HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil November 21 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
November 21, 2006
Council Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Dan McShane
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Carl Weimer
L. Ward Nelson
FLAG SALUTE
Cub Scout Pack 44, the Wolf Den, led the Flag Salute.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Caskey - Schreiber announced that there was consideration of an appeal of the
Hearing Examiner's decision on APL06 -0022, filed by Royce Buckingham on behalf
of Whatcom County Planning and Development Services, regarding an
administrative decision about whether a lot is a legal lot of record (AB2006 -366)
in executive session during the Committee of the Whole meeting.
Crawford moved to reverse the Hearing Examiner decision on the basis that the
Hearing Examiner made an error of law and the decision is clearly erroneous.
Motion carried 4 -3 with Nelson, Brenner, and Fleetwood opposed.
Caskey - Schreiber announced that there was also a Department of Transportation
presentation on the I -5 Master Plan, Fairhaven to Ferndale (AB2006 -436) during
the Committee of the Whole meeting.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION REGARDING THE UPCOMING IMPROVEMENTS TO SR 539
(GUIDE MERIDIAN) FROM HORTON ROAD TO TEN MILE ROAD (AB2006 -437)
Todd Harrison, State Department of Transportation Assistant Regional Administrator,
stated they start construction this spring on the first stage of the Guide Meridian widening.
There will be two phases to widening the Guide Meridian Road. The first stage will be from
Horton Road to Ten Mile Road. That construction starts this spring. His presentation will
focus on the first phase. The second stage is from Ten Mile Road to Lynden. Construction
on the second phase will begin in the Spring of 2008. A key goal for the project is
minimizing impacts to the traveling public. During construction, they will maintain one lane
Whatcom County Council, 11/21/2006, Page 1
1 open in each direction. Another goal is to provide a safe work zone for the traveling public
2 and the construction workers. They are considering lowering the legal speed limit during
3 construction. There is business and residential access throughout the corridor, which has to
4 be maintained during construction. The last goal is to stay on time and on budget. They
5 must balance impacts to local business, residents, and travelers to get the construction
6 done timely and at the cost of the budget.
7
8 Chris Damitio, State Department of Transportation Project Engineer, stated that in
9 the first phase, they will widen 4.5 miles of the Guide Meridian Road to four travel lanes and
10 a two -way left turn lane. There will be relocation of utilities and replacement of drainage
11 throughout project. They will reconstruct two bridges at Ten Mile and Four Mile Creeks.
12 They will install five box culverts, including a 30 -foot deep culvert at Deer Creek.
13
14 Once the utilities are moved, the contractor will work on one side at a time. The
15 contractor will widen to the east. At that point, they will move traffic to the newly
16 constructed section, including the new two -way left turn lane to help with business and
17 home access, and the contractor will begin work on the west side of the road. Once the
18 west side is constructed, they will finish up a middle section, and be able to open up the
19 highway. They expect the project to take 400 contract days, or about two years.
20
21 Marco Foster, State Department of Transportation, stated some road closures will be
22 necessary at night during utility and drainage work. To minimize the nighttime closures,
23 they have developed alternate traffic routes. They will close the road from 9 p.m. or 10
24 p.m. to 7 a.m. on weekdays. Monetary damages are assessed to the contractor if he does
25 not get the road open in time.
26
27 Harrison stated public outreach will include a pre - construction open house, direct
28 contact, list- serve, fliers, postcards, press releases, web updates, variable electronic
29 message signs, and traffic advisory radio. They will advertise for bids in December of 2006,
30 begin utility work in January or February 2007, begin roadway construction in the Spring of
31 2007 and end roadway construction in the late Summer or Fall of 2008.
32
33 Crawford asked the timeline of phase two, from Ten Mile Road to Lynden. Harrison
34 stated there will be a slight overlap. Construction on phase two should start in the late
35 Spring of 2008. They will be almost done with phase one when they begin phase two.
36
37 Crawford asked if the cable barrier and roundabouts are in the second phase, from
38 Ten Mile Road to Lynden. Harrison stated that's correct. The first roundabout will be at the
39 Ten Mile Road intersection. The first phase will stop short of that roundabout. There will be
40 roundabouts at Ten Mile Road, Wiser Lake Road, Pole Road, and River Road. Because of the
41 increase in property values, they've had to scale back the project to stay within budget.
42 However, there will ultimately be a roundabout at Badger Road also.
43
44 Caskey- Schreiber asked the speed limit in the roundabouts. Harrison stated the
45 roundabouts don't have a speed limit. They are designed to slow people down. The speeds
46 in the roundabout are 15 to 20 miles per hour.
47
48 Caskey- Schreiber stated that people will be going 50 miles per hour, and then hit the
49 roundabout. She is concerned about what will happen.
50
51 Nelson stated they are going to work through two summers. He asked if they've
52 made contingency plans for fair week. Damitio stated there are certain dates listed in the
53 contract, including fair week, when they don't allow the contractor to have any traffic
Whatcom County Council, 11/21/2006, Page 2
impacts during those dates. Other dates include the Canadian and American holidays and
other community events.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if detours will be marked during construction. Damitio
stated they have worked with County staff to determine the detour routes. Signs will alert
motorists to the detour routes.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there won't be construction during the winter months.
Damitio stated the goal is to let the detour route available to the contractor for a specified
number of days.
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Nancy Ging, 8426 Tuttle Road, Lummi Island stated she supports the Weimer version
of the Lummi Island ferry rates. She read a statement for Diana Pepper, who couldn't be at
this meeting, regarding Councilmember Crawford's comments in the newspaper regarding
low income ferry rates being social engineering.
Johnnie Grames, Bellingham, stated highways beget cars and congestion. Consider
what this Council's legacy is going to be and what you're going to be proud of from being on
the Council. There is no law library access to the public. There is a cost of transporting and
housing prisoners in Snohomish County.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Bellingham, he asked why they haven't located
mineral resource lands and zoned them, as they have for forest and agricultural lands.
They are over - regulating some of these areas, especially agricultural lands. They need to
think carefully about how they go about improving agricultural resources. The amount of
red tape is too deep.
Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated he thanks the Planning Department and
Amy Pederson for quickly providing requested information. He has a problem with the Lake
Whatcom Cooperative Management Group from the Public Works Department. He can't get
any communication from them. Also, he would like to download specific ordinances that
come up on the agenda. Look up the John Spratt amendment from 2004.
Jack Petree, 2955 Sunset Drive, Bellingham, submitted a handout (on file). The
Blaine and Lynden school districts are growing much faster than the Bellingham school
district because of sprawl out in the county, due to a constricted land supply in Bellingham.
There is also a drastically limited supply of housing types in Bellingham. There was no
analysis in the Planning Commission's decision regarding safety factors. It's a very
important issue. If Bellingham cannot supply the kind of housing that people want, people
will go live out in the county.
Bob Brando, 2153 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, stated he is in favor of the Weimer
version of the Lummi Island ferry rates. it is fair, balanced, realistic, and equitable.
Larry Helm, 2660 E. 41St Terrace, stated he recently started riding a bicycle. They
need more bike paths. The reconstruction of the Guide Meridian doesn't include a bike
path. It is a lot easier to put them in when the road is being built rather than later.
Whatcvm County Council, 11/21/2006, Page 3
1
2 PUBLIC HEARINGS
3
4 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH CODE WCC 24.05, ON
5 SITE SEWAGE REGULATIONS (AB2006 -354) (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE
6 HEALTH BOARD)
7
8 Caskey - Schreiber opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
9
10 Peter Roberts, Whatcom County Association of Realtors President, submitted and
11 read a handout (on file). He requests that Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 246-
12 272A -0270 be adopted as Whatcom County Code (WCC) 24.05.160(11) "At the time of
13 property transfer, provide the buyer maintenance records, if available, in addition to the
14 completed sellers disclosure statement in accordance with chapter 64.06 for residential real
15 property transfers." In practice, an agent recommends that the septic system be inspected.
16 Most agents go to the Health Department to request the information about what's in the
17 ground. Occasionally, there are no records, especially for an older septic system. A large
18 portion of records aren't there. This problem creates a lot of confusion when someone buys
19 property. The State law will require onsite septic system (OSS) owners to maintain their
20 systems at least every three years. All agents will be aware of this requirement. It is a red
21 flag when no report exists. The modification that Councilmember Weimer proposes is
22 unnecessary and will cause havoc for many property owners during the transaction. Adopt
23 the WAC instead of Councilmember Weimer's change. It will adequately protect the public
24 and prevent lawsuits.
25
26 Dana quam, Whatcom County Association of Realtors, stated she agrees with the
27 previous speaker's comments. Adopt the WAC language for WCC 24.05.160(11), The State
28 legislature protects people through the seller's disclosure form and the Seller's Disclosure
29 Act. The only paperwork associated with that will be a part of the real estate transaction
30 that the industry can deal with. The Council will put a burden on a seller to give something
31 to a buyer that has no influence on anything they do, and they don't have the power to be
32 involved in that transaction. They aren't going through the State legislature to have it put
33 out at a level where the authority is granted to affect her members, through their licensing.
34 Don't involve the realtors.
35
36 The State law change will require that septic system owners have their systems
37 checked routinely, which will be a financial burden. This change will provide additional
38 protection, but it is a burden. She is concerned that the Council is tying the burden to the
39 property transaction. The resources aren't in place to implement this by the April 2007
40 deadline. Therefore, the Council will negatively impact all the people they are trying to
41 protect. The Health Department and the necessary resources aren't available to make a
42 timely, smooth transition. If they adopt the WAC, the Council will get what it wants.
43
44 Mark Brown, 2707 Gross Street, stated he sells real estate. There is much
45 paperwork involved with any real estate transaction.
46
47 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
48
49 Brown continued to state that he asks the Council to merely support the new State
50 law regarding the septic system instead of crafting new language that would impose
51 additional burdens on home sellers. The regulation will hurt the community more than
52 protect unwary buyers. They have no assurance that the Health Department will have the
53 capacity to handle the load it's imposing on the inspectors. Because this provision is
Whatcom County Council, 11/21/2006, Page 4
I created by Whatcom County, the buyer has no protection under the Seller's Disclosure Act.
2 Under State law, they can see the report of system status transferring as a maintenance
3 record. The Council should adopt the WAC rule for WCC 24.06.160.
4
5 Mark Huddleston, Huddleston DesignWorks, LLC, submitted a letter (on file). This is
6 basically a bookkeeping issue. He read his letter. WCC 24.05.100 should. be removed or
7 the purpose clarified. This thing is already protected by other provisions in the code, having
8 to do with well setbacks and such. If they are going to include the section, provide some
9 guidance on how to request the waiver it mentions, and on what basis such a waiver is
10 reviewed and granted. The section is an unnecessary encumbrance and should be taken
11 out. Also, amend certain definitions, as his letter explains.
12
13 Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated he has a rental house with a
14 septic system. He supports Councilmember Weimer's proposed amendment. The State
15 could do something, but he prefers local governance.
16
17 Hearing no one else, Caskey - Schreiber closed the public hearing.
18
19 McShane moved to adopt the ordinance.
20
21 John Wolpers, Health Department, stated staff looked at WCC 24.05.100(D)(6). It
22 was in this regulation, and carried over, for old existing plats. Some of the lots are very
23 small. It was almost like a first come, first served situation. The purpose was to protect a
24 second individual. The first individual would propose a drainfield. The 100 foot radius could
25 not encumber more than 25 percent of the other person's property and whether it would
26 render the site un- buildable. Some counties address it differently through well placement.
27
28 Caskey- Schreiber asked if the location of one drainfield would impact the neighbor's
29 drainfield. Wolpers stated they are not concerned with the drainfieids. They are concerned
30 about encroaching on the next door neighbor's property and well location. He doesn't know
31 if that section was written inappropriately, and should have specified the well. Either
32 eliminate the section or correct it appropriately.
33
34 Fleetwood asked if this section is an unnecessary encumbrance. Wolpers stated he
35 hasn't seen it in any other places. If it were eliminated, cover it another way to protect an
36 individual. If the section were deleted, do something to protect the second party.
37
38 McShane stated the applicant may request a waiver from the Health Officer. He
39 asked if it is a variance. Wolpers stated the existing language says it's a variance. The
40 word was changed by the Onsite Sewage Committee to "waiver process." With that, there
41 is a section in the proposed regulations that gives the Health Officer an opportunity to look
42 at the property, in WCC section 24.05.230. That section is how the staff would look at the
43 property.
44
45 McShane stated it appears there is an out in the language. The Health Officer would
46 look at this and see if the encumbrance is so severe that the adjoining property becomes
47 un- buildable. The Council could make it specific that it would be granted if it could be
48 demonstrated, but that's getting into the minutiae. The reason for the waiver process is
49 because they can't think of every single scenario.
50
51 Nelson asked if the reserve area and the septic field can't be within five feet of any
52 property line. Wolpers stated that's correct.
53
Whatcom County Council, 11/21/2006, Page 5
1 Nelson moved to delete WCC 24.05.100(D)(6). They already have wellhead
2 protection for private wells. He asked if the Health Officer only looks at anything within 75
3 feet of a well. Wolpers stated that is correct.
4
5 Nelson stated that someone on the next property can't put a well within 75 feet of
6 the septic field perimeter without Health Officer review. Wolpers stated that's correct. This
7 language was trying to protect old lots that were very narrow and long.
8
9 Nelson stated they don't have those anymore.
10
11 McShane stated the language only addresses those old lots. Wolpers stated it would
12 affect a narrow lot. They could effect that property being buildable.
13
14 Brenner stated the reverse could be said. The narrowness of one property could
15 effect whether the other property can be built on. Having to get a waiver is another
16 bureaucratic step. She supports the motion. It's going to be on someone, one way or the
17 other.
18
19 McShane stated the scenario is not likely to occur. There should be some thought to
20 protecting the ability of the second lot to be developed. It can be worked out through the
21 waiver process. Leave the language the way it is.
22
23 Weimer stated he is comfortable with the language the way it is. The first person's
24 septic will encumber where the second person puts the well. If they remove the language,
25 there is no incentive for the first person in to locate the septic so it doesn't encumber the
26 neighboring property.
27
28 Motion carried with 4 -3 with Weimer, Caskey - Schreiber, and McShane
29 opposed.
30
31 Brenner moved to amend WCC 24.05.090(I), "A permit shall expire iwe three years
32 from the date of issuance...." The State allows a permit for five years. Designers said it
33 would be difficult to do it in less than three years.
34
35 Motion carried 5 -2 with McShane and Caskey- Schreiber opposed.
36
37 Brenner moved to amend WCC 24.05.150(A)(2), "Enter inspeet the GSS before
38
39 . The
40 Health Officer shall inspect the OSS before cover:" The designers and installers are against
41 private final inspection. They will pit designers and installers against each other. Regina
42 Delahunt and John Wolpers said they'd make sure the Health Department does the final
43 inspection.
44
45 Regina Delahunt, Health Department Director, stated this language has always been
46 in the regulation. The department doesn't intend to change the way final inspections are
47 conducted. The Health Department still intends to do final inspections. There may be an
48 occasion when it would be in the interest of the homeowner to allow the designer to do the
49 inspection. In that case, the designer is allowed by State law, and always has been
50 allowed, to do the final inspection. That's the way it's always been. It's been rare when a
51 designer actually did the final inspection. She doesn't intend to change any practice and the
52 language is the same as it has always been.
53
Whatcom County Council, 11/21/2006, Page 6
Brenner stated they are uncomfortable taking on the liability for something they
didn't install. She asked why they can't make something more specific than the State.
Delahunt stated they can make something more restrictive than the State. This provides
more latitude. They don't plan to change it.
Motion failed 1 -6 with Brenner in favor.
Brenner referenced WCC 24.05.160(A)(11). She thought they decided this language
wouldn't preclude a sale from going through. That's the big fear. She asked where that
language is that would prevent a sale from stalling.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this does not delay a sale.
McShane stated there was language before, and they pulled back from it. Now, it's
left as a choice for the purchaser. If they don't get this information, the purchaser may still
go ahead with the purchase.
Brenner stated it looks like the sale is not complete without this. Delahunt stated
staff checked with legal counsel, who said this would not interfere with the transaction going
through. It won't delay the transaction.
Crawford moved to amend WCC 24.05.160(A)(11), "At the time of property
transfer, provide to the buyer
any available maintenance records, in addition to
the completed seller disclosure statement in accordance with...."
Brenner asked if the system will be ready, so the reports of system status will be on
file. Wolpers stated that is the staff's intent. They are getting things ready. They will be
ready by April 2.
Nelson asked if a report has to be on file when the property is put up for sale.
Wolpers stated it does.
Nelson stated it is up to the realtor to make sure the report is up to date and on file.
It's redundant to have the language in subsection (11). He asked the reason for the
redundancy.
Weimer stated subsection (12) says the report has to be on file. Subsection (11)
says the seller has to provide the report to the buyer. That's not the same thing.
Crawford stated that regardless of what that disclosure checklist says, his motion
reflects State law. Starting in July, the sellers have to provide maintenance records to the
buyer through disclosure.
Brenner stated they are going to spend a lot of taxpayer money making sure the
onsite systems are in good shape. It won't hold up the sale. It is a caution for the buyer if
the seller doesn't provide the information.
Motion to amend failed 3 -4 with Fleetwood, Crawford, and Nelson in favor.
Crawford moved to remove WCC 24.05.160(A)(12).
Motion failed 1 -6 with Crawford in favors
Whatcom County Council, 11/21/2006, Page 7
Brenner moved to add the definition of subsurface soil absorption system after the
definition soil type, "(SSAS) Subsurface soil absorption system means a soil dispersal...."
Motion carried 6 -I with Crawford opposed.
Frakes asked if these are significant changes so a public hearing is required before
adoption.
Caskey - Schreiber stated they aren't substantial changes. They are minor, and make
the regulation less burdensome.
Motion to adopt the ordinance carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING A MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION ON BRECKENRIDGE ROAD (AB2006 -422)
Caskey- Schreiber opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Brad Barton, Concrete Nor'West Vice - President and General Manager, stated they
have been supplying the building industry with sand, gravel, and ready -mix products for
more than 50 years. They have 13 permitted aggregate sites and employ 120 folks
companywide. They have three permitted sites in Whatcom County.
The State of Washington is consuming 15 tons per person of gravel each year, and
1.4 cubic yards of concrete each year. A recent study shows that Whatcom County's
demand was just short of two million tons of aggregate in 2001. Over 51 percent of the
materials are used in transportation projects. The aggregate industry is important to
Whatcom County's economy.
The State recognizes the importance of sand and gravel projects to future managed
growth through the Growth Management Act (GMA), which requires that counties designate
and protect sand and gravel resources. Mother Nature dictates the location of the gravel
deposits. The farther the sites are from the market, the more traffic is generated. Use the
close -in deposits first. The expansion area contains approximately three million tons of high
quality aggregates. Approve this request.
McShane asked if there is resource that goes below the groundwater at the current
mine. Barton stated there is-an identified deposit below the groundwater table within that
complex. They haven't fully analyzed it yet.
Dan Cox, Concrete Nor'West Environmental and Land Use Manager, stated approval
of this amendment will not result in any activity onsite and doesn't constitute a permit to
mine. Inclusion of an additional 24.9 acres into the mineral resource land (MRL)
designation will simply preserve the opportunity for this property to be eligible for mining
permits in the future. Public comments have raised concerns about dust, noise, traffic, and
safety. Surface mining in Washington State is highly regulated. No mining can occur onsite
until and unless these issues are addressed.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Cox continued to state that the City of Nooksack submitted an appeal of this
application, regarding the ]une 21, 2006 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) mitigated
Whatcom County Council, 11/21/2006, Page 8
determination of non - significance (MDNS) issued for this proposal. In that appeal, the City
requested that additional conditions be imposed by the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing
Examiner's decision pointed out the distinction between the Comprehensive Plan non -
project proposal and future permit approvals that would be required to mine. He read from
the Hearing Examiner's decision. Approval of a mineral resource land does not constitute
approval to mine. MRL designation only makes a property eligible for mining permits in the
future.
Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 313 Fourth Street, Lynden, stated she represents
Concrete Nor'West. They submitted information for the record. There was significant
discussion about the access to the site. The Planning Department staff have recommended
approval of the project, and included mitigating factors that would have to be addressed if
and when permits are requested for this site. She listed the mitigation measures. The
Council should leave the staff recommendation in its current verbiage. It will address what
needs to be addressed when and if permits are applied for.
There are three different access points. The access for the current permitted site will
continue to be used. The second access is proposed over the two -acre strip that runs to the
south. To accommodate the school's concerns, the applicant is willing to state that the
proposed access will not be used in the event that the current access point is not regulatory
prohibited from being used. The third access, the Sorenson Road access, is speculative.
The State will not allow them to use that access at this point. The protection of this
resource through the MRL designation should involve the level of scrutiny that would predict
which access the site should use. Instead, it should lay out the criteria for determining
access in the future, based on things in place at that time.
Weimer asked how long the applicant has owned the property. Starkenburg-
Kroontje stated the applicant has owned the property three or four years. This is the first
time this has come up for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, but it was proposed by the
previous landowner in the original Comprehensive Plan process. However, the school was
considering purchasing the property at that time, so the proposal was withdrawn. The area
was placed in the interim MRL during that time.
Brenner asked who would regulatory prohibit them from using the current access.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated that the Whatcom County development standards have
changed. When this site first went in, and access was established, the access was sufficient
and allowed. Since then, the site distance criteria have changed. Through a new permit
application, there would have to be improvements to meet the site distance requirements.
They can't predict what additional criteria may be adopted as development standards
change at the local level, which may preclude the use of this access. The applicant has
been working on a design to improve the current access to make it as safe as possible.
Rollin Harper, Sehome Planning and City of Nooksack Planning Manager, stated that
even though approval of the MRL isn't approval to mine the property, it sets the stage for a
mining permit in the future. There is proximity to the City of Nooksack urban growth area;
existing residentially developed areas to the south, west, and east; and Nooksack
Elementary School. The City of Nooksack is not opposed to gravel extraction, but consider
it's letter expressing concerns about public safety and impacts to City streets. Do not
approve the MRL unless access is on Sorenson Road.
If the Council approves the MRL, the City of Nooksack supports all the staff's
recommended conditions. In addition, add conditions that allow for mitigation of the
Whatcom County Council, 11/21/2006, Page 9
impacts to the City's streets, which have been significant since the increased amount of
extraction the last three years.
Crawford stated Concrete Nor'west hired Transportation Solutions to do a report,
which is dated September 28. The report said that the road doesn't have any significant
problems that could be attributed to heavy trucks. Also, the Breckenridge Creek bridge
doesn't have any weight restrictions. Harper stated the road is beginning to crack and
develop ruts on the north side of the road, leading from the mine. The road deterioration
began when extraction significantly increased.
McShane stated the Council has conditioned MRL's before, based on access to the
rail MI M
Leslie Hamilton, 3443 Breckenridge Road, Everson, submitted a letter (on file). Do
not approve the MRL due to safety issues. The area is too close to Nooksack Valley
Elementary School. She read from her letter. She is concerned about the ingress and
egress on Breckenridge Road. Don't increase industrial truck traffic in the area of an
elementary school.
Don Kenny, 3551 Sorenson Road, stated he owns The Cedars, an adult family home
with residents from 82 to 86 years old. Enough land is already designated as MRL. The
proposed 24 acres borders residential property. This area is a plateau that is 50 to 80 feet
higher than the city of Nooksack. It's a good dry area. The existing gravel pit has very
steep cliffs close to residential property. The cliffs are about 70 -feet high with a 70 percent
slope. The existing pit borders the Sumas River. There is a concern about runoff. The
Planning Commission did not make a recommendation because they could not get enough
information from Concrete Nor'west about the proposal. Sorenson Road can't support two
trucks going each way. It's basically a gravel road.
Hearing no one else, Caskey- Schreiber closed the public hearing.
McShane reported for the Natural Resources Committee and moved to refer to
committee for more discussion.
The Council concurred.
3. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CURRENT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT FUNDING MECHANISM AND LEVELS FOR THE
SOMAS /NOOKSACK /EVERSON SUBZONE (AS2006 -423) (COUNCIL ACTING
AS THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS)
Caskey - Schreiber opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
hearing.
Brenner moved to approve the resolution.
Weimer asked if the Council received any information from the subzone advisory
committees requesting more money.
McShane stated he hasn't received anything. The economic status of the flood
subzones vary. The recent district for Lake Samish is set up so it can pay 1q0 percent of its
costs. Other districts rely on countywide flood district funding for projects. They won't see
pressure from the districts unless the funding structure changes.
Whatcom County Council, 11/21/2006, Page 10
1
2 Brenner stated this just extends the existing funding mechanism within the flood
3 subzone. People probably don't want to raise their rates.
4
5 Motion carried unanimously.
6
7 4. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CURRENT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD
8 CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT FUNDING MECHANISM AND LEVELS FOR THE
9 ACME /VAN ZANDT SUBZONE (AB2006 -424) (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE
10 FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS)
11
12 Caskey- Schreiber opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
13 hearing.
14
15 Brenner moved to approve the resolution.
16
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19 S. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CURRENT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD
20 CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT FUNDING MECHANISM AND LEVELS FOR THE
21 LYNDEN /EVERSON SUBZONE (AB2006 -425) (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE
22 FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS)
23
24 Caskey - Schreiber opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
25 hearing.
26
27 Brenner moved to approve the resolution.
28
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30
31 6. ORDINANCE REMOVING THE LOT CLUSTERING PROVISION, ON AN INTERIM
32 BASIS, FROM WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.42, RURAL FORESTRY DISTRICT
33 (AB2006 -393A)
34
35 Caskey- Schreiber opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
36
37 Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated the rural forestry zone is a relatively
38 small, but important, area in the Lake Whatcom watershed. Continue this ordinance.
39
40 Gwen Hunter, Squalicum Valley Community Association Acting Secretary, stated she
41 supports the ordinance. Protect natural resource lands. Scrutinize current practices with a
42 vision that sees beyond financial gain. The logging industry has wisely changed its
43 harvesting practices. Trees reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Protect rural
44 forest lands from cluster development is consistent with the goal of reducing Whatcom
45 County's greenhouse gas emissions. The Squalicum Valley Community Association
46 submitted documents that show cluster developments on resource lands in other counties
47 have permanently degraded the ability of those resources to purify air and water.
48
49 Bill Sygitowicz, citizen, thanked the Council for considering the removal of clustering
50 in rural forestry zones. Breaking it in to 20 -acre pieces is not a good option. However, if
51 they don't have a timely resolution to this decision, that's the only option left to the
52 landowner. Seek a final resolution during the interim.
53
Whatcom County Council, 11/21/2006, Page 11
Virginia Ambrosio, 2729 Jensen Road, Bellingham, stated she supports the
ordinance. Permanently remove clustering from the rural forestry zones.
Hearing no one else, Caskey - Schreiber closed the public hearing.
Nelson moved to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner stated she supports the ordinance. She asked how long the moratorium will
be in effect.
Nelson stated the moratorium goes to the Planning Commission. He has concerns
about the rural forestry zone in Title 20. There are many uses allowed in the rural forestry
zone that don't have to do with rural forestry. His intent is to protect rural forestlands. He
is not opposed to clustering. Evaluate if it's appropriate in rural areas or if it's better suited
for urban growth areas and long -term planning areas. Evaluate if it's appropriate in the
watershed. Make sure they're doing the right thing. Twenty -acre lots aren't the best
option, but the forest zone does require a forest plan.
McShane stated he is in favor of the ordinance. He has a concern about it not
allowing any clusters at all. Have a discussion about the positive and negative aspects of
clustering, which was an effort to protect resource lands and forestry lands and to more
efficiently develop urban growth areas. There is a juxtaposition about rural character.
There is a question about whether it is truly successful for protecting forestry. The Planning
staff needs to get a better sense of the Council's concerns so it can bring something
appropriate to the Planning Commission.
Fleetwood stated they keep hearing that removing the cluster requirement is
consistent with resource protection. Under either one, there is the exact same amount of
development and conversion. He asked the scientific evidence for the proposition that not
having clustering is more consistent with resource protection.
Nelson stated that resource protection could be just a park, under the current code.
Clustering in the rural forestry doesn't require a forestry plan for the reserve tract, which
could be a park instead of forest land.
Fleetwood stated this isn't the device that protects Squalicum Valley from the
development on Squalicum Mountain. There is already a subdivision moratorium in place
that protects them from that. In there rural forestry zone, there have been practically no
cluster applications in the last ten years, according to the Planning Director. A horrid
example of 20 -acre development is the south end of Chuckanut Mountain along Interstate
5.
Caskey - Schreiber stated they need more information to know which is better.
Brenner stated this ordinance is not for or against clustering. However, a cluster of
people in a gated community in a forestry zone is not going to like the sound of chainsaws.
(Clerk's Note. End of tape two, side A.)
Brenner continued to state that there isn't a tendency for complaints when the
houses are far apart. Also, forestry wasn't the issue when they developed clustering. Now,
people are looking to forestry areas as another place to develop.
Whatcom County Council, 11/21/2006, Page 12
Nelson stated clustering may be the best option, but they haven't looked at all of the
facts that go along with it. They need to mace sure they address all the issues. This isn't
about one project.
Fleetwood stated that Councilmember Brenner's comments were about the human
impacts, which are worthy of consideration. However, that's not the reason this interim
ordinance came forward, which is for resource protection.
Nelson stated those two issues are related.
Motion to adopt carried 5 -2 with Fleetwood and Crawford opposed.
CONSENT AGENDA
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through seven.
Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through seven carried
unanimously.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #06 -117 TO
LOW BIDDER, DEWEY GRIFFIN, FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO REPLACEMENT
HALF -TON PICKUP TRUCKS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $46,714.29 (AB2006 -429)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY, THE CITY OF
BELLINGHAM, AND THE LAKE WHATCOM WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT FOR
THE LAKE WHATCOM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TRIBUTARY MONITORING, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $275,537 WITH WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF
BELLINGHAM PROVIDING $123,991.65 EACH AND THE LAKE WHATCOM
WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT PROVIDING $27,553.70 (AB2006 -430)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND BROWN AND CALDWELL
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS TO CONDUCT
MONITORING WORK IN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $348,716 (AB2006 -431)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT
AMENDMENT #1 BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND J.A. BRENNAN
ASSOCIATES, PLLC PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO INCLUDE
CONSULTATION AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT, DESIGN MODIFICATIONS
AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
PLAN, IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,510.50, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT
AMOUNT OF $31,440.50 (AB2006 -432)
5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT
AMENDMENT #2 BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND DYNAMIC IMAGING, TO
PROVIDE FOR A SECOND CAPTURE STATION AT THE WHATCOM COUNTY
JAIL WORK CENTER FOR THE PICTURE LINK MUGSHOT IMAGING SYSTEM
AND PICTURE LINK APPLICATION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,427.49, FOR A
TOTAL AMENDED CONTACT AMOUNT OF $61,699.94 (AB2006 -433)
Whatcom County Council, 11/21/2006, Page 13
1
2 6. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CANCELLATION OF WARRANTS MORE THAN A
3 YEAR OLD (AB2006 -434)
4
5 7. RESOLUTION APPROVING A SALARY SCHEDULE AND POLICIES FOR
6 UNREPRESENTED WHATCOM COUNTY EMPLOYEES FOR THE YEAR 2007
7 (AB2006 -418)
8
9
10 OTHERITEMS
11
12 1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING 2% LODGING TAX PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY
13 GRANTED IN RCW 67.28 (AB2006 -420)
14
15 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
16 moved to adopt the ordinance.
17
18 Motion to adopt carried unanimously
19
20 2. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION ON
21 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, "SUNRISE MEADOWS ", FILED BY
22 HARBORSIDE LLC (AB2006 -427)
23
24 Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved to
25 approve the recommendation with one amendment.
26
27 Fleetwood moved to remove item 17 from the recommendation, "^ Rete "all
28 placed ea the faee ef the plat pFehibiting aerzessery dwelling uFIKS." The applicant does not
29 oppose removal of that provision.
30
31 Crawford asked if accessory dwelling units (ADU's) would have to have public water
32 and sewer.
33
34 Brenner stated this just eliminates the covenant that prohibits something that should
35 go in urbanized areas.
36
37 Motion to amend carried unanimously.
38
39 Fleetwood moved to approve the Hearing Examiner's recommendation as
40 amended.
41
42 Motion carried unanimously.
43
44 3. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPEN SPACE /TIMBER,
45 OPEN SPACE /OPEN SPACE AND OPEN SPACE /FARM AND AGRICULTURAL
46 CONSERVATION (AB2006 -435)
47
48 Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved to
49 approve the resolution with one amendment, which is to approve the Nielson Brothers open
50 space /timber application.
51
52 McShane stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of the Nielson
53 Brothers application.
Whatcom County Council, 11/21/2006, Page 14
1
2 Crawford stated there should be a public hearing on the Nielson Brothers application.
3
4 Caskey - Schreiber suggested that the Council approve the resolution as it is, and
5 then the staff can schedule a public hearing on the Nielson. Brother's application at the
6 Council's next meeting.
7
8 Fleetwood accepted Caskey- Schreiber's suggestion as a friendly amendment to the
9 motion.
10
11 The motion carried unanimously.
12
13 S. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION
14 ON APL06 -0022, FILED BY ROYCE BUCKINGHAM ON BEHALF OF WHATCOM
15 COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, REGARDING AN
16 ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION ABOUT WHETHER A LOT IS A LEGAL LOT OF
17 RECORD (AB2006 -366)
18
19 See Announcements.
20
21 6, ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 10.34, FERRY
22 RATES, AND WHATCOM COUNTY 2007 UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE (AB2006-
23 260)
24
25 Brenner moved to refer to committee.
26
27 Caskey - Schreiber stated that they should make any significant amendments tonight,
28 so they can have another public hearing in two weeks. It is a schedule that the residents
29 like.
30
31 Brenner withdrew her motion.
32
33 Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance.
34
35 Weimer moved to switch the unified fee schedule with the schedule he submitted to
36 the councilmembers.
37
38 Crawford stated there are some ideas with Councilmember Weimer's proposal that
39 are okay and some are poor. There could be a potential legal challenge that the Council is
40 creating a fare schedule for trucks that would inhibit competition. There is a discounted
41 rate for someone who already has commitments to go over there. New suppliers can't
42 introduce a delivery frequency and commitment until they build a business. That isn't right.
43 In the old schedule, the multi -pass isn't a discount, but a convenience. This new proposal
44 includes a 50 percent discount.
45
46 He doesn't understand the pedestrian incentive of a 25 -ride ticket at half price.
47 There is an endless parking issue with associated costs. It doesn't make sense why they
48 encourage the pedestrians. It almost assures that someone will have to regularly park on
49 one or both sides. Stay with the original proposal, which is very fair. The needs -based
50 discounts will be subsidized by other taxpayers. They have spent a year and a half working
51 on the schedule in the Council packet. It is a solid schedule. He's not sure most Lummi
52 Island residents like this schedule. The Council was barraged with email in the last few
53 days, however he's not inclined to believe that was representative of most of that
Whatcorn County Council, 11/21/2006, Page 15
1 community. He's not sure that some of the folks who provided that information have
2 analyzed what this done. People with needs end up generating more revenue for the ferry
3 than under the County's proposal. They pay more than what the County proposed
4 originally.
5
6 Brenner stated the new proposal has just as much validity as the Public Works
7 Department proposal, which changed over and over. People who regularly deliver to Lummi
8 Island can get one of the packets, or a homeowner can give the delivery person a ticket out
9 of the booklet. It's an excellent idea to create a reason for people to do the book.
10 According to the Public Works Department, it saves money. She supports the motion.
11
12 Weimer stated there are problems with the pedestrians because walk -on passengers
13 park cars on both sides. At some point, the County has to address that. Get the Whatcom
14 Transit Authority (WTA) to get their buses coordinate with the ferry. They have to start
15 somewhere to get people to use mass transit.
16
17 The cash sales are the same as the County proposal. He created incentives for the
18 multi -ride tickets to a greater degree. He tried to leave the car and driver fares the same.
19 Folks on Lummi Island don't want visitors to get a steep discount. There is a much deeper
20 discount for people who live on the island.
21
22 He worked with people on Lummi Island about the trucks. The residents talked with
23 some of the restaurants and stores out there. The deeper discounts on the multi- tickets for
24 the trucks address the delivery problems. The fees would go up for trucks that make one
25 delivery to someone on the island. The delivery isn't shared for everyone on the island. He
26 increased the truck fare a little more than others. There are more impacts on the docks
27 from the coming and going of higher trucks.
28
29 Motion to adopt Weimer's plan carried 4 -3 with Nelson, McShane, and
30 Crawford opposed.
31
32 Brenner stated it's important to have a needs -based discount method that makes
33 sense. It's for people who aren't on any kind of assistance and who are working or are
34 trying to better themselves. The County Deputy Administrator worked with her on the
35 proposed Lummi Ferry Discount Application form.
36
37 Crawford asked what prevents a person from lying.
38
39 Brenner stated nothing prevents them. This would be in place for approximately a
40 year. The County can review the procedure to see if it's being suspiciously over -used. They
41 don't need to create a new staff position. If they think it's being misused, the County can
42 revisit the process.
43
44 Crawford asked if there is no way the County would be able to verify his income.
45
46 Brenner stated that if the amount of a person's income is challenged, the person will
47 have to provide proof.
48
49 Crawford asked who would challenge someone's income. It's all confidential. The
50 County just issues a pass. No one on the County staff verifies anything.
51
52 Brenner stated people know. It's important to have a ten -ride ticket. The poorer
53 people will have a harder time coming up with the cost of a 25 -ride ticket.
Whatcom County Council, 11121/2006, Page 16
Nelson stated they should have something to verify the income level, such as the
previous year's income tax statement.
Fleetwood stated they will need some means of income verification.
Brenner stated they will know there is a problem if the use is off the chart.
Weimer stated he supports the concept. There does need to be income verification.
He suggested that people provide a copy of their 1040 form to verify income.
Brenner stated those specifics can be worked out later by the administration.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated those sorts of things are things that could
be added and not substantively change the ordinance.
Nelson moved to amend the proposed Lummi Ferry Discount Application (on file)
submitted by Councilmember Brenner, "Last year's total annual household income based on
the federal 1040 form was . (show proof of form.:)'"
Crawford asked how the County is going to look at the three or four people in one
household who have 1040 forms. These verification measures don't tell the County the
entire story of someone's income.
Nelson asked how deep they should investigate.
Crawford stated they shouldn't do this at all.
Brenner stated there are ways the County staff can check if an application looks
suspicious.
Fleetwood asked if there would be a real problem if many people take advantage of
this discount while the County doesn't have a solid verification method, and the cumulative
effect would be that the County doesn't collect 55 percent of the operating cost.
Brenner stated she has another amendment that will address that motion.
(Clerk's (Vote: There was no motion.)
Motion to approve the Lummi Ferry Discount Application, submitted by
Councilmember Brenner,,with one amendment, "Last year's total annual household income
based on the federal 1040_ form was . (Show.proof of form:)" carried 4 -3 with Caskey-
Schreiber, McShane, and Crawford opposed.
Brenner moved to remove dock maintenance and operation from the operating
cost. The operating cost is defined in another ordinance, but it affects the ferry rates. They
can't finish the ferry rates until they change the ordinance. Last year, the Council was told
that the County would not be eligible for certain State and federal assistance if it didn't put
the dock maintenance and operation in the operating cost. However, Ken Richardson told
her recently that isn't the way it is. A dock is no different from a bridge. It's permanently
there. It doesn't move. It even has a bridge number on it. The County has already done it
that way. Don't suddenly dump $75,000 into the operating cost of the ferry.
Whatcom County Council, 11/21/2006, Page 17
1 Weimer stated that with or without the dock, leave the fares alone.
2
3 (Clerk's Note: Tape two, side B stops recording. Beginning of tape three, side A.)
4
5 Weimer continued to state that if they leave the fare structure alone, they will begin
6 to recoup the costs they haven't collected this year because the Council has been having
7 this discussion for so long. He agrees that the Council needs to look at the operating cost,
8 but not this evening.
9
10 Brenner restated her motion, to remove dock maintenance and construction from the
11 ferry fare structure.
12
13 Motion failed 1 -6 with Brenner in favor.
14
15 Brenner stated she doesn't see why they need a ferry manager position, which is
16 paid for by the ferry fares. She moved to remove the cost of the ferry manager from the
17 ferry rate budget.
18
19 Motion failed 1 -6 with Brenner opposed.
20
21 Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council will introduce this ordinance as amended on
22 December 5, 2006 and hold a public hearing in January.
23
24 4. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
25 THE UR AND URM ZONING DISTRICTS RELATING TO LOT CLUSTERING,
26 RESERVE TRACTS AND WATER AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
27 (AB2006 -406)
28
29 See below.
30
31
32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
33
34 1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
35 THE UP. AND URM ZONING DISTRICTS RELATING TO LOT CLUSTERING,
36 RESERVE TRACTS AND WATER AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
37 (A62006 -406)
38
39 Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated the
40 committee recommends a substitute version, which the Council will introduce tonight. He
41 moved to accept the substitute version and forward to the concurrency meeting.
42
43 Motion to forward to the concurrency meeting carried unanimously.
44
45
46 INTRODUCTION ITEMS
47
48 Nelson moved to accept the Introduction Items, including substitute version of
49 Introduction Item six as amended by the Planning and Development Committee and
50 submitted by staff.
51
52 Motion carried unanimously.
53
Whatcom County Council, 11/21/2006, Page 18
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2006 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, FIFTEENTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $813,557 (AB2006 -438)
2. ORDINANCE IN THE MATTER OF GRANTING A NON - EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE
TO TELECOMM ASSOCIATES FOR A PERIOD OF 25 YEARS PURSUANT TO
STATE LAW AND SECTION 9.30 OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY HOME RULE
CHARTER, TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A CABLE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2006-
439)
3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2007 WHATCOM COUNTY UNIFIED FEE
SCHEDULE (AB2006 -440)
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING CODE,
TITLE 20, TO CLARIFY EXISTING CODE LANGUAGE (AB2006 -441)
5. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, 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 (AB2006 -442)
6. ORDINANCE AMENDING, ON AN INTERIM BASIS, WCC, TITLE 20 BY ADDING
A NEW CHAPTER 20.78 ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
PROCEDURES ENSURING THAT ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
ARE AVAILABLE OR PROVIDED CONCURRENT WITH DEVELOPMENT, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT (AB2006 -443)
7. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CLOSEOUT — BIRCH BAY VIEW
SEWER INSTALLATION PROJECT (AB2006 -444)
OTHER BUSINESS AND COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Crawford stated he thanks the staff for all they do for the Council.
Fleetwood stated he thanks Councilmember Weimer for attending the meeting
tonight, which is his 25th wedding anniversary.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she thanks the Council for their indulgence while she served
as Council Chair for the last two years.
Brenner stated she is thankful for everything. She attended a Building Industry
Association (BIA) work shop on green concrete forms. It's very lightweight and extremely
durable. The gravel guy should think about creating a berm with the forms. It's supposed
to be extremely soundproof. There is a green building workshop hosted by Sustainable
Connections and the BIA in December.
Nelson stated he thanks everyone.
Whatcom County Council, 11/21/2006, Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Weimer thanked his wife for allowing him to attend the meeting on their wedding
anniversary.
ADJOURN
The meetin ad }ourned at 10:07 p.m.
.]ill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
�
�►Y. "reoVe, ved these minutes on February 13 , 2006.
•''KA►T'o'y�;
AT' V1 C 01. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
COUNTY U NTY �jr;� WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
V.
"Minim
! � r
Laurie Caskey -Schr fiber, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 11/21/2006, Page 20