HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning March 13 2007WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
March 13, 2007
Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:12 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Laurie Caskey - Schreiber None
Dan McShane
Also Present:
L. Ward Nelson
Sam Crawford
Carl Weimer
Barbara Brenner
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL — COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
1. RESOLUTION INITIATING THE 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENTS (AB2007 -090)
Docket #2007 -L: Bellingham UGA Study Area -- 2.200 Acres on Galbraith Mountain
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, submitted and read from a
presentation (on file). There have been requests for consideration of growing to the south.
This is a fundamental issue of future city form. A question today is whether the timing is
appropriate and whether this makes sense. The County is in the middle of its discussions
with the City of Bellingham. Key issues include the relationship to the existing urban growth
area (UGA) and what the City envisions for its UGA. For the County, it's also a resource
issue. A good question for the applicant is what they envision, given the unusual
geography. He continued to read the presentation on initiation factors. If docketed, he
would request additional staff from the Executive to accomplish such a large docket item by
the end of 2007. An alternative is to wait until 2012 when the County looks at this again.
Maud Ingram, Trillium, stated there are several common aspects to both this
application and the next application (Docket item 2007 -M). Both are grand in scale and
far - reaching in their implications. They have tried to put together thoughtful proposals.
Today's action will only initiate the dialog with the community, which is what Trillium is
eager to do. The process of discussion and review of these issues will be exhaustive. In
these cases, she's. provided enough information for the Council to decide whether the
proposals are valid to consider. It's premature to talk about their actual development
today, but the Council may not be able to make an informed decision without a better
understanding of Trillium's visions for both sites.
Both sites are mixed use in scope, not just residential. Parks, open space, trails,
natural resource preservation, and other similar things are critical elements of their plans.
Both of these sites include those elements. Both applications include a viable, long -term,
and diverse economy and employment base. Trillium proposes to cover the, staff costs
associated with reviewing either or both of these proposals. Both properties will include
higher education facilities, light industrial, and mixed use components. They wish to attract
Planning and Development Committee, 3113/2007, Page 1
1 corporate and knowledge -based industries in addition to recreational opportunities and
2 higher education jobs.
3
4 Regarding this docket item, one of the issues is the forest resources lands
5 designation. Their proposal stands on its own merits. The proposed lands represent one
6 percent of Whatcom County's non - federal forest resource lands. That's negligible. The
7 lands are mostly sub -prime for forestry use. The proposal is to create a study area, not to
8 include the property in the UGA or five -year review area.
9
10 In the future, they hope to create a mixed use area that will become another
11 Bellingham neighborhood that includes employment opportunities and be based in the
12 existing recreational character of the property as it is now. They have a healthy relationship
13 with the Whatcom Independent Mountain Pedalers. They are the land steward and allowed,
14 through an agreement with Trillium, to do a lot of trail building and maintenance to use the
15 property at their leisure. Trillium looks forward to working with this organization and others
16 in the community to work on a plan that would be appealing to the community in the long -
17 term.
18
19 She indicated the location of the site on a map. About half the proposed area would
20 be developed in some way, and the rest would be left for trails, open space, and parks.
21 Another 1,000 acres is inside the Lake Whatcom watershed and would remain undeveloped
22 forest resource lands. They will also be thoughtful about future transportation. There is
23 opportunity to do things that would get people out of cars. That's an advantage of working
24 with a site with such dramatic topography.
25
26 This is a good idea because it is an opportunity to work with the community, be more
27 deliberate, and be more proactive in their planning. Some folks may not be excited about
28 this prospect, but Trillium would like to have an informed, thoughtful, and thorough
29 discussion about the issues related to both of these properties. The community must
30 identify areas where people will live, work, and recreate. They must also think through
31 ideas related to the preservation of natural resource lands and other areas appropriate for
32 preservation and conservation.
33
34 Evaluating areas adjacent to the Bellingham UGA is a part of the County's
35 responsibility. She hopes the Council considers this an appropriate time. It will be a multi -
36 year process. Creating the study area alone will take the rest of the year. Smart planning
37 dictates the need to add physical infrastructure. It will be less expensive to develop in that
38 distance rather than other areas. The proposal will support the need for fire, police, and
39 other services at urban levels. The property is close to a under -used and fully developed
40 Interstate 5 interchange and the Samish Way arterial.
41
42 Nothing is developed on the property now. A new parks district is being discussed.
43 The boundaries include this property. If they are going to consider a parks district, this is a
44 good time to have concurrent conversations.
45
46 Fleetwood asked about land preservation. Ingram stated preservation is included in
47 the master plan for the entire site.
48
49 Weimer asked why it's important to convert the zone from forestry to rural, one unit
50 per ten acres (R10A) just to plan this project. Ingram stated those areas are sub - prime. If
51 rezoned, it gives Trillium a greater confidence that they can move forward with their plans.
52
53 Dennis )ones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated the Gate 13 Sudden Valley project was
54 about 70 acres. It was done in the dark. He commends Trillium for bringing this forward.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 2
1 The Vineyard Development is 700 acres. Much more than half of that will be preserved.
2 This project is 2,400 acres, which is 150 percent the size of Sudden Valley.
3
4 Lincoln Rudder, 8373 Semiahmoo Drive, stated this project includes wonderful things
5 like create jobs, higher education, space for light industry, and other wonderful things in a
6 forest area. However, Trillium owns 2,500 acres in Blaine. It's mostly zoned urban. He
7 would like to know how many plats Trillium has on the market in the Blaine area. He
8 questions why Trillium wants to do all this in the forest. Instead, the developer should be
9 building jobs, employment, transportation infrastructure, and a sense of community inside
10 the city limits. The urban core must be developed first. A city should be developed out in
11 concentric circles from the urban area. Don't convert forestland or industrial land when the
12 developer can do so much in the existing communities, where they already own significant
13 amounts of property.
14
15 McShane asked how strongly Mr. Rudder believes in the concentric circle idea. The
16 Council has a proposal for expansion of the urban growth area that is in a different
17 direction. Rudder stated densify existing urban areas. He is emphatically opposed to
18 expanding the urban growth areas. Throughout Whatcom County, the urban growth areas
19 are grotesquely large. Densify urban areas first. Only annex rural and forest lands
20 secondarily.
21
22 Tom Pratum, North Cascades Audubon Society, stated his Board unanimously
23 opposed this proposal last year and this year both. There are wildlife issues here. This is a
24 significant wildlife area near Bellingham. If developed in any way, it would significantly
25 affect the wildlife. There are very significant water quality issues. The proposal slightly
26 overlaps the Lake Whatcom watershed and significantly overlaps the Lake Samish
27 watershed. It would introduce roads between these areas, which will lead to some
28 development. Popular views and viewpoints in Whatcom County would be affected. It's not
29 appropriate to de- designate this area from forest. The application is poorly prepared. Over
30 500 acres are not owned by the applicant. If this looks bad to the Council, then don't
31 docket it. If docketed, many volunteers will have to go to many meetings to fight it. It's
32 not an appropriate Comprehensive Plan amendment.
33
34 Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, stated that if the zoning becomes residential, the
35 minimum zoning in the Comprehensive Plan is six units per acre, which totals 14,000 lots on
36 Galbraith Mountain. Any industry other than forestry is inappropriate at that location. Do
37 not docket at this time. Beginning to talk about it or put a title on it gives the applicant a
38 false sense of entitlement. It creates problems for the future. People in the five -year
39 review areas feel they are the next in line, when there is really no basis for that. He read
40 from the Comprehensive Plan Appendix C, the value statements on page 20 -C.
41
42 Gwen Hunter, 2540 Applejack Lane, submitted maps of the area (on file). When
43 Cordata was first proposed, there were going to be horse trails and parks. The developer
44 didn't do it. She doesn't trust this company. They need the forest resources. Protect the
45 industry.
46
47 3oan Casey, Toledo Street, Bellingham, stated the community has already spoken on
48 this subject many times. The City of Bellingham and County have conservation easement
49 and greenways acquisitions nearby. Watershed protection is a big issue. The community
50 stopped the Whatcom County connector. This area is a fabulous backdrop to the
51 community that provides much recreation. This is not an appropriate thing. It would be
52 better to put that effort and energy into areas that are already designated.
53
Planning and Development Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 3
1 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated don't add this area. They have
2 not dealt with the current UGA's effectively. Don't use high value timberlands for growth
3 instead of low value agricultural lands at their northern border. Those trees may provide
4 more benefit than agricultural land, given the concerns with global land. Rezone Cherry
5 Point and Point Whitehorn back to agriculture. That's what's going on in that area now. Do
6 not jeopardize any heavy industries by moving residential properties closer to them.
7
8 Cindy Anderson, 347 Van Wyk Road, stated the City of Bellingham, in its northern
9 realm, is cut off from its immediate concentric circle by the freeway. It is considered no
10 different than a geographic river. They do have a concentrated concentric area that is
11 beginning to look more like a donut. North of the freeway is an extreme residential area.
12 To the west is a regional commercial center. To the west is an industrial area. Review
13 whether concentric means that something is completely filled and efficient. When
14 expanding, consider the location of the closest medical care, community support services,
15 and grocery stores. That's how to decide which areas may or may not be needed for
16 expansion.
17
18 Peter Adams, citizen, stated he lives by Galbraith Mountain and does not want them
19 to tear down any more trees.
20
21 Virginia Watson, 2729 Jensen Road, stated she agrees with the previous speakers.
22 It's not time to do anything with this property. Do not reduce any more of their resource
23 lands. Trillium should develop their downtown property for infill instead. According to the
24 Comprehensive Plan, this cannot go forward.
25
26 McShane moved to recommend approval to the full Council to get the discussion
27 going.
28
29 Caskey - Schreiber stated she is against docketing. She is opposed to converting
30 natural resource land to R10A or rural, one unit per five acres (RSA). They are trying to get
31 rid of that kind of zoning. Don't add more.
32
33 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
34
35 Caskey - Schreiber continued to state that if Trillium really wants to proceed, they
36 need to work with the City and figure out what the City needs. This conversion isn't
37 appealing.
38
39 Brenner stated there is no better place on earth than Galbraith Mountain for prime
40 forestry because of a unique combination of temperature, humidity, and soil. It's a very
41 prime resource. Don't put housing any closer to heavy industry.
42
43 Nelson stated the lands available for development now are resource lands. They are
44 less costly to develop. The Council will see more of these proposals. The Council must
45 protect the assets of the community for future generations. He will always protect forest
46 lands. Once they're gone, it's hard to get them back.
47
48 Crawford stated Trillium acquired this land as forestry land. Keep it that way. That's
49 what it's good for. Bellingham's future land expansion moves northward. It's flatter and
50 more serviceable. Southeastern expansion of Bellingham, on these steep slopes, is not
51 practical.
52
53 Motion failed unanimously.
54
Planning and Development Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 4
1 Docket #2007 -M: The following amendments are proposed for the Cherry Point area:
2 Cherry Point Major /Port Industrial UGA-to Birch Bay UGA - 1,034 Acres: Heavy Impact
3 Industrial to UR4 - 857 Acres; and Heavy Impact Industrial to Light Impact Industrial -
4 177 Acres
5
6 (Clerk's Notes, See Docket Item 2007 -L) for additional applicant and public
7 comments on this item.)
8
9 Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted and read
10 from his staff report (on file).
11
12 McShane referenced policy 2BB -8, preserving the County government tax base.
13 Properties within a city limit still pay County taxes, but not into the road fund. Aamot
14 stated he's not an expert on how the taxes are structured.
15
16 Mauri Ingram, Trillium, stated Trillium believes fully in infill and urban
17 redevelopment. However, they can't pick just one strategy. This is a rapidly changing area.
18 They are trying to look long -term, beyond a ten -year time frame.
19
20 The Alder Reach property is far better - suited to mixed use development, including
21 light industrial. Only a portion of the property should be light industrial. In the Blaine and
22 Birch Bay area, the employment centers are more limited than in other cities. Trillium's
23 goal was to figure out how to balance that out more. That will result in fewer impacts to the
24 transportation system. People will not have to commute to Ferndale or Lynden to work.
25 Every study indicates that they are unlikely to see any new heavy industrial user in that
26 area. With this rezone, there will still be land available for another heavy industrial user.
27 Most job growth is in non -heavy industrial sectors, with smaller companies of less than 500
28 employees.
29
30 They are encouraging residential use close to the existing UGA. If the site were
31 developed according to current zoning, the existing buffer would be eliminated.
32
33 The County funded the feasibility study for Birch Bay's incorporation. This is a good
34 time to discuss their proposed conversion. Hopefully the study will yield a recommendation
35 for ultimate urban growth area boundaries for Birch Bay. This site should be included in
36 that recommendation.
37
38 These are dynamic situations. As a result, the community will always visit these
39 issues, even though it has, in the past, weighed in. They live in a changing community.
40
41 The location of the current pier is about where that prime pier area ends to the north
42 and west. The waterfront at this property's bluff of is not well suited for a pier. It would
43 require significant cuts into the feeder bluffs. A half -mile or longer pier would have to be
44 constructed over environmentally - sensitive, submerged lands or significant dredging would
45 be required. It's unlikely that the State Department of Ecology will approve that.
46
47 This proposal would diversify the local economy and act as a transition between
48 heavy industrial and other uses. The project provides for higher education and continuing
49 education.
50
51 Because these areas are undeveloped, and despite the fact that they are privately
52 owned, the public gets a false sense of entitlement that these areas will stay open as a
53 public park in perpetuity. That's not likely. Their goal is to set aside as much parks, open
54 space, and trails as appropriate, commensurate with the other elements of development
Planning and Development Committee, 3113/2007, Page 5
1 that are appropriate. A substantial portion of this area would remain as such. She
2 estimates that about half the site would remain in either parks, open space, and trails or as
3 part of a campus.
4
5 Alan Friedlob, 6934 Holeman Avenue, Birch Bay, stated this proposal contravenes a
6 number of County policies, including land use compatibility, contribution to sprawl, and
7 review of the UGA some time between 2011 and 2014. Do not docket this application. He
8 would have liked to see a more complete vision of what Cherry Point could look like, as well
9 as committed funding for that vision. If that were to occur, he'd be open to the dialog.
10 That's not what was presented.
11
12 McShane asked if Mr. Friedlob would be open to this moving forward during the
13 regular review period between 2011 and 2014, if there were a better vision. Friedlob stated
14 he is open to the purpose of which the applicant came, which is beginning the first step of
15 the dialog. Granting the opportunity for that dialog now will give the owner a sense of
16 entitlement and support. He doesn't want the dialog now.
17
18 McShane asked if Mr. Friedlob would approve of industrial development in the
19 northwest corner of this area. Friedlob stated he would rather face the situation of
20 industrial development over the human footprint of 12,000 people on the shoreline.
21
22 Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated rural residential, industrial, and buffer
23 zones with clusters is a possibility for the future. On this particular project, he would have
24 been happier if there were a charette. Whatcom County needs jobs.
25
26 Lincoln Rudder, 8373 Semiahmoo Drive, stated sub -prime mortgages in this country
27 are out of control. Many of the largest mortgage companies in the country have declared
28 bankruptcy because a very high percentage of the mortgages issued recently are sub - prime.
29 The foreclosure rate is at unprecedented levels. As a result, there are catastrophic declines
30 in real estate values. The Council would do Trillium a favor if it doesn't docket this item.
31 Whatcorn County has over 28 percent of its jobs in the residential housing sector. It's a
32 speculative investment. Don't take on that investment in an area where there is no
33 infrastructure. Whatcom County needs economic diversification, not more real estate
34 speculation. Taxes keep going up to pay for the infrastructure that developers are not
35 paying for. The County should work with the Bellingham City Council to figure out how to
36 allocate and steer residential development into New Whatcom, as opposed to taking on new
37 infrastructure responsibilities in the shadow of an oil refinery.
38
39 Tom Pratum, North Cascades Audubon Society, stated his Board voted unanimously
40 to oppose this proposal. The area is significant for migratory and wintering birds. He
41 agrees that this should have been visited as part of the Birch Bay community plan. Trillium
42 is proposing a new UGA near a sensitive shoreline. That doesn't make a lot of sense. They
43 are not completely opposed to changing the land use designation here. They are opposed
44 to making it a UGA.
45
46 McShane stated the area is a UGA currently. Pratum stated it is an industrial UGA.
47-
48 McShane asked if Mr. Pratum is saying he could visualize some sort of change in the
49 future. If completely built out as an industrial park, it might not be good for birds. He
50 asked if they would be receptive to some sort of change in the future if there was a better
51 vision. Pratum stated he couldn't speak for Audubon, but he would be open to it. Don't
52 make it a residential UGA.
53
Planning and Development Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 6
1 Jeff Pitzer, British Petroleum (BP) Plant Manager and Business Unit Leader, stated
2 the amount of growth in Whatcom County is striking. These are large issues. BP is also
3 known as Arco. He gave a history and description of their operations. BP contributes
4 significantly to Whatcom County's economic viability. It provides a payroll of over $50
5 million each year. They pay local and County taxes in excess of $35 million each year.
6 They invest over $150 million annually into Whatcom County. The industrial tax base from
7 Cherry Point is important to Whatcom County's quality of life. It helps finance things like
8 parks, trails, schools, and social activities.
9
10 This proposal would put a large residential community right up against their fence
11 line. Residential and industrial uses are incompatible. The reason for zoning laws in the
12 first place was to separate these sorts of activities. Whatcom County demonstrated great
13 foresight by separating those activities. They are successful in large part because they have
14 sound, predictable, and stable zoning laws for the refinery. They have been able to invest
15 significantly in the refinery. They continue to have plans to invest significantly into the
16 future at Cherry Point. Trillium's proposal would affect all their businesses, and could put
17 those thousands of jobs at risk. The County's existing long -term planning policies have
18 encouraged industrial businesses to locate and invest in their operations because they are
19 away from residential areas. Don't reverse course now. It would be bad planning. It is an
20 important issue for BP to resist.
21
22 McShane stated BP /Arco is very concerned about buffering. It owns a significant
23 piece of land to the north. The County benefits from that land also. He asked the size of
24 buffer they would like for their specific industry. There has been an exercise to deal with
25 worst case scenarios. Pitzer stated that their risk management plan has that emergency
26 information readily available. That is clearly part of their consideration. Now, they have
27 industrial neighbors who understand their issues when they permit and construct new
28 activities at the site.
29
30 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
31
32 McShane asked if there are concerns about light impact industrial going in, where a
33 lot of people may be working 24 hours per day. He asked if there is a difference with
34 people working in an industrial park and their safety plans to respond to an accident. Pitzer
35 stated it depends on the nature of the light industrial park. The issue before them today is
36 whether or not it's appropriate to rezone at all in an area that has been long classified as an
37 industrial growth area. The representative from Trillium stated that they should look further
38 down the road than two or three years. That is true for the industrial area. There aren't
39 many places in the county to build heavy industry. It's difficult to imagine what those
40 future uses might be. Technology is changing.
41
42 McShane stated he believes this area was originally zoned as heavy industrial was
43 because of the deep water pier. There is an opportunity to build one more deep water pier.
44 It's unlikely that another pier would be adjacent to this area. He asked how the area would
45 be used. Pitzer stated the gateway terminal is the one more likely to go. There are a
46 number of other ways to access a heavy industrial property, including rail. Deep water
47 access doesn't have to be related to a heavy industrial use.
48
49 McShane asked if they ought to think about development standards for the re-
50 designation of high impact industrial within this area so they don't inadvertently allow
51 dangerous heavy industrial uses immediately abutting existing residential housing. Pitzer
52 stated they should definitely think about the nature of the heavy industrial use that goes
53 into that location.
54
Planning and Development Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 7
I Weimer asked if they have any plans to greatly increase their refining capacity or an
2 interest in this property. Pitzer stated they do not.
3
4 Bill Kidd, British Petroleum (BP) Director of External Affairs, stated he's worked at
5 Cherry Point for 26 years. The history of the use of Cherry Point has been clear and
6 consistent. It is a highly valued portion of the county. They have reaffirmed that policy
7 several times over their history. There is continued growth in job creation and taxes paid to
8 the County and State from these facilities. The refining industry has a job growth multiplier
9 of 11 or 12. Boeing's multiplier is three. For every full -time BP job and its contractors,
10 many other family -wage jobs are created. The Council has received a lot of correspondence
11 from citizens and businesses in the county about this item. Many different perspectives all
12 agree on the value of this industrial base.
13
14 Brenner asked what they consider as an average family -wage job salary. Kidd
15 stated it is about $80,000 per year. The payroll of just the BP employees is about $50
16 million per year. Even more goes to contractors.
17
18 Gary Russell, Fire District #7 Chief, stated his district has jurisdiction for the
19 coverage of this property. His Board has discussed this, and has decided to wait and see
20 what will be proposed. The re- designation of this property from industrial to residential will
21 create a real impact to the fire district. A question is how to achieve the level of protection
22 of a suburban or urban level. They don't receive impact fees, and the staff are very
23 concerned. One concern is about evacuation. The only evacuation route is along Birch Bay
24 Drive. They are not opposed to residential or industrial development either way. The fire
25 district will cover whatever is developed. The concern is how to achieve that coverage long -
26 term. The taxes from residences would not cover the cost of a station in that area.
27
28 Bob Tull, attorney, stated he represents Gateway Pacific Terminal. The history of
29 taxation has to do with sales tax. When in the unincorporated area of the county, the
30 County gets 75 percent of the local penny. When in the city, the City gets that 75 percent.
31 That is enormously important to the operation of County government.
32
33 Caskey- Schreiber moved to approve the application, but is against the motion.
34 The Northwest Clean Air Agency has concerns about locating residences right next to the
35 refinery operations because of BP's toxic air pollutants. She read from a letter regarding
36 toxins released into the air. Don't put residential housing next to heavy industry. She
37 hopes the Council doesn't see this application again, and that Trillium comes up with a
38 better use for the property.
39
40 Crawford stated this is an unusual application. It's very out of character with the
41 area. Do not docket this item. There are other options for this land, such as economic
42 development.
43
44 Weimer stated he urges the Committee to not docket this application. People living
45 near refineries have health - related problems. There are hazards with refineries. He agrees
46 with rezoning this to agriculture if Mr. Wiesen proposes it.
47
48 Brenner stated she hopes Trillium will not bring something like this forward again.
49 Besides Trillium, everyone who commented on this, no matter what their interests are, was
50 against this application, Even when people can't agree on much, everyone agrees on this.
51
52 McShane stated he doesn't agree with all the County policies in the Comprehensive
53 Plan regarding the Cherry Point area. Some of the policies are dated, and don't reflect the
54 reality. At some point in the future, make specific changes to better reflect what could go
Planning and Development Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 8
I on out there. He's not sure he agrees with the idea that this area shouldn't be part of the
2 Birch Bay urban growth area, and potentially incorporated. It is a huge source of revenue
3 for the County, but Birch Bay is also a huge source of expense to the County. He's partially
4 swayed about the concerns for impacts to BP. People may be open to a different use for
5 this land in the future. At this point, there isn't a good vision of the applicant's direction.
6 Without that clarity and without clarity on what BP, the residents, and environmentalists
7 need, he is opposed to docketing. However, that does not mean he agrees with the
8 Comprehensive Plan on Cherry Point. BP has been a good industrial partner with the
9 County, and he doesn't want to jeopardize that. The vision of this proposal is too unclear at
10 this point.
11
12 Fleetwood stated he is opposed to this application. It's true they live in a dynamic
13 and changing county, and they can't deny growth. It's a question of when and where. The
14 recently completed Birch Bay Subarea Plan is the place for this issue.
15
16 Motion failed unanimously.
17
18
19 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
20
21 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING BELLINGHAM'S' URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA PLAN
22 (AB2006 -309)
23
24 Fleetwood stated this item will be held in committee for two weeks. He may
25 schedule a special meeting on this item on April 3.
26
27
28 OTHER BUSINESS
29
30 McShane stated that, as a consultant, he looked at a property yesterday where
31 creeks have been diverted onto private property as part of forest practices. The diversion
32 have caused mudflows. The diversion is allowed under current forest practice rules. His
33 client now has a creek on his property where there was never one before. The flow rate is
34 about 80 gallons per second. This client is distressed.
35
36
37 ADJOURN
38
39 meetin adjourned at 5:25 p.m.
4
41
42
43 Sill Nixon, l�ijiftspT nscripti n
44 011
446 ATT490` s�K�1�C�'•. �'��
• Q�c COI1N'il'TY
48 '
49
50 TA
51 r
52 Dana ro • GbUnq�-Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
th Fleet d, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 9