundwater -dependent growth. This is a very simplified example; an actual system could be lower or higher but will require further research and legal review. The 20 year projected population growth scenario for Lummi Island under the 1.9% annual housing unit growth cap scenario is shown in Table 9. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 80 Table 9 Lummi Island 1.9% Annual Housing Unit Growth Cap Scenario Resident Population Projections 2003-2020 Year Total Housing Units (t) Resident `Population(2) Historic 2003 643 848 Projected 2005 679 889 2010 739 968 2015 799 1,047 2020 859 1,125 Total Net Gain 2003-2020 216 277 Notes: (1) Assumes 12 new housing units constructed annually for years 2003-2020 (not compounded) (2) Assumes 1.31 resident population/housing unit multiplier for years 2005-2020 Source: U.S. Census; Whatcom County; Mark Personius, AICP There are many variations and unique criteria that could be incorporated into such a growth management strategy. Building permits can be allocated in a number of ways from "first come/first served" to a "lottery" to "beauty pageant' point -system competition for new projects. Safeguards to protect property rights can be built into the system. For example, permit applications that do not get issued in a given year can get "first -in -line" status for the following year. Unissued permits in any given year could be rolled over to the next year. The system could also be designed to allow excess permits in any given year provided that new units replace (at a 1:1 ratio) potential buildout units that are "retired" from the buildout pool either through TDR, PDR or lot consolidation. For example, to build the "thirteenth" home in any given year that developer would have to "buy" the rights to do so either through TDR, PDR or lot consolidation of a non- conforming "buildable" lot not in common ownership with an adjoining similar lot. Small group discussion of the growth management alternatives indicated cautious support to pursue this strategy in the implementation phase of the Subarea Plan —provided it rested on a sound and reasonable legal basis and could be applied fairly. Growth Management Indicators Program —This strategy establishes benchmarks and monitors key public facility service levels, as well as environmental, population growth and other community quality -of -life indicators for the next 20 year planning period. Thresholds for key indicators could be established (say for example the number or rate of contaminated wells, building permits issued, new lots created, etc.) so that when certain thresholds are reached the Subarea Plan could trigger certain actions such as temporary moratoria or review and amendments to the Subarea Plan or County regulations to correct deficiencies or address specific issues of concern, such as water quality and water supply planning. Small group discussion of the growth management alternatives indicated public support to pursue this strategy in the implementation phase of the Subarea Plan. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, Mach, 2009 81 429 Preferred Plan Policies & Implementation Measures Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 82 430 Preferred Plan, Policies and Implementation Measures The Lummi Island Subarea Plan —a component of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan —is a policy plan that is to be used to guide the land use decisions affecting both the private and public sector. Goals, policies and implementation measures are intended to "make it happen" —to define and identify the steps needed to carryout the recommendations in the Subarea Plan necessary to maintain the long-term future vision for Lummi Island. Implementation measures are identified for each "element" of the Subarea Plan and a time -frame priority is assigned for each measure based on the following system to define when "action" on the particular policy or implementation measure is needed: IMMEDIATE: (action should occur within 1-2 year time -frame of Subarea Plan adoption) SHORT-TERM (action should occur within five year time -frame of Subarea Plan adoption) LONG-TERM (where implementing action is already adopted, such enforcement should occur on a recurring basis, as applicable to the issue, or where specific action is more likely to occur more than five years after Subarea Plan adoption) Subarea Plan Goal The overall goal of this plan is to allow growth within the limits that will preserve the island's ground water resources, rural character and sense of community. Rural character is understood to mean both the amenities of the natural environment —the open spaces, views, wooded areas and wildlife —and the lack of urban -scale development, utilities and requirements for government. The term applies to the non -visual aspects of rural life on the island —the self-sufficiency, sense of community and mix of land uses —as much as to the visual appearance ofLummi Island. Land Use Implementation Measures IMMEDIATE 1.1 Amend the RR -I District zoning regulations and other regulations, as applicable, to establish one unit per five acres as the minimum density throughout the RR -I zone. Lummt Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final4raft, March. 2009 83 431 1.2 For the Lummi Island Scenic Estates subdivision, amend the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan from Rural Forestry to Rural and the Zoning Map from Rural Forestry to Rural Residential -Island (RR -I) District. This change will not affect the status of the platted lots of L. I. Scenic Estates. 1.3 Amend the RR-1 District zoning regulations (WCC 20.34.251-253) to eliminate provisions of the code authorizing different density provisions within and outside of groundwater aquifer recharge areas, including elimination of the density transfer provisions contained in WCC 20.34.251 (3) and WCC 20.34.330. 1.4 Encourage non -conforming lots (less than one acre in size) in adjacent common ownership to consolidate in order to get a building permit for a new home (to the extent allowed by State vesting law). Consider incentives to promote voluntary lot consolidation. In 2003 Vv_acant non- conforming lots in adjacent common ownership account for about one - quarter of all vacant non -conforming lots on the north island and more than one third of such lots in Scenic Estates. 1.5 Pursue a down zone through public support of some properties. Resource ands such as those in Designated or Classified Forestry and/or Current Use Taxation lands could be conducive to this approach. SHORT-TERM 1.6 Adopt a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program with downzoned parcels and non -conforming lots as initial density sending areas on Lummi Island consistent with potential receiving areas in the City of Bellingham UGA or Femdale UGA in order to encourage buildout reduction on the island. 1.7 Coordinate with the Department of Planning and Development Services (PDS) to institute a program to identify and monitor key growth indicators on island and establish an annual report from PDS to the Lummi Island community regarding the status of specific community development issues of interest, including, but not necessarily limited to: • Ground water quality and quantity; • Well monitoring and number of dry wells annually; • Voluntary septic system monitoring; • Number of new housing units permitted; • Affordable housing data; • Ferry planning and ferry usage data; and • Subarea Plan policy implementation. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 84 432 Also, under Title 2 of the Whatcom County Code (WCC), establish a standing island committee of island property owners and residents, representative of all island stakeholders whose purpose would be, but not limited to: Overall monitoring of the implementation of the updated subarea plan; Take the lead in establishment of growth indicators and the initiation and implementation of studies related to the issue areas identified in 1.7 of the revised Lummi Island Subarea Plan; and Cooperate with the County's Planning and Development Services. 1.8 Amend the WCC to adopt site and building design standards to maintain existing rural character on Lummi Island, including: • Determine and use site clearing and grading techniques to maintain existing native vegetation on site and reduce soil compaction to the maximum extent practicable. • Bright lights should be located and shielded so that their light is directed toward the areas needing illumination, and prevented from casting glare onto neighboring property. LONG-TERM Maintain the following shoreline land use regulations in the RR -I zone put in place following adoption of the original 1979 Lummi Island Plan and codified in WCC 20.34.170: 1.9 On the shore side of West Shore Drive and Nugent Road to the McLean Avenue right-of-way, along Seacrest Drive and Island Drive south to the Rural Forestry (RF) zone designation and along Legoe Bay Road from Village Point to the northwest corner of Peterson's Addition to Bellingham Bay Cities, land uses are designated as follows: On any area of a parcel where the distance between the ordinary high water mark and the county road right-of-way is less than 100 feet, no residential or commercial structures may be constructed. On any area of a parcel where the distance between the ordinary high water mark and the county road right-of-way is 100 feet or greater, residential uses are limited to single- family structures and commercial uses to home occupations, except along Legoe Bay Road from County Road 656 (just north of Lover's Bluff) to and including Village Point where commercial and light industrial uses other than home occupation may be allowed by conditional use. 1.10 Within the remainder of the RR -I zone land uses may include single- family dwellings (including duplexes), farming, forestry and woodlots, Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 85 433 home occupation and cottage industries associated with agriculture, forestry and fishing. Retail commercial activities are encouraged to locate in the vicinity of existing businesses at Legoe Bay and the Ferry Dock to maintain the island's rural character. Commercial, light industrial and multi -family residential uses are not prohibited elsewhere in the RR -I zone but may be allowed subject to the conditional use process in order to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. 1.11 Conditional use applications for light industrial and commercial uses should be reviewed in terms of size, scale, visual appearance, view blockage, amount of traffic generated, light and glare, noise, smoke and public access to shorelines (as appropriate). 1.12 Amend WCC 20.34.310 to include design standards that require clustering that preserves large open spaces, water recharge areas, prime agricultural soils and wildlife habitat. Such standards should require that buildings on open landscape be sited and designed to minimize disruption of views from adjacent property. This refers to building alignment, setback from roadways, variation of building height and bulk, and careful positioning of structures on the site with regard to existing vegetation and topography. Residential structures are encouraged to locate at the perimeter of fields or within woods. Commercial and light industrial structures, where possible, should be sited with ample side and rear yard setbacks to minimize disturbance to adjacent property. 1.13 Development approvals should be based, and conditions applied, in part, on the availability and adequacy of water resources, the protection of water quality and control or avoidance of pollution, and the satisfactory management of sewage and storm water. Shorelines and Critical Areas Implementation Measures IMMEDIATE 2.1 Make the Subarea Plan consistent with the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) by revising the existing mapped designation of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARAs) on island consistent with the designation in the current CAO (WCC 16.16.510) based primarily on soil types. 2.2 Assess the feasibility of establishing an Aquifer Protection Area (APA) (under RCW 36.36) as a means to provide funding for the protection, preservation and rehabilitation of ground water resources on Lummi Island. APAs are created by majority vote of property owners residing in the APA (within the proposed area). They impose fees on groundwater users and/or septic system users (with exceptions for low-income persons) in order to fund groundwater protection studies and the costs of Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 86 434 monitoring and inspecting groundwater quality and quantity and on -site sewage disposal systems as well as other implementation measures. 2.3 Identify unstable shorelines (i.e., beaches subject to erosion) and develop strategies and plans to address significant beach erosion areas. Continually monitor such shorelines for erosion movement, direction and quantity. 2.4 Acquire funding for and complete a more definitive Groundwater Aquifer Study and Groundwater Management Plan for the island to more accurately determine groundwater capacities and recharge rates, current and projected water use and withdrawal rates for residential, commercial and agricultural uses, and recommend measures to protect groundwater quality and avoid aquifer contamination. 2.5 The County should initiate a data collection program for all existing public and voluntary participating private wells to collect data on well locations, elevations, use, depth, and size as well as water quantity yield, and water quality (specifically for arsenic contamination and seawater intrusion). 2.6 Amend the Whatcom County Critical Areas Ordinance to implement the recommendations of the December 31, 2006 Aspect Consulting: Conceptual Methodology for Evaluating Groundwater Withdrawal Proposals on North Lummi Island. 2.7 Adopt a Water Management Plan consisting of Best Available Science (BAS) water retention practices. SHORT-TERM 2.8 Amend the unstable slope regulations in WCC 20.34.656 to be consistent with Article III of the Whatcom County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) regarding development restrictions in geologically hazardous areas. 2.9 Require "low impact development' standards for new development to protect groundwater resources and increase recharge rates, including: • Minimizing impervious surfaces in new development; Require construction techniques that increase storm water retention to the maximum extent practicable on -site; and Protect wetlands from being drained due to the impacts of clearing, grading and new construction. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 87 435 • Utilizing vegetated buffers and "bio-swales" and "rain gardens" to retain on -site water runoff and aquifer recharge. • Require incentives to contractors to implement low impact guidelines. 2.10 Allow the development of small-scale surface water sources such as rooftop collection, cistern storage, and grey water systems for non -potable water use on Lummi Island. 2.11 In review of all shoreline substantial development or conditional use permits, consideration of public access to public shorelines should be required. Unless the applicant demonstrates that unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exist or the cost of providing the access is unreasonably disproportionate to the long-term cost of the proposed development. LONG-TERM 2.12 Incorporate "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) in land use, development and building regulations to encourage water conservation, such as: • Design and operational standards for water suppliers and purveyors, including point -of -use demand management and water meters for new construction; Encouraging new and existing homes to utilize collection systems to capture and recycle rain water; Utilizing water -efficient landscaping that does not require irrigation. 2.13 Water system providers should encourage, through education and incentives, the retroactive installation of water conservation measures by their members. 2.14 Since higher capacity wells can in some cases reduce the capacity of surrounding wells and also induce saltwater intrusion, a careful testing program should be required for any new well designed to serve more than a single dwelling unit. That program shall provide for regression analysis, removal of tidal effects in neighboring observation wells and for multiple testing for chlorides at the start, during and at the end of the pump test. The County or the Department of Ecology should oversee such testing and decisions concerning establishment of capacity limits for such wells should be based on this data. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft. March, 2009 88 436 2.15 Ensure that appropriate steps are taken to protect groundwater aquifer(s) from potential contamination from the use of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and hazardous substances. Prohibit use of pesticides and herbicides on County land, easements and rights -of -way, in order to protect the quality of the island's limited water resources. Require that adequate containment measures are in place for petroleum storage facilities of over 500 gallons and for the storage of over 500 lbs of other hazardous substances on island. 2.16 Pursue designation of Lummi Island as a sole source aquifer under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards to protect against aquifer degradation from future developments. Recreation & Open Space Implementation Measures IMMEDIATE 3.1 Amend the RR -I District zoning regulations (WCC 20.34), and other regulations as applicable, to incorporate the following clustering and open space design provisions on Lummi Island: 3.1a Retain at least 60% of the site as permanent open space either in common or single ownership. Amend the "reserve tract" provisions of WCC 20.34.310-320 to state that "a reserve tract must be created for perpetuity and be unbuildable beyond any building density remaining at the time of land division This is intended to ensure that the reserve tract open space will remain in the same location adjacent to the clustered lot is serves for perpetuity. " 3.1b Establish nonbuildable portions of new parcels contiguous to one another and to contain the most sensitive open space areas (including aquifer recharge areas and other environmentally sensitive areas). 3.1c Encourage open space areas to be held in common ownership and in perpetuity by a conservation organization such as the Lummi Island Heritage Trust. 3.1d Retain existing open fields to the maximum extent practicable for use as farmland, pasture, groundwater aquifer recharge areas, etc. 3.1e Incorporate existing historic and cultural features (houses, barns, rural roads, pastures, scenic views, public shoreline access points, etc.) into the site design. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft. March, 2009 89 437 3.1f Site new buildings and roads to the maximum extent practicable to avoid removal of existing trees, reduce soil erosion and maximize aquifer recharge potential. 3.1g Locate new buildings so that they can be screened from view of public rights -of -way to the maximum extent practicable by existing vegetation or terrain (e.g., locate houses behind trees, at forest edges and below ridgelines). 3.1h Within cluster housing developments, individual housing clusters shall not exceed fifteen (15) single-family residential units. 3.1i Design standards for housing to be developed that will ensure clustering preserves large open spaces, water recharge areas, good agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat. SHORT-TERM 3.2 Advise the County to assess the feasibility and requirements for the island to establish a Recreation Service Area or District (under RCW 36.69) to require that a portion of the property taxes collected from island property owners be dedicated for acquisition of recreational facilities on Lummi Island with the intent to purchase easements or outright properties (including non -conforming lots) for recreational purposes (e.g., for public trails, boat launch, or shoreline public access) on island. 3.3 Start a public education campaign to inform residents and visitors alike of the property rights and responsibilities of each party regarding trespass on private property and to educate all parties about the sensitive island environment. 3.4 Assess the creation of a Whatcom County Land Bank to help protect open space on Lummi Island. 3.5 When considering vacation of road ends, RCW 36.87.130 shall be followed. "IeN[el�lr+ 1118-1 3.6 Work with local landowners, the Whatcom County Parks and Recreation Department, and other agencies to identify potential sites and funding Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 90 MO sources for public trail and shoreline access use (including the potential use of County -owned road ends for public trail access). 3.7 Pursue dedicated funding sources for a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program such as the potential for redirecting all Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) monies generated from the island for expenditure back on island for PDRs that protect open space. Public Services and Facilities Implementation Measures SHORT-TERM 4.1 Work with Whatcom County Public Health Department to establish a septic tank monitoring program for all septic systems with drain fields located less than 200 feet from shorelines and groundwater aquifers. LONG-TERM 4.2 Coordinate with electrical power and telephone utility providers about the need for improved broadband communication. 4.3 Explore the use of utility easements and public rights -of -way for public trails and public access points. 4.4 Encourage utility companies to establish a schedule of placing utility lines underground. 4.5 Work with the Whatcom County Sheriff to increase public safety on island. 4.6 The Lummi Island community supports the continued operation of the Beach School. 4.7 Maintain adopted Levels -of -Service per capita (LOSS) for fire protection and emergency medical services. Transportation Implementation Measures IMMEDIATE 5.1 Continue working with the Whatcom County Public Works Department and the Lummi Nation on improvements to the Lummi Island Ferry System and associated parking and public transit needs to secure long- term increased mobility for island residents. The first step in the process should be to complete the 20 Year Ferry Plan and determine workable long-range solutions for the Lummi Island Ferry System. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March. 2009 91 439 5.2 Work with Whatcom County and the Lummi Nation to secure adequate parking as close as practicable to each ferry terminal. =101,14 a Il l41M 5.3 Work with Whatcom County to reduce excessive driving speeds on the island's rural roads (such as the use of information speed signs to alert drivers to their actual vs. posted speeds on specific road segments on island). 5.4 Initiate a "smart driving" campaign to promote increased carpooling, park —and -rides, and rideshares for island commuters. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 92 MR ' Table 10 Platted Lots of Record Prior to 1978 Not Subject to Lot Consolidation Provisions of WCC 20.83.070 Jai e' x 1800's to 1930's Dates unknown s Grove Addition 5.5 24 Bonnie Brae Add. To B'ham Bay 5.0 14 Bowden's Add. To B'ham Bay 110.0 20 Hansen's Sportsman's Park 32.4 52 Hunter Park 40.0 50 New World Addition 3.0 15 New Port Add. 20.01 72 North Seacrest Tracts 16.0 20 Petersen's Add. To B'ham Bay Cities 50.0 11 Seacrest 15.0 57 See le Hei hts Addition 2.5 12 Sunset Addition 5.0 13 POST 1NWII Hansen's Echo Point Tracts 1946 4.0 10 Lummi Bay Plat 1950 12.5 39 Hansen's Echo Point Tracts 1 st Add. 1954 8.0 18 Georgia View Addition 1957 10.6 17 Isle Aire Beach 1960 23.4 78 Gramac Hilkop Add. #1 & #2 1962 10.0 26 Sunrise Cove on Lummi Island 1966 3.2 8 Lummi Is. Scenic Estates Total 1959-1965 230.0 479 Division 1 1959 47 Divisions 2, 3, 4, 5 1961 254 Divisions 7 & 9 1962 92 Division 6 1963 50 Division 10 1965 36 Marine View Estates 5.0 16 Hale's Pass Addition 121.6 21 Brown's Short Plat 2.0 3 Feiselman Short Plat 2.5 3 Irene Thomas Short Plat 8.0 2 Richardson's Short Plat 2.0 4 P eatt Short Plat 1.8 2 Beach Short Plat 2.8 2 Oppenheimer Short Plat 9.8 2 Sunset Beach 14.5 31 TOTAL ALL SUBDIVISIONS 847.8 1317 Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 Appendices 93 441 Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 Appendix A Lummi Island Planning Survey 94 442 Lummi Island Planning Survey a PRELIMINARY RESULTS 1. Numbers listed after each answer choice represent the percentage of all respondents to the question who selected that particular response. 2. Since most percentages have been rounded off to the nearest whole number, sums for each question may differ slightlyfrom 100. Questions I-3 ask about your level of agreement or disagreement with suggested elements of the proposed Lummi Island Vision Statement. (copy attached) 1. Would you prefer to see more or less of the following elements of the Island's physical environment? I Much � About the � � Much more More same Less less a. ._......__f... Open Fields_ --- - -- 14 16 --- 65 -...--- ..;....--- 3 1 b. Wooded areas 17 r 20 -' 58 4 1 c. Roadside and field hedgerows_ 17 19 50 Ti 1 i 4 d. e. Wetlands Undeveloped shoreline 15 17 26 20 62 48 5 5 1 1 f. Open vistas 17 i 23 55 2 3 g. _ Air and water quality _ 26 25 _ 48 0 0 h. _ _ - _ Quiet _ 22 26 ( , 50 2 0 i. Rustic public walking trails 29 34 j 28 5 4 j. _ _ Public shoreline access for: r--� --- _ walking _ 9 i, - ---- ------ - --- 36 2529 f- - - -- -- ._ ...�' L_..._—..._....—_..— 4 6 L................. i.= boat launch 25 31 --- - M. other ..---- 16 19 -- 51 --- _ j k. Healthy fish and wildlife habitats �_._.36._..�28.__.11 —.34__...._...1.._.. __ ___ �_.._.l___�__.. 2- How valuable to you are the following attributes of the Island community? Very i Somewhat ; Not at all A. Mutually supportive environment ' - 60 I 32 7 - ....... - - b. Strong community involvement ; 51 40 8 c. Neighborliness 66 29 a d. Sense of safety - - ._.._ ....._...... - - - - - - - 78 .__..__.19 _..-.......... - 3 . e. Wide range of communityactivities _ - - ..__......------ ----- ......._......__...... --..__.....__.._. 30 j --.._._..._ __......_._. 55 . 15 f. Sense of belonging _ Lg.cultural activities 49 32 i 41 52 10 16 ,Community-based - on ;h. Social and economic diversi i 37 45 18 -- - — - -- ---- — - ---------' i. Influence in County's decisions affecting the island t I— i 77 19 s Lumini Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 95 443 3. How valuable to you are the following aspects of the Island's rural character? Very ; Somewhat_ Not at all a. Rural character of roads 68 ; 21 ! 10 - ---- ----- ------ - - .... - ----- .._........... -----....L.....__.—.._-....._ b. Small scale of ublic and commercial ente uses 65 27 ; 8 -- -- ---- --------.._.._------- -- - c. Unhurried pace of life 75 19 i 6 d. Sustainabili}{J of resource -based ente rises - 5o 38 i 12 e. Sense OI1va 79 I 19 2 f. Housin & landsca in a ro riate to rural co 61 j 27 j 12 Questions 4 through 9 ask your general views about rQ owth on Lummi Island 4. Overall, do you think that development on Lummi Island in the last few years has made it a more desirable or less desirable place for you to live? A. More desirable 10 B. About the same 35 C. Less desirable 50 D. Unsure or no opinion 5 5. In your view, have the County's land use policies governing development on the Island been: A. Too restrictive 12 B. About right 47 C. Not restrictive enough 41 6. How satisfied are you with the County's management of growth and development on the Island in the last few years? A. Very 3 B. Mostly 28 C. Somewhat 49 D. Not at all 20 7. Are there reasons associated with growth or land use that would lead you to consider moving away from Lummi Island? (Mark all that apply) - - ........ - - - _ -------..._..--- A. Not applicable: I don't reside even part-time on I 10 Island .. -- ...._.. _.. ..... -- - .............. .. B. No, I would not consider moving because of growth 7-25 -I C. Deterioration of environmental quality 48 D. Loss of sense of community 28 y E. Too many people, houses, and traffic 56 F. Loss of sense of safety 50 G. Loss of sense of privacy _ i 48 H. Length of commute times to mainland 25 Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 96 ME I 8. The following are potential outcomes that could accompany growth on the island. How desirable or undesirable is each of the following for you personally? Very 1 Somewhat Somewhat I Desirable i Desirable i Neutral 1 Undesirable 1 , a. Street lights on all roads.._....- 5 - --= b. -- - Gas station(s) _ -- - ._. ............� ...__.12 16 i 24 j - _._.... 18 _......�._.. -...20_..... _. ! 16 i c....Shopping center -._ 3 r_.....- - - d. -- ......... - - -._.._..._...._.. Island medical clinic ...... --......_.....,_....._..._......_..__i- i 16 29 32_ 10 e. Public water and sewer treat --- ------... --......_........_..-- .d 10 15 .._....i ..._._.. _ _.... 23 15 r-- f. All roads hard. -surface..----- 8 13 _ j_- fi 27 ...___.17 Stop lights at intersection 2 3 10 17 ,g. _ 1 h. Communitv center - -- -- - -...17 - 1 ._.._ 29._...._. ......29 ._... i 9 J. -Island law enforcement- -- .--- 14 17 - 27 - 16 _includingtrafficlaws ----- _-....------------ -L.-------------- k. Professional fire protection 14 19 —----._._...- ---- - 39 .. 12 .. . I. Movie theater 2 �..._._..- — 20 - -- - m. Senior assisted livin 17 26 9. Please write the names of up to three specific places on the island you would especially like to see preserved: (Write names in space provided on answer sheet) The next questions ask what kind of growth and related issues you would like to see happen on Lummi Island (not what you think is most likely or inevitable). 10. Compared to the current population level (about 1560 residents in peak season), what would you prefer the island population to be? A. Smaller 32 B. About the same 54 C. Somewhat larger 13 D. Much larger 1 11. How fastwould you like the population be allowed to increase? A. Current growth rate is fine. (Adding about 230 houses by 2010, and 300 more by 2020) 18 B. Slower growth than the last 10 years 39 C. Faster growth than the Iast10 years 3 D. Zero or negative growth rate (constant or decreased population) 40 Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 97 Very 62 26 37 35 58, 18 445 12. The current 1979 land use plan relies heavily on water availability as the primary tool for managing growth. Which of the following factors do you think should be considered as management tools in forming the new land use plan? (Mark all that you support) h. - Water quality a-n--d"q,-,- 90 i. Transportation time and costs (roads, brq, etc.)- 52 Economic or market forces 13 k. 77 Maintaining rural character of island. I. Maintains M_a strong of community. 48 m. Maintaining healthy natural environment and wildlife habitat 78 n. Commercial oppori6n� — --------- ---- -------- — ------ 10 13. Would you like to see more or less of each of the following on the Island? More Same Less; None [a. farming 36 1 60 4 i I i b. forestry 10 50 25 14 1c. mining/quarrying 40 f1sh!a& 54 3 2 re i!E "c 21 39 LO 30 f. arts and crafts 34 57 6 3 home office/ telecomTOTS... 41 53 1 5 -- ----- ----- 1 h. bed & breakfasts 18 66 i 12 4 i. marina 40 33 i 5 22 boat launch 55 28 5 4T !k. golf course 11 12 4 73 rl. restaurant22 71 3 4 ink, tourism 43 23 ........ ......... . . ..... :n. stores ... ........... . .. ..... 11 78 2 14. Some residents are concerned about glare from outdoor lighting. Do you support regulation of outdoor lighting to preserve a natural sense of nighttime darkness? A. Strongly support 51 B. Somewhat support 16 C. Neutral 13 D. Somewhat oppose 8 E. Strongly oppose 12 15. Is noise on the island (e.g., from machinery, pets, traffic) a problem for you? A. Often 13 B. Occasionally 54 C. Never 33 Luminj Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft March, 2009 98 EM 16. Is smoke a problem in your island neighborhood? (e.g., bum piles, wood stoves) A. Often 3 B. Occasionally 27 C. Never 70 17. Should construction guidelines for new and remodeling projects be revised to include any of the following? (Mark all that you support) a. Provide green barrier (not just lawn) between new houses and road. _ 41 ..- - b Encourage siting building at the edge of fields rather than in center 38 c Restrict clearing of trees when buildm —-._.._. ..--- - - 45 d. Restrict construction of impermeable surfaces ; 54 e No new restrictions should be imposed 28 f. Limit proportion of lot that can be filled b—manmade structures 48 g. No expansion of original foundation footprint in remodeling 45 structures near shorelines or other sensitive areas 18. Should Lummi Island consider forming a Park District (to keep a portion of property tax dollars presently sent to mainland) for purchase of land for parks, trails, boat launch, or other public use? A. Yes 71 B. No 20 C. Unsure or don't understand 9 19. When growth and development come to a community, new infrastructure and services are needed (for example, more roads„ fire, police, schools, libraries). In your opinion, who should pay for the expansion of services required by new development? A. Current residents should pay these costs. 1 B. Developers and new owners should pay. 56 C. Both should pay. 44 20. Would you like to see a moratorium on the issuing of new land subdivision permits on Lummi Island while the Sub -area Plan is being revised? A. Yes 67 B. No 24 C. Unsure or don't understand 10 Our community will be influenced by the type of development that is permitted by County rules. The next questions ask your views about some County rules for development. 21. Currently, much of Lummi Island is zoned RR -I (Rural Residential -Island) except for the mountain (including Scenic Estates), which is zoned "Rural Forestry." Many in Scenic Estates believe their interests as a community would be better protected (e. g., from logging or quarry impacts) by RR-1 zoning. Do you support such a rezone of Scenic Estates (leaving rest of mountain zoned Rural Forestry) ? A. Yes 59 B. No 19 C. Unsure 22 Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 99 447 22. Do you live or own property in Scenic Estates? A. Yes 25 B. No 75 23. The County Comprehensive Plan suggests the possible creation of a commercial zone on the island (perhaps near the ferry dock) where any new high traffic public and commercial activities (stores, restaurants, businesses) would have to locate. Do you support the idea of such a commercial zone on the island? A. Yes 40 B. No 44 C. Unsure 16 24. Presently, County zoning allows 'multiplex' living units (up to four units in one building) on Lummi Island under conditional use permits, which requires a public hearing and notification of neighbors within 300 feet. Should County policy: A. Remain the same 38 B. Allow only duplexes (including mother-in-law apartments), and require a public hearing? 27 C. Prohibit multiplex housing 32 D. Unsure or don't understand 4 Average and minimum lot sizes. For new subdivisions, current law says that minimum allowable size of lots entirely inside designated groundwater recharge areas is 5 acres, and entirely outside water recharge areas is 3 acres. For parcels partially inside and partially outside recharge areas, individual lots can be as small as 1.5 acres as long as the average lot size for the whole parcel is at least 3 acres. The next three questions refer to these rules. 25. 1 prefer the minimum lot size in new subdivisions entirely inside water recharge areas to be: A. 5 acres (current law) 59 B. 10 acres 21 C: 20 acres 11 D. Unsure or don't understand 9 26. 1 prefer the average lot size in newly platted subdivisions that are partly or entirely outside water recharge areas to be: A. Less than 3 acres 10 B. 3 acres (current law) 38 C. At least 5 acres 30 D. At least 10 acres 9 E. At least 20 acres 5 F. Unsure or don't understand 8 27. 1 prefer the minimum lot size in new subdivisions that are partly inside and partly outside water recharge areas to be: A. Less than 1.5 acres 8 B. At least 1.5 acres 14 C. At least 3 acres 25 D. At least 5 acres 30 E. 10 or more acres 12 F. Unsure or don't understand 12 Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 100 Density transfer is a process by which development rights can be moved from one place to another. Density transfer allows more development in the place density is transferred to, in exchange for less density in the place density is transferred from. Current law allows density to be transferred within Lummi Island's Rural -Residential -Island zone, subject to some restrictions. 28. Should density transfer be allowed on Lummi Island under any circumstances? (Mark all that you support) a. Yes, from the island to a receiving area off the island 27 b. Yes, from residential zones on island to a possible new commercial zone on island 18 c. Yes, within a residential zone, but not into water recharge, shoreline or other sensitive areas 23 d. No 37 e. Unsure or don't understand 13 Lot clustering. The current County Comprehensive Plan includes Policy 2FF-2, "Encourage cluster housing and other innovative development techniques on Lummi Island." In lot clustering, a portion of a parcel may be subdivided into lots smaller than otherwise would be permitted, in exchange for the creation of a single, larger reserve tract' of undeveloped land that can be used for forestry, open space, or agriculture. Such reserve tracts" can be subject to further development under some conditions. 29. Which of the following clustering policies do you support? A. Current provisions for clustering should be retained. 19 B. Clustering should be allowed only under special circumstances (See next question) 49 C. Cluster developments should not be allowed on Lummi Island under any circumstances. 28 D. Unsure or don't understand 4 30. If you selected choice "b" in the previous question, under what conditions should clustering be allowed or encouraged? (Mario all that you support) a. If it preserves rural character better than alternatives 43 b. If the reserve tract is legally aranteed never to be developed 47 c. If it permits development of affordable housing is d. If a reasonable minimum lot size is established 23 e. Unsure or don't understand 3 The next five questions relate to transportation: 31. How should roads and traffic be changed for improved safety? (Mark whether you agree or disagree with each option) Agree Disa ree a. Roads are safe enough now. 65 35 _ b. Reduce speed limit to 25 mph for entire island _ 56 44 c. Enforcespeed limits on current roads 64 36 Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 101 I I O d. Widen extra narrow roads minimally where visibility is limited 64 36 i e Widen all roads minimally 18 82 f. Widen all roads substantially 6 94 32. What new protections do you support for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Mark all that you support) a No new protections are needed. 37 b. Add new road shoulders for trails along only the most dangerous roads _33 c. Add new road shoulders for trails along all roads 15 d. Add trails buffered from most dangerous roads (as by drainage ditch_) 28 e. Add trails buffered from all roads (as by drainage ditch) _ _- 10 -- --- — -- — ---------- — -- f. Add special walking and biking trails not necessarily associated with roadways 1__47 J 33. What is the average number of ferry round trips you make per week as either a pedestrian or vehicle passenger? A. 0-2 68 B. 3-5 25 C. 6-8 5 D. 9 or more 2 34. What is the average number of round trips a week you make on the ferry as the driver of a vehicle? A. 0-2 60 B. 3-5 33 C. 6-8 7 D. 9 or more 1 35. How much do you support County incentives to increase "walk-on" use of the ferry and decrease "car -and -driver" use? A. Strongly 48 B. Somewhat 27 C. Not at all 25 It is important to know how well all groups on the Island are represented by those who actually respond to the survey. The following demographic questions are for statistical purposes only; all ofyour answers will remain completely anonymous. The more of these questions you answer, the better we can tell how well survey results represent the whole range of Islanders' views. 36. How involved are you in community activities or organizations (e.g., Community Club, Fire Hall, Elderberries, Grange, Heritage Trust, Boys and Girls Club, etc.)? A. Very 15 B. Somewhat 51 C. Not at all 34 37. Do you: A. Own home on Lummi Island? 78 B. Rent home on Lummi Island? 5 C. Own property but do not live on Lummi Island? 15 D. Other (e.g., live with a property owner)? 2 38. How much land do you own on Lummi Island? Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 102 450 A. None 7 B. Less than 1 acre 41 C. 1 to less than 6 acres 36 D. 6 to 10 acres 7 E. More than 10 acres 9 39. How much of the past year did you reside on Lummi Island? A. Essentially full time 59 B. More than six months, but not full time 8 C. One to six months 21 D. Not at all 12 40. For how may years have you lived on Lummi Island (full or part time)? A. None 10 B. up to 5 years 22 C. 5+ to 10 years 17 D. 10+ to 20 years 22 E. more than 20 years 28 41. What is your gender? A. Female 50.3 B. Male 49.7 42. What is your age group? A. 20 or under 0 B. 21-34 5 C. 35-49 25 D. 50-64 44 E. 65 or older 25 43. What is your highest level of education? A. High school or less 5 B. Some college or technical school 18 C. 2 year degree 8 D. 4 year degree 24 E. Beyond four-year degree 45 44. How many children do you have in each school -age category? ' None I One I Two ! Three ! Four + j - a. - - - - -- - - - Preschool 92 - 5 b. 87 9 i 2 i._...1.__._`•_.....1. c. -Elementary - school 92 - - �.......... _ d. -Middle High School ..._ ., 89 ; .... _.. _. 9 1.._..._�....._.._.. .._.. - 1 e. College 13. - - —. _.. 45. What is your employment status? (Mark all that apply) a. Self-employed 32 b. Full time employee 30 C. Part time employee 13 Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 103 451 d. Retired_ 32 e. Other 5 46. What portion of your income is from work performed on Lummi Island? A. None 70 B. Less than half 13 C. More than half, but not all 5 D. All 11 47. In what sector of the economy are you normally employed? (Choose only one) A. Retired 24 G. Farming I M. Technology 5 B. Food service 1 H. Health 8 N. Real estate 2 C. Art, music or writing 4 I. Mining (4) O. Tourism I D. Homemaker 3 J. Fishing I P. Clerical I E. Education 12 K. Forestry (2) Q. Sales 3 F. Public sector (non-educ) 4 . ................. ... L. Construction 4 R. Other 17 48. What is your household gross annual income? A. under $17,500 7 S. $17,501 - 32,000 15 C. $32,001 - 43,000 15 D. $43,001 - 75,000 32 E. $75,001 - 120,000 18 F. over $120,000 13 Thank you for completing the Lummi Island Planning Survey. Please transfer your answers to the enclosed answer sheet, using a No. 2 pencil. Fill in each oval completely. Enter any additional comments or concerns on the next page. PLEASE DO NOT FOLD YOUR ANSWER SHEET! Return your completed answer sheet and comment sheet in the enclosed postage - paid envelope. Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 104 452 Individual Comments Please enter on this page any additional comments you would like to make about land use issues important to you personally. What should the next Island land use plan try to protect, preserve, enhance, develop, allow, permit, control, encourage, or discourage? What are your primary concerns or fears? What are your hopes? What is important to you about living on Lummi Island? Note: Since the Lummi Island Planning Committee does not have the resources to retype extensive comments, it would be very helpful if you would submit your comments electronically online at either htta:iiwww.lummi-island.com/Survey.htm or htta://www.wwu.edu/—assessisurvey.htm rather than submitting them on this sheet. Thanks! If web access is not easily available to you, please write your concerns on this page, and submit it together with your answer sheet in the enclosed envelope. Please be brief and write legibly. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Thanks again for completing the survey. Comments: Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 2009 105 453 Appendix B Growth Management Alternatives Public Evaluation Lummi Island Subarea Plan Update Revised Final Draft, March, 1009 106 454 o „ Y O y N N O b F y �3 io•�-d N a� rn � O � • � "d � c`a �bb,�3•o.`��ba � aoi '� ti `� •� o U a� M U p 0 ,a" p y Qa w O N Q+ C Cam, O 3 N y y cad O C� C O, O O v y N U Fes. H y O a �. s�Ea o c� O�" Y � 00 C/1 •4^ � O � Oil � O b c N G v N to �+,ro 0 � tL 0. y Qo� O O Q^•� O 3 O> y 3 .•O w q 'on S. 0 y W Q 0 °: t- 0 455 U q • o 0 0 ° a c A ° a ► o • • ► o ► d 0 a .b A p O a .py c� � � L��' 'b O � y .� p C •U �b CL `o o a� �" ° y Y ° o a02 EL y N . ° 4a C C C C Q •tm .. 3 ° O ° c'� -0 Ci •y c. �yy 3 y Y VyEl aoyr. V b 'b i N N N C PL p �o U O O Ool _ N O O ElcN N C U a b O Y y w cli ri c� to 456 Uq o • o o • o o • a A a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • • • d a a o o o o O a�i i > Xo C aCi a� a o y b w o ti Y 040. a 0 ro >, v 3 i .� ;_ t .o a o o k3 o bCC Ey o c o °F.y�. p❑ cw� ' o_b 0 � �El 0 °� c� '.' � -0 � � mayy, p• .n � c��' i 0 05i a. o N 'Y Cd � 3 ::+' �' I 3 o Cd a > pp o 6 °o ' o� ° i - 0. 5 c . a o 345 -00 txc 0r. o b G'7� ❑ OIS tib q ' x > 3 p y p a> coi OO[ y Oa O p Ei ° y 3 Y G v -0 o w c o ° rz o o v y Y o i c o 4. o a� „ 'bp ra o > ou a>.0 a� O p .'' v ❑ d-•+ O Y O O O c0 •� �' '' J cd cUd �C Oy rn p x o f 'm Y c`d aai o a"Ui o .y ° y •C �b.� ' cd 3[ 3 b° c� q r~. C c0 ti N bA >+ ar ca q N V� y_ b k O .bp •�:+ cd (1) Q y p o w 0 •� 'in .� •°C O 4r.. U y w O Gy. G N N 'C O q O O y N N Y cd .O 3 cd '� y cd 'b r. 2 •o y ti O cYd 'c cd 0 ca 40.. .�� CL Y$ N° o C y o y° o o X N $ O N = p o ^� �°.' E > N...C�....�1 �Q•b... > �i O G y 457 w U A • • w � 0 Pr 0 0 Pr O YO c *C� 0 3 o O � a , t-.. II ° °� °= N o a�i o 4 y Y a 3 "o G y x O G N E o O O ti C° ,3,°3,.aEcd E� •� � y O o y >. Q� G G ��' y° N O 'y N E O ,� q v O O b O v Y y w g G O G c� C y'ti .wy+ �•y Y o W :d iti b p o �b E ° � 8 �a +- ��•2 � Ei > b c`�i 0 o 0 w 0—y 3 c 3Ei p Y 3 a-- Ld �'y Y 9 o N a Y p a � E 3 ai G � ° 4iE 5 °' �m � Y ,,,, •E •E 'c cd _, a . °' o 00 oaw 0 w ��r 4 O\ O Cd W 0 Ed E •--� W v Y l0 U I • 459 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT & REASONS FOR ACTION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Adoption of the Lummi Island Subarea plan of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan; Amendments to WCC Title 20.34 and WCC Title 16.16 WHEREAS, the Lummi Island Subarea plan is a part of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan; and - WHEREAS, additional information necessitates updating the 1979 Lummi Island Subarea plan; and WHEREAS, Legal notice was published in the Bellingham Herald; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed amendments. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: THE PLANNING COMMISSION ENTERS THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT & REASONS FOR ACTION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: FINDINGS OF FACT & REASONS FOR ACTION 1. On November 21, 2003 a staff report was issued for Lummi Island proposed plan to the planning commission (file number CMP2003-00011). 2. On November 24, 2003 the Deputy SEPA Official issued a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (SEP03-00208). 3. On December 4, 2003 a supplemental staff report was issued. 4. On December 4, 2003 the Planning Commission held a public meeting to review the plan, receive public testimony, and propose amendments. 5. On January 22, 2004 the Planning Commission held a public meeting to review the plan, receive public testimony, and propose amendments. P. 1 M 6. On January 29, 2004 the Planning Commission held a public meeting to review the plan, receive public testimony, and propose amendments. 7. On February 20, 2004 Staff issued the Lummi Island Subarea Summary of Options and Recommendations. 8. On February 26, 2004 the Planning Commission held a public meeting to review the February 20, 2004 Summary of Options and Recommendations and moved to forward the plan to the County Council as amended. 9. On March 23, 2004 the County Council introduces ordinance for review and adoption of the Draft plan. 10. On May 12, 2004 the Deputy SEPA Official withdraws the DNS based on the requirement for new information on groundwater protection. 11. On May 12, 2004 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager issued a memorandum to the County Council informing them the plan must be tabled until the Groundwater Study is complete. 12. On October 26, 2005 Aspect Consulting began the Groundwater Study. 13. On December 31, 2006 Aspect Consulting completed the Groundwater Investigation and proposed a methodology for aquifer protection. 14. Pursuant to RCW 36.70.590 legal notice for a public hearing was published in the Bellingham Herald on October 12, 2008. 15. A new Determination of Non -Significance was issued under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) on September 19, 2008. Comments were received from Darlyn DelBoca and David K. Ernst. The comments were reviewed by the Deputy SEPA Official. The comments did not change the Determination of Nonsignificance. 16 The stated goals of the Lummi Island Subarea Plan are: • Natural Resource Sustainability (e.g., protection of water supply, water quality and environmentally sensitive areas) • Preservation of Island Rural Character (e.g., density of development, protection of open space, etc.) • Protection of Property Rights (e.g., fairness in applying new rules that impact the ability of property owners to achieve economic gain from their property and their investment in land). 17. The Lummi Island Planning Committee (LIPC) held 26 monthly meetings scheduled throughout 2002 and 2003, terminating on November 10, 2003, the public was invited. Whatcom County Planning and Development Services held two educational Land Use Meetings in June 2002, and sponsored a Land Use Attorney Public Meeting in August P. 2 461 2003. Mark Personius, the Planning Consultant, participated in three Public Community Meetings to obtain input on the Draft Plan and answer questions. Whatcom County Planning and Development Services and Aspect Consulting conducted a public workshop to introduce and answer questions regarding the groundwater study on January 28, 2006. A public meeting was held on December 7, 2006 to announce the findings of the groundwater study. A public meeting was held on September 24, 2008 to discuss the proposed amendments from the Ground Water Study and changes to the maximum density. 18. The Plan is consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan, the County -wide Planning Policies and Growth Management Act (GMA) planning goals regarding Citizen Participation, Environment, Open Space and Recreation, and Historic Preservation. 19. The proposed Subarea Plan goals and policies increase the ability to provide services and facilities that can benefit the public health, safety and welfare of the residents and property owners of Lummi Island through transportation, recreational, and water quality goals etc. 20. The island has a resident population of 822 and a potential peak seasonal population almost double that according to the 2000 US Census. 21. Increased rates of dry wells, arsenic contamination and chloride levels have been documented by the Whatcom County Environmental Health Department (P. Chudek, personal communication, August 2003). The December 31, 2006 Conceptual Methodology for Evaluating Groundwater Withdrawal Proposals on North Lummi Island by Aspect Consulting provides a methodology for protection of the aquifer system. 22. Most of the north island remains rural with a settlement pattern of one unit per three or five acres; however, there are some areas that have already developed at suburban rather than rural character. These include higher density developments approved prior to the advent of the Growth Management Act such as the Beach Club Condominiums, Scenic Estates, Lane Spit, and Isle Aire. In other areas shorelines have been densely developed on old small non -conforming lots —often less than an acre. 23. The ferry capacity and level of service are important growth variables that could significantly encourage or retard future growth. Currently the LOS established for the Lummi Island ferry service does not meet the adopted level of service of 513 trips/capita. Therefore, no further subdivisions of land may be approved on Lummi Island until the ferry is upgraded or the LOS is revised. However, short plats and building permits are exempt from the concurrency requirements and these activities have continued on the island in spite of the ferry LOS. The next review of the Capital Facilities Plan will address the revised LOS for the ferry. 24. Both the Lummi Island Planning Survey and the small group discussions of alternative growth management strategies indicated support for increased protection of unique components of the built and natural environment that constitute the island's rural character, including open fields and woods, hedgerows, farm buildings and old P. 3 462 homesteads, open vistas, groundwater recharge areas and environmentally sensitive areas and undeveloped shorelines. Clustering was supported by a majority of respondents on the Planning Survey —most notably "if the reserve tract is legally guaranteed never to be developed". 25. The additional policies recommended regarding development of a Lummi Island Water Management Plan, update of the County Critical Area Ordinance policies on aquifer recharge area protection, and revision of the Lummi Island Aquifer Recharge Area map will help protect groundwater quality and quantity on the island. Mapping of individual drainage basins and specific protection measures and policies should be added when additional data is available. 26. The recommended policies and tables regarding lot consolidation will reduce density in three subdivisions with existing substandard lots where two or more lots are in common ownership. 27. The adoption of the revised zone text for the Rural Residential Island zoning district, will reduce the density on most of the unplatted RRI zoned land to one dwelling unit per 5 acres. 28. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 23, 2008. The Planniniz Commission approved the staff recommendation with amendments. Amendments included portions of the draft Subarea Plan, maintaining the clustering language for RRI, and changes to the proposed WCC 16.16 to include an exempt well provision and notification to surrounding_ property owners of the pumping test. CONCLUSIONS The subject amendments are consistent with the approval criteria of WCC 20.10.080 and serve the public interest. The amendments will not create an undue burden under section 1.11 of the County Charter. RECOMMENDATION Changes to the February 2004 Draft Subarea Plan Page 7, first paragraph Note that discussion of a new ferry is specifically excluded here_ eapaeity is an impeFtant variable to sustainable gr-evAh an the island. On April 15, 2008 the Whatcom County Council decided to not pursue a new ferry at this time. Ferry service will be limited to the capabilities of the current ferry to provide that service. P. 4 463 •- a .. .. IMEM -. - - MXMMATSTAWM-�- M •. Pages 34 - 39 Groundwater Resources Groundwater recharge areas were originally established in the 1979 Plan based on hydrogeologic studies in the late 1970's (see Water Resources of Northern Lummi Island (Robinson & Noble, Inc, 1978). Lower densities were assigned to recharge areas as a means to protect the groundwater quality and quantity. There has been a significant increase in the number of private wells since 1979. However, there has been no analysis of groundwater levels or recharge potential since 1979 (Figure 12). There has been more recent analysis of groundwater quality indicating increasing rates of dry wells (V. Armfield, personal communication, August 2003) as well as arsenic contamination and saltwater intrusion in island wells (P. Chudek, Whatcom Co. Environmental Health, August 2003). Whatcom County Environmental Health Department has enacted more stringent standards for arsenic treatment in new wells. GuFrent groundwater- quality Feseareh is being eendueted by WesteEn Washington University and V�hateom County is pur-suing grants te fund new groundwater- studie&.- -Whatcom County should pursue research and grants to fund additional groundwater studies including analysis and mapping of individual drainage basins for groundwater levels, recharge potential, threats analysis and protect recommendations. Public Water Associations serve more than two connections and withdraw significantly more groundwater per well than individual systems but are also subject to higher water treatment standards. Group A systems have 15 or more connections or serve 25 or more persons per day. Group B systems have 3-15 connections and serve less than 25 people per day (Figure 13). In 1979, there were seven (7) "Public" Water Associations (Group A and Group B P. 5 systems). In 2002, there were twenty-six (26) "Public" Water Associations (Group A and Group B systems). The island experienced an almost four -fold increase in the number of high capacity wells pumping groundwater out of the aquifer in the last twenty years. Groundwater Aquifers and Best Available Science The original groundwater carrying capacity estimates for the island were developed during hydro -geologic studies conducted in the late 1970s by Dr. Ronald Schmidt of the consulting firm Robinson & Noble. The estimates are contained in the report The Water Resources of Northern Lummi Island (1978) and reflect certain assumptions regarding best available science at the time. Lacking comprehensive data, Schmidt himself noted in his study that some of his assumptions regarding the island's water budget were preliminary and should be reevaluated when more comprehensive data became available. Some have noted that Schmidt's estimates of groundwater carrying capacity, for example, do not take into account the effect of drought conditions, and may, in fact, overestimate groundwater carrying capacity. Recent review of Schmidt's 1978 study by geologists from Western Washington University also cast doubt as to the veracity of the conclusions reached regarding designation of aquifer recharge areas and groundwater capacity and recharge rates. A recent analysis of the methodology utilized by Schmidt in his 1978 study was conducted by William Sullivan (WWU) in a report entitled Overview Lummi Island Groundwater Study (2003). Sullivan writes: "Unfortunately, Schmidt was unable to identify hydrostratigraphy, delineate aquifers, or provide reliable static water levels. It appears that Schmidt used a topographic map to estimate well -head and aquifer surface elevations, introducing large errors into his aquifer surface map. [His] mapping of aquifer recharge zones is generalized because he used only data from his aquifer surface map. The water budget conducted by Schmidt is based only on climatic data. Soils, geologic, and land cover data that could be used to better quantify [evapotranspiration], infiltration and runoff were not available." It is also interesting to note that the aquifer recharge areas identified by Schmidt in the 1979 subarea plan —that came to form the basis for the 5 acre/3 acre recharge/non- recharge area split zoning on the northern part of the island —are inconsistent with the critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) mapped on the island utilizing the criteria established in the Whatcom County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). See Figure 14. According to the CAO, designated CARAs may comprise a much larger percentage of the north island than the aquifer recharge areas identified under the 1979 subarea plan. eapaeity of the gr-eundwateF aquifeF en the island. Some data pertaining to groundwater quality is available from a report entitled Lummi Island Groundwater Study (1994) prepared by the Whatcom County Environmental Health Department and the Washington State Department of Ecology. That report indicates an increasing presence of chlorides (at levels in excess of 100mg/1) in some shoreline wells (from seawater intrusion) and naturally -occurring arsenic levels in some wells scattered across the north part of the island. However the 1994 study made no effort P. 6 465 to quantify a water budget for the island or aquifer capacity or recharge rates. Analysis by Dr. Schmidt of 1978 well surveys found only one well on the island with high chloride levels at that time. A similar survey conducted by Whatcom County Environmental Health in 2003 found seventeen (17) wells subject to serious saltwater intrusion. Further development on the northern half of Lummi Island will result in a declining water supply. Both local residents and the Whatcom County Environmental Health Department have documented increasing numbers of dry and low -producing wells (personal communication, V. Armfield and P. Chudek, August, 2003). With increased development comes the addition of new impervious surfaces including roads, driveways, and roofs that replace the vital vegetative cover that helps retain the rainwater for infiltration and aquifer recharge and holds the soil in place. There are also threats to groundwater quality that must be addressed. The ground water is recharged by precipitation and surface water seeping directly into the ground. Contamination of ground water including improper use of pesticides can be a major threat to potable water sources. Septic tanks that are not properly maintained can also contribute to major degradation of ground water quality. Increased demands on the current water source from development and well pumping are also likely to contribute to increased levels of saltwater intrusion. Seawater intrusion is the movement of seawater into fresh water aquifers. The causes of seawater intrusion are known to be from a decrease in ground water levels. The ground water level can be lowered from reduced precipitation or less ground water recharge due to removal of natural groundcover and more intense development. For example, development projects that include impervious surfaces, such as paved driveways and roads; prevent rainwater from draining directly through the soil into the aquifer. Water generated from impervious surfaces is usually collected in a drainage "ditch" and may discharge directly into the saltwater without having a chance to be fully absorbed on the land. Activities, which can cause a lowering of the groundwater level, include a reduction in the amount of fresh water recharge and pumping and withdraw rates that exceed the rate of recharge. Areas closer to saltwater sources, such as shorelines, are at higher risk. Pumping a well or wells can also cause a local decline in the ground water level in the immediate vicinity of the pumped well and may cause local seawater intrusion or affect the quality of the water at nearby well sites. Freshwater is a finite resource on Lummi Island. Rainfall —which averages 32" per year —is the only source of water supply for the island. Total rainfall can vary widely across the island, however, and drought years can exacerbate water supply problems. Alternative public water supply sources such as a pipeline from the mainland or a regional seawater desalination plant are not presently feasible. The lack of a reliable and thorough understanding and estimate of current groundwater conditions on the island, the indications of increasing groundwater quality degradation, and the inconsistency between aquifer recharge areas identified on the island under the 1979 plan and in the more recent CAO suggests that a conservative approach be taken to allocating future land use until a more thorough groundwater evaluation can be completed. On May 12, 2004 the Deputy SEPA Official required a groundwater study to mitigate the impacts of new wells, specifically for seawater intrusion and arsenic P. 7 Me concentrations. Whatcom County hired Aspect Consulting (including William Sullivan] to perform the investigation and make a recommendation as to a methodology for protection of the Lummi Island aquifer system. On December 31, 2006 Aspect Consulting concluded the groundwater study for North Lummi Island. As stated in the Executive Summary: "The purpose of the Lummi Island Groundwater Study is to develop standards and policies for island groundwater development that are protective of the groundwater resource, natural environment, and human health. This memorandum summarizes conceptually a set of requirements the County can consider implementing to achieve this objective. The methodology sterns from a hydrogeologic investigation of Lummi Island (Aspect Consulting, 2006b) and is based on an antidegradation standard for the aquifer. Table 1 summarizes the conceptual methodology for evaluating_ groundwater withdrawal proposals." The December 31, 2006 Conceptual Methodology for Evaluating Groundwater Withdrawal Proposals on North Lummi Island by Aspect Consulting is attached as Appendix C. The hydrogeologic investigation completed by Aspect Consulting on December 31, 2006 is attached as Appendix D. Page 56, MW • ertat:..,-, demand management strategies to educe vehicle trip demand; . Gee-.1;,-,at;..,.. with the Wm,....; N.,t;,,,-. o parking and o a .,t;.,,, a is sues; • L`e,-rf e a .,tie a st,-.,teg ery• r • Vessel and teFzxxinai-'az &astraet re r—eWir—ements; a On April 15. 2008 the Whatcom Countv Council decided to not pursue a new ferry at P. 8 467 this time. Ferry service will be limited to the capabilities of the current ferry to provide that service. Page 76 Preferred Plan Policies & Implementation Measures Land Use Implementation Measures IMMEDIATE 1.1 Maintain the e5dating zoning. Amend the RR -I District zoning regulations and other regulations, as applicable, to establish one unit per five acres as the minimum density througLiout the RR -I zone. Page 80 Shorelines and Critical Areas Implementation Measures IMMEDIATE 2.4 Acquire funding for and complete a more definitive Groundwater Aquifer Study and Groundwater Management Plan for the island to more accurately determine groundwater capacities and recharge rates, current and projected water use and withdrawal rates for residential, commercial and agricultural uses, and recommend measures to protect groundwater quality and avoid aquifer contamination. levels of ar-senie eentaminatien and seawater- intrusion as a means to establish 2.6 The County should initiate a data collection program for all existing public and voluntary participating private wells to collect data on well locations, elevations, use, depth, and size as well as water quantity yield, and water quality (specifically for arsenic contamination and seawater intrusion). 2.6A Amend the Whatcom County Critical Areas Ordinance to implement the recommendations of the December 31, 2006 Aspect Consulting: Conceptual Methodology for Evaluating Groundwater Withdrawal Proposals on North Lummi Island. 2.6B Adopt a Water Management Plan consisting of Best Available Science (BAS) water retention practices, Reseurees Department-. P. 9 MO Title 20 Amendments 20.34.250 Maximum density, minimum lot size and width. 20.34.251 Minimum lot size and maximum density. Maximum density shall not exceed one dwelling unit per five acres. M Arm el ■_ op --IMFI MI •_ .~AA.._ P. 10 m 20.34.252 Maximum density and minimum lot size. Minimum Lot District Gross Size Min. Reserve Area Density Conventional (Cluster Subdivisions) Cluster DD I: o tsirlc1 s. renhorne area dwelling acFes* 3-eGFe6 ** — 3�°/a RR -I: within 1 dwelling 5 acres ** 55% renharne areas unit/5 acres* EXnoept wheenrdeRSittFansfef iS iR 1Arry VGG 20.34.251(3). used as-pFeVided ** The lot size that satisfies the Bellingham.Whatcom County health department requirement for water and sewage services. 20.34.253 Minimum lot width and depth. Width at Street Line Conventional Cluster Width at Bldg. Line Minimum Mean Depth District RR 1- nutsirle renharna 2 7-''9! 80! nnnn 4W areas sewer nr wader RR -I: within renherne areas 300' 70' �80- 100' (Ord. 86-29, 1986; Ord. 84-38, 1984; Ord. 82-58, 1982). 20.34.305 Lot clustering. (1) The purpose of lot clustering is to preserve the rural character of Lummi Island and to provide an alternative method of creating economical building lots with spatially efficient sizes. Clustering is intended to reduce development cost, increase energy efficiency and reserve areas of land which are suitable for agriculture, forestry, open space or possible future development in accordance with the adopted zoning density requirements, as applied to the entire subdivision or short subdivision. (2) The clustering option is also intended to help preserve open space and reduce total impervious surface area thereby reducing runoff while assuring continued viable undeveloped natural vegetated corridors for wildlife habitat, protection of watersheds, preservation of wetlands, preservation of aesthetic values including view corridors, and preservation of potential trail and recreation areas. (Ord. 99-069, 1999; Ord. 90-45, 1990). P. 11 470 20.34.310 Design standards. The creation of new building lots, pursuant to this section, shall be governed by the following recommended design standards: (1) Clustered building lots may be only created through the subdivision or short subdivision process. (2) Building lots should be designed and located to the fullest extent possible to be compatible with valuable or unique natural features, as well as physical constraints of the site. (3) Where practical, the majority of building sites should be arranged in a cluster or concentrated pattern to be compatible with physical site features, allow for -the efficient conversion of the "reserve tract" to other uses in the future, and have no more than two common encroachments on existing county roads. The arrangement of clustered building lots is intended to discourage development forms commonly known as linear, straight-line or highway strip patterns. (4) Common access to clustered building lots should be provided by short length roads or loop roads. In addition, interior streets shall be designed to allow access to the "reserve tract" for the purpose of future approved development. (Ord. 90- 4511990). 20.34.320 Reserve tract. For the purposes of this section, "reserve tract" is defined as that portion of a proposed subdivision or short subdivision which is intended for agricultural, forestry, open space or future development purposes which does not exceed adopted zoning density requirements, as applied to the entire subdivision or short subdivision. All "reserve tracts" created through the subdivision process shall be subject to the following provisions: (1) After a site is initially subdivided pursuant to this section, the "reserve tract" may, be retained by the subdivider, conveyed to residents of the subdivision or conveyed to a third party. (2) The "reserve tract" may be considered as a building lot; provided, that such lot is included in the overall density calculation of the original parcel of record. (3) The "reserve tract" may be further subdivided only through the long subdivision process and only under the following circumstances: (a) The county finds that in developing adjacent tracts it would help to further the objectives listed in WCC 20.34.305(2) above by dividing the reserve tract and increasing the area of reserve proportionately on the adjacent land being subdivided so that there is no net reduction in reserve area; and when the reserve tract is owned by the original developer or a third party, no property owner within the original subdivision will be significantly adversely affected or suffer a substantial decrease of property value as a result of dividing the reserve tract. P. 12 471 (b) When the subarea Comprehensive Plan and zoning have been updated as part of the normal process (other than a revision initiated by the private sector or done for a specific area) and the public process has been gone through, subject to findings that there is no adverse impact to critical areas and when the reserve tract is owned by the original developer or a third party, no property owner within the original subdivision will be significantly adversely affected or suffer a substantial decrease of property value as a result of dividing the reserve tract. (4) The purpose of the reserve tract as stated in WCC 20.34.320(1), (2), and (3) shall be communicated in writing on the face of the plat or short plat; also, the number of developable building sites remaining (if any) with the original parcel of record, based on the assigned density, shall also be prominently displayed on the plat or short plat. Whatcom County shall make every effort to assist all agents in communicating clearly such information to all purchasers and prospective purchasers of building lots or "reserve tracts." (5) That the above stated requirements WCC 20.34.320(2), (3), and (4) shall be recorded as a deed restriction at the time of filing of the final plat or short plat, and shall constitute an agreement between Whatcom County and the owner of record. Said deed restriction may be amended by mutual agreement between said parties after review for consistency and compliance with the official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance, the Whatcom County Subdivision Ordinance and the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. (Ord. 99-069, 1999; Ord. 98-083 Exh. A § 35, 1998; Ord. 90-45, 1990). MR 0 ON ■ Mneo.m- P. 13 472 Title 16.16 additions 16.16.540 Areas within the Rural Residential District of Lummi Island 16.16.541 ExeytqBMeft- Wells drilled as a replacementexisting well are exempt .m this chapter •n• as - withdrawal rate is not - -• • more than 20 percent of - existing MIL 16.16.542 Minimum Well Spacing for all new wells Wells shall have a minimum of 200 feet distance between a new well and an existing operating well. 16.16.543 In addition to the minimum well spacina. the followina measures are required for Public Water System Wells and Wells Purnpina Greater than 260 gallons per day Includes "public water system" wells as defined under Whatcom County Drinking Water Regulations and non -domestic use wells pumping greater than 250 gpd. Public water system is defined under Whatcom County Chapter 24.11 as any water system providing piped water for consumption, excluding a system serving only one single-family residence and any system with four or fewer connections serving only residences on the same farm. (1) Chloride Monitoring and Testing (a) Monitoring: Well owners shall collect and have water samples analyzed for chloride concentration twice annually, in April and August and submitted to the Whatcom County Health Department. (b) Chloride Determinations for New Wells or Increased Pumping of Existing Wells: Applications for new wells or for greater than 20 percent increase in groundwater withdrawals in an existing well require a minimum 24- hour-duration pumping test at 100 percent of the proposed average daily demand, at the end of which a water sample will be collected for analysis of chloride concentration. Subdivisions using individual wells are required to test wells simultaneously, or alternatively have a licensed hydrogeologist evaluate well interference and water quality changes. Subdivision wells shall remain accessible for future testing in the event of subdivision expansion. (c) Restrictions on New Wells or Increased Pumping of Existing Wells: New wells cannot be permitted, and greater than 20 percent increases in pumping cannot be permitted if chloride concentrations measured at the end of the test specified in (b) above are greater than 100 mg/L. For systems expanding 20 percent or less within one year, the highest chloride determination within the past year in (a) above cannot be greater than 100 mg/L. (d) Limit on Water Use by Existing Wells: Increases (0-20 percent) in water use will not be permitted if either semi-annual analysis in the previous 12- month period indicates greater than 100 mg/L chloride concentration. If the semi-annual chloride determinations have not been submitted as required, then the pump testing requirement of (b) above shall apply. (e) Prior to 10 days before the pumping test all property owners within 1000 feetgfthime-11 location shall be notified by first class mail informing the of the test and providing contact information of the person responsible for the testing. P. 14 473 (2) Arsenic Monitoring and Testing in the unconsolidated aquifer (a) The following monitoring and testing is required unless the well is determined not to be located in the unconsolidated sandstone aquifer. A Washington State licensed Hvdrogeologist must make the determination in a submitted report. (b) Arsenic Determinations for New Wells or Increased Pumping of Existing Wells: Applications for new wells or for greater than 20 percent increase in groundwater withdrawals in an existing well require a minimum 24- hour-duration pumping test at 100 percent of the proposed average daily demand, at the end of which a water sample will be collected for analysis of arsenic concentration. (c) Restrictions on New Wells or Increased Pumping of Existing Wells: New wells cannot be permitted, and greater than 20 percent increases in pumping cannot be permitted if arsenic concentrations measured at the end of the test specified in (b) above are greater than 10 mg/L. (d) Limit on Water Use by Existing Wells: Increases (0-20 percent) in water use will not be permitted if the most recent arsenic determination indicated greater than 10 ug/L arsenic concentration. If no arsenic concentration has been determined in the past 3 years, the pumping test requirement in (b) above shall apply. Systems expanding more than 20 percent in a 3-year period must retest for arsenic. (e) Prior to 10 days before the pumping test all property owners within 100 feet of the well location shall be notified by first class mail informing them of the test and providing contact information of the person responsible for the testing. 16.16.544 Variance Conditions Variances may be aranted to anv section of these reauirements by petition to the administering agencv. Variance request must demonstrate that the proiect is consistent with the intent of these requirements; no health hazard would result from this action. and must be stamped by a licensed Washinaton state hydrogeologist P. 15 474 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Ken Mann, Chairperson David Stalheim, Secretary Date Date larl 475