HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning January 13 20091 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Planning and Development Committee
3
4 January 13, 2009
5
6 Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the
7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Present: Absent:
10 Laurie Caskey- Schreiber None
11 Carl Weimer
12
13 Also Present:
14 Sam Crawford
15 Barbara Brenner
16 Bob Kelly
17
18
19
20 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
21
22 2. RESOLUTION APPROVING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPEN SPACE CURRENT
23 USE ASSESSMENT APPLICATIONS (AB2009 -053)
24
25 Erin Osborne, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report.
26
27 Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
28
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30
31
32 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
33
34 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING URBAN GROWTH AREAS REVIEW PROCESS,
35 INCLUDING CONSIDERATION OF A JOINT HEARING WITH THE PLANNING
36 COMMISSION REGARDING ALTERNATIVES (AB2009 -052)
37
38 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director, gave a
39 staff report. He suggests a joint meeting with the County Council and Planning Commission
40 on February 12, 2009. Look at the range of alternatives to study as part of the urban
41 growth area (UGA) process and environmental impact statement (EIS). To keep the
42 timeline, they must finish the environmental scoping process by the end of February. Get
43 the consultants to start working on these range of alternatives.
44
45 Brenner stated she wants to see the alternatives before the hearing. She asked
46 when they will get that information. Stalheim stated they would have that information at
47 least a week ahead of the hearing. The public would also like to see the information. They
48 will proceed with three alternatives. One of those alternatives has to be the no action
49 alternative, which is the existing Comprehensive Plan and its associated policies. Therefore,
50 the debate will be on the two other alternatives.
51
52 Initial recommendations will be focused on land use strategies rather than population
53 and employment projections. County and city staff don't want to look at alternative growth
Planning and Development Committee, 1/13/2009, Page 1
1 forecasts. They prefer to study alternative land use strategies. One of the two strategies
2 they came up with preliminarily is to consider how to transfer growth out of the rural and
3 resource lands and into urban areas. The existing Comprehensive Plan policies aren't
4 working. The second strategy is the issue of shifting growth to other urban areas. Look at
5 different patterns of growth. An idea is to shift growth away from Bellingham and into other
6 urban areas.
7
8 Kelly asked if the purpose of the joint meeting is to have one public hearing instead
9 of two. He's hearing from people that they want two hearings. They want more time.
10 Stalheim stated a primary reason of the joint meeting is to have one hearing instead of two.
11 The staff needs the Council's decision about the alternatives by the meeting on February 24.
12
13 Crawford stated they don't have time. They have to have this done by June 30.
14
15 Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated the alternatives have to be scoped
16 and to the consultants by the last week in February, or the consultants can't get the work
17 done on schedule.
18
19 Brenner stated they must involve the public more instead of rushing through it. If
20 they don't, they will have to do it over because someone will sue the County or rappeal the
21 decision. That will cost more time and money. The information isn't being written for a lay
22 person to understand. The Council is obligated to make sure that it takes the time it needs.
23 That isn't happening.
24
25 Fleetwood stated they are under a court mandate.
26
27 Brenner stated go to the court, show they are working diligently, and request more
28 time.
29
30 Fleetwood stated the County could ask, but a court will see that the County has
31 already had a number of continuances.
32
33 Craven stated they are scheduling a number of public workshops around the date of
34 the joint meeting. They will talk with the public in the UGAs about the various alternatives
35 being discussed. They hope to identify each of the geographic areas that the cities and
36 UGAs want to have analyzed in the EIS for potential boundary changes. Those maps will be
37 available to the public the same time as the public hearing.
38
39 Stalheim stated they should be in the land capacity analysis results and the draft
40 allocation. The alternative allocation to each urban area will also be available. Quite a bit of
41 background information will be available.
42
43 Brenner asked if the Council will have that information a week before the hearing.
44 Stalheim stated they will. It will help inform the discussion on alternatives. The hearing is
45 not on their preferences for a particular alternatives. The hearing is to identify what should
46 be studied. The main task for the County Council is to bracket the choices in the EIS that
47 are in the range of alternatives that the Council wants to consider. The purpose of the
48 hearing is to make sure staff really understands those brackets.
49
50 Brenner asked if the Council is supposed to make decisions that night on what is to
51 be looked at. Craven stated not that night.
52
53 Brenner asked if that night is to listen to comment from everyone about alternatives.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/13/2009, Page 2
1
2 Stalheim stated the upcoming timeline is on Council packet page 255. The Council
3 won't see the Planning Commission recommendation a week ahead of time. They will see
4 staff's recommendations going into the hearing. The Council won't see the Planning
5 Commission output until they're done with their deliberations.
6
7 Caskey- Schreiber stated she has to consider the Planning Commission
8 recommendation. She wants to hear what it has to say. She doesn't want to make a
9 decision until she hears the Planning Commission information. Delay the Council action
10 decision date until they have that information.
11
12 Weimer stated the Planning Commission decision just won't be in the Council packet
13 a week ahead of time, but the Council will have the Planning Commission decision before its
14 meeting on February 24. Stalheim stated that's correct.
15
16 Caskey- Schreiber stated she is fine with the schedule, then.
17
18 Crawford stated he supports this schedule. It makes sense.
19
20 Fleetwood moved to approve the schedule for the joint Planning Commission and
21 Council meeting on February 12, as shown on Council packet page 255.
22
23 Motion carried unanimously,
24
25 Craven stated she must emphasize how tight the schedule is to meet their deadline
26 in June. The Planning Committee will be exceptionally busy the next six months with many
27 issues. Keep that in mind. Many planning issues are coming forward.
28
29 2. DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM
30 COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHAPTER FOUR — CAPITAL FACILITIES,
31 CHAPTER SIX — TRANSPORTATION, AND APPENDIX G — TRANSPORTATION
32 IMPACT FEES BACKGROUND INFORMATION (AB2009 -065)
33
34 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director, gave a
35 staff report. This is not the transportation impact fee ordinance. This proposed ordinance
36 sets the policy basis for the impact fee ordinance. This is the policy background to
37 transportation level of service issues and transportation impact fees. He wants to make
38 sure the councilmembers are comfortable with it at this time. One question is whether they
39 should have a public hearing. He asked if the Council wants a presentation during a work
40 session from, the consultant, Transpo Group. This is a Comprehensive Plan amendment. If
41 the Council wants to approve it, it must be approved with concurrent review of the other
42 Comprehensive Plan amendments during a concurrency hearing. That will happen in March
43 or April.
44
45 Brenner asked if it would be better to do all the impact fee elements together.
46 Stalheim stated there seems to be confusion between the concurrency policy ordinance and
47 the transportation impact fee ordinance. He and the Executive felt it was best to address
48 this first, before getting to the impact fee ordinance. The fee ordinance is more complicated
49 than the policy ordinance.
50
51 Brenner stated she would like to have a hearing on it at some point. She asked if
52 they are required to have a hearing on Comprehensive Plan amendments. Stalheim stated
Planning and Development Committee, 1/13/2009, Page 3
1 the Council isn't required to have a hearing on Comprehensive Plan amendments. The
2 Planning Commission has the hearing. A Council hearing is optional.
3
4 Crawford stated he has information that transportation impact fees aren't a cost -
5 effective program for counties that have implemented them. They must have that debate.
6
7 Mike Donahue, Public Works Department, stated some of that is true. Transpo
8 Group has worked with those other counties. At this time, given the economy, it is feasible
9 to use transportation impact fees.
10
11 Crawford asked if it is the position of the Public Works Department that
12 transportation impact fees are cost - effective, and should be implemented. Donahue stated
13 it is.
14
15 Crawford stated the Council hasn't had that debate or seen that information.
16
17 Caskey- Schreiber stated she disagrees. The Council advocated for this for years.
18 She's glad to see this ordinance, and she's ready to move it forward. It shouldn't lose
19 money. There is flexibility for using the money.
20
21 Brenner asked how those counties are losing money. Donahue stated there are a
22 variety of ways those counties are losing money. It depends on how they use the money.
23 They have to use those fees in the area they are collected. Small cities can collect the fees
24 and use them citywide. However, Whatcom County has set its areas so they can use the
25 funds within six years. The bottom line is that they don't have that many projects.
26
27 Crawford stated that developers indicate that the use of their business developments
28 is one that will require the least amount of impact fees. When businesses move in to the
29 development, they're required to pay thousands in transportation impact fees because the
30 actual use is more than what the developer claimed. This is an administrative issue. Some
31 counties are starting to find that administration of the transportation impact fees are costing
32 them more than projects they're able to get done.
33
34 Donahue stated impact fees are based on use, not zoning. The Transpo Group has
35 developed eight zones for impact fees. Impact fees will be looked at during the building
36 permit stage. If another use requires a building permit, they will review the permit and use
37 for fees.
38
39 Crawford stated they haven't adopted the plan yet. There is fallout from what they
40 actually do. He doesn't know much about what is happening in the other counties. They
41 are unintended consequences.
42
43 Brenner asked if any counties have based their impact fees on zoning rather than
44 use. Donahue stated some counties have some minor zoning built into their impact fee
45 ordinance.
46
47 Stalheim stated the impact fees are collected by use. Most ordinances are tied to
48 use. A statutory requirement is that the impact fee account for the proportional impact of
49 the development. The only way to do that is to look at the amount of traffic being generated
50 from the development.
51
52 Brenner asked if the buyer of a building will have to pay impact fees if the business
53 doesn't require a building permit, but does create more traffic. Stalheim stated those are
Planning and Development Committee, 1/13/2009, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
implementation questions within the ordinance. The Council will need a work session with
Transpo to answer these detailed questions.
Crawford stated there is new information that says this may not work for counties.
He doesn't know why Councilmember Caskey - Schreiber is in favor of the added Policy 6B -6
on Council packet page 270. They should have the discussion. Staff has considered the
downside, and still recommends going forward. They're talking about making a clear
statement in the Comprehensive Plan about implementing this. They must have a
discussion rather than accept this at face value. Other counties are regretting doing it.
Fleetwood stated Policy 6B -6 is written with enough nuance to address those
concerns.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this was a crucial tool for Birch Bay to fulfill their list of road
improvements. At the time, developers wanted to participate, but the County didn't have
this tool in place. Use this tool where it will provide a benefit. If the tool won't benefit the
County when used on a particular project, the County staff are wise enough to not collect
the fee.
Crawford asked if impact fees have to be applied countywide. He asked if the
County can have a program that applies the fees just in certain areas that would benefit
from them. He would agree that certain areas, such as Birch Bay, may benefit. Donahue
stated that may be a special assessment area. They may have to treat the entire
geographic area the same, and then divide into transportation analysis zones.
Crawford stated that in some areas, they will have problems creating a nexus to a
project and collecting a fee. In six years, they will have to give back the money. Stalheim
stated a list of projects eligible for impact fees begins on Council packet page 272. There
are projects in each of the eight analysis zones. The system has been set up to identify and
collect fees for the larger areas. The Planning Commission has gone through this twice and
has made its recommendation. Spend time before the concurrent review to have a work
session.
Kelly stated the concern they've been discussing today is specific to how they run the
program once they make the decision to initiate the program. He's ready to approve the
policy for impact fees in Whatcom County, with Councilmember Crawford's concerns in
mind. The staff is able to address all of those concerns. They can learn from the mistakes
of other counties. In his experience, many other people around the state are surprised that
Whatcom County doesn't have impact fees.
Brenner asked if they can use impact fees for increased road maintenance
requirements. Donahue stated they will look at applications on a case -by -case basis. Some
businesses may not have to pay for an impact fee.
Fleetwood stated the Council will introduce the item tonight, and schedule a work
session on January 27, with no public hearing at this time.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 21, LAND DIVISION REGULATIONS,
REGARDING GENERAL PROVISIONS, EXEMPT LAND DIVISIONS AND
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS, SHORT SUBDIVISIONS, PRELIMINARY
Planning and Development Committee, 1/13/2009, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
LONG SUBDIVISIONS, FINAL LONG SUBDIVISIONS, SURVEYS AND
DEDICATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS (AB2008 -404)
-AND-
1A. ORDINANCE 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 (AB2008 -404A)
David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director, gave a
staff report and stated there are many housekeeping changes. Staff recommends version
AB2008 -404A.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Stalheim continued to state that there alternatives for language in section 21.03.040
on Council packet page 350. Staff recommends alternative one. He described the three
alternatives and other language changes.
Fleetwood stated certain members of the public have expressed concerns about the
ordinance, and would like more time to work on it. He asked if staff has worked with those
citizens. Stalheim stated he has spent 12 hours in meetings to go through this.ordinance in
fine detail with people in the development community. Staff has addressed most of the
issues. He doesn't know how much more staff can do. There are choices within these
ordinances. The issues are mostly minor, not large policy issues. Most of the issues have
been worked out.
Fleetwood asked for a description of the consensus and the agreement. Stalheim
stated the biggest concern was the degree of review for critical areas during the application
process. People are concerned about how much information is necessary at the time of
application and the criteria used for review and approval, particularly how it applies to
boundary line adjustments. Staff has spent time working with the development community
to reduce the requirements from how the ordinance was first written.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is in favor of alternative one. They must identify critical
areas, especially within the subdivision process.
Brenner stated that when subdividing land, developers must not create lots that
aren't developable. She doesn't understand the argument. Stalheim stated this ordinance
doesn't change the underlying critical areas ordinance or zoning ordinance. It doesn't
change on any kind of subdivision. The department will essentially get the information
requested eventually. This ordinance changes the timing of when the department receives
that information. They are front- loading the application requirements so the staff don't
have to spend time reviewing an application that doesn't have all the information they need.
The ordinance requires an applicant to bring in the critical areas information at the time of
application. That is a procedural change. There are no changes to any standards.
Crawford asked if the items listed in 21.01.040 are the exemptions referred to in
section 21.03.040. Stalheim stated that the items in 21.01.040 are items that are exempt
from subdivision and short subdivision provisions. They are not exempt from the ordinance.
At some point in Whatcom County's past, it was decided the exemption level for
Planning and Development Committee, 1/13/2009, Page 6
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
environmental mitigation sites should be at five acres, not 20 acres. The Planning
Department was assigned the task of reviewing and stamping those five -acre and 20 -acre
tracts as exempt. The department isn't changing them at all, just reviewing them and
stamping them as exempt. Those projects are exempt from the subdivision or short
subdivision process, but the department must still review and stamp those projects.
Alternative two would eliminate altogether that required review.
Weimer asked the benefit of reviewing those projects for exemption. Stalheim
stated they have seen 20 -acre tracts with issues. They do catch those issues during the
review process.
Crawford stated they are doing that currently. Stalheim stated they are. That's why
he wrote an alternative, to make it clear. They are doing critical areas review currently, but
it's not clear in the ordinance. If they are going to do a review, they should have criteria.
Caskey- Schreiber stated alternative one is today's actual practice.
Brenner asked if alternative, one is a clarification. Stalheim stated it is, of the
existing procedures. There is concern about it, which is why there are other options.
Crawford stated add language to the end of 21 03 040(1) on Council packet page
370, "...with the Countv auditor. Co�.nty rev eui► :aind %ar,�a count�`eertifreate�af ex =ert�r troy
that.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to add la
Motion carried unanimously.
Stalheim stated they can do
on Council
Crawford stated amend section 21.03.085(2)(j) on Council packet page 377 to add
language, "Approximate location of existing'; buildings and sfng on -site septic systems."
Stalheim stated that makes sense.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend section 21.03.085(2)(j) on Council packet
page 377 to add language, "Approximate location of existing buildings and existing on -site
septic systems."
Crawford stated the concern with boundary line adjustments was that they weren't
developing a new site plan proposal. They are trying to clarify that this is only for existing
buildings and septic systems.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brian Jones, Jones Engineers, stated the committee has taken care of some of his
concerns. This code formalizes critical areas ordinance review and creates a burden for
landowners. The code doesn't include any assurance by the agency that the property will
be and remain a buildable lot. A landowner may not file for a building permit for a few
years after the application procedure is over.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/13/2009, Page 7
1
2
3
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
Brenner stated that once the lot is accepted, its vested. That is State law. If the
rules change, the owner already has a lot of record. Jones stated vesting isn't mentioned.
In fact, the word is deleted from the text.
Stalheim stated no changes to vesting are proposed. A land division is vested at the
time of application. The owner is vested for land division, not for subsequent development
permits. This ordinance doesn't change anything from the existing ordinance. They are
changing the vesting date to a pre - application date. According to State law, a subdivision
owner has five years to develop under the rules in effect at the time of that land division.
This ordinance doesn't change current standards.
Brenner asked if someone could go through a process to make sure their property is
buildable according to the critical areas ordinance, and then that effort would be for naught
if there were changes. Stalheim stated staff would go through a review of a short
subdivision under today's critical areas ordinance. However, there's no guarantee of a
building permit if they change the critical areas ordinance tomorrow. That's not anything to
do with the land division ordinance. That has to do with the critical areas ordinance and
other ordinances.
Brenner asked if it would be better to have that critical areas review during the time
of platting the lots rather than through the subdivision process. Stalheim stated that's what
they propose to do. Do the critical areas review during the time the lots are platted. The
critical areas ordinance allows the delineation to remain for five years, so they don't have to
do another delineation.
Crawford stated this issue will be further'tested in court. They haven't heard the last
of vesting issues and environmental regulations. If they keep the minimal provision
regarding reasonable use, there is some protection.
Jones stated they haven't addressed the same issue for reserve tracts. They are the
same part of a project, yet it will be future development, critical areas, access analysis, and
a plat. If a reserve tract were to be sold, they would have to start over again with the
permitting processes.
Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County Executive Director,
stated he sent a memo yesterday. Most of the concerns were with clarity. Take more time
to address all the concerns.
Brenner asked how much more time they want. Quehrn stated their due diligence to
represent their members is to be sure they communicate on behalf of all the folks who need
to be heard. He is glad to try and help the County address the concerns through a meeting
with those folks.
Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County Governmental
Affairs Director, stated they need more time. She agrees with everything Mr. Jones and Mr.
Quehrn said. Vesting is the issue that no one wants to address. County legal counsel
should look at how things are being applied at the County. It depends on how something is
vested. The issue of vesting will keep coming up, so legal counsel really needs to look at it.
The language is vague. She and others came up with 13 pages of questions that need
clarifying. Consult with the professionals who deal with the code every day when writing
the code. Spend more time with the community to work on this.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/13/2009, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Fleetwood stated the Council gave direction to do this code scrub years ago. They've
gone through a lot of work, and are at the end of the process now. Time is not of the
essence on this. He's inclined to allow more time to clarify these items. He asked if that is
objectionable. Stalheim stated this ordinance isn't much difference from the Planning
Commission on November 13. The same comments were made. His plate is full. If they
want to delay it, that's fine. They will continue to go around and around the same
questions. Things are clear in his mind. Now, the staff is reviewing ten urban growth areas
and working on many other things. Time is getting short.
Fleetwood stated staff doesn't have time to prepare clarifications.
Weimer stated he supports the alternative ordinance with alternative one on Council
packet page 350. Like anything, they can spend forever on this issue. The same people
who want more time are the same ones who show up and yell at the Council because they
never get anything accomplished. Move the alternative forward.
Brenner stated this isn't time critical. Make those tweaks to the language to clarify
things. That shouldn't be a problem.
Weimer asked if the changes would require another hearing.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Stalheim stated legal counsel has said a hearing is not required,. He won't -have time
to sit down in another meeting. People can provide written comment's
Crawford stated he's ready to go ahead and do this. He's' °-not sure they will get
much further with it if they wait. They have to try it. There are bigger, over - arching issues
with subdivision and land use activities in Whatcom County. This item is not the., mechanism
to address those bigger issues. Some of it will have to be resolved i-b - -: court or by the
political will of the people of Whatcom County. It's probably time to move,on`and'60mmit to
this one way or another. There are some issues he's not settled with. For instance, he
prefers that the pre - application meeting for short subdivisions was optional, not `required.
However, it's time to put this to a vote.
Fleetwood stated he's inclined to clarify some aspects of this that seem to be vague
to people. If someone brings forward proposed changes to clarify the language in question,
he's inclined to allow more time. He supports the motion for approval now, but he supports
any motion to allow more time to make changes.
Crawford stated they didn't hear anything specific to be changed, other than the
larger philosophical issues. Staff doesn't have time to address those changes. The Council
would have to docket those items.
Fleetwood stated he's talking about minor refinements that people have talked
about. Unfortunately, they didn't offer any particulars. If the citizens who spoke have
specific solutions, then they should bring them forward. The Council can get those done in
a couple of weeks.
Brenner stated she is in favor of waiting two weeks to clarify some of these things.
She's not interested in addressing the over - arching issues. Someone said they had little
wording changes to make it clear. That's reasonable.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/13/2009, Page 9
1 Dominique Zervas, 709 Dupont Street, stated someone, not staff, could bring
2 forward the document with specific changes. Allow two weeks to get that clarification work
3 done. The folks at the BIA should do that work.
4
5 Crawford stated a list of 30 questions doesn't do any good for this process. He
6 asked if the BIA can come up with the specific language, which is what the Council needs.
7
8 Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council of the alternate
9 ordinance (AB2008 -404A) with alternative one language and as amended. He's not
10 opposed to leaving the record open for two more weeks if people want, but he hasn't heard
11 what the problem is. They're hearing the same thing the Planning Commission heard six
12 weeks ago.
13
14 Motion carried 2 -0 with Caskey- Schreiber absent.
15
16
17 ADJOURN
18
19 The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
20
21
22"'
23 Jill Nixpii, %IMIHif6fts /Transcription
24 ,,��� -� Y C p �' %,
25
26
00.
27 _ V ; COUNTY
28 0 =
29 - T _
30 ,9
31
32 D'ztaia Br* C ncil Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
i �/
.�! = /R
Planning and Development Committee, 1/13/2009, Page 10