Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil July 27 20041 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Regular County Council July 27, 2004 Council Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Barbara Brenner Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood Sharon Roy L. Ward Nelson FLAG SALUTE ANNOUNCEMENTS Absent: None McShane announced the Committee of the Whole meeting was cancelled. SPECIAL PRESENTATION SPECIAL PRESENTATION REGARDING DRAYTON HARBOR SHELLFISH PROTECTION DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2004 -017) Pete Kremen, County Executive, gave a brief history of the Drayton Harbor restoration process. He congratulated and thanked the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee members for their efforts. He presented certificates of appreciation to the committee members present, including Alan Birdsall, Kathryn Cullen, Janet Hanson, Charles Hawkins, Bjorn Hrutfiord, Margaret Cardell, Bonnie Onyon, Amy Stillings, Pam Taft, Robert Williams, and Chair Geoff Menzies. Geoff Menzies, Committee Chair, thanked Executive Kremen and summarized the committee's accomplishments. This committee is very committed. They need a dedicated funding source for their programs. There are more challenges ahead. There is a long history of oyster farming in Drayton Harbor. Get this economy up and coming so it is a viable industry. Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, Page 1 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. MINUTES CONSENT Fleetwood moved to approve the Minutes Consent items. Motion carried unanimously. 1. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JUNE 29, 2004 2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JULY 13, 2004 OPEN SESSION The following people spoke: Jeff Margolis, 5465 Potter Road, Van Zandt, stated he speaks on behalf of the Mt. Baker Foothills Economic Development Association (EDA). He emailed this report to the County Council members (on file). This is the a fact - finding report. The EDA conducted a symposium about Washington State's feasibility study about a western Washington commerce corridor. The discussion at the symposium was about quality of life, public resources, private profit, growth inducing impacts of the corridor, the environmental costs of the corridor, the issue of collaborative planning, and the issue of natural based economies. The report also has supportive addenda. He urged the Council to establish a public /private ad hoc committee to study this issue. This proposed commerce corridor is going to be the most significant event in the history of this county and the biggest public works project in the northwest. Roy asked if the Mt. Baker School District was not included. Margolis stated the addenda includes a letter from the school district attesting to its concern about long -range planning. They want to be involved with the consultant and every aspect of communication. The school district board said they would contact every school district in the corridor. Carl Westman, 5222 Birch Point Road, stated he is interested in traffic issues in Birch Bay. Traffic has increased greatly in the past 50 years. Have a connector road east of the Seldar Road to Lincoln Road, which would be the primary access to Birch Point and Semiahmoo. It should extend to Loomis Trail at Highway 99. Birch Bay Drive is too congested, and the speed limit should be 25 miles per hour. He suggested traffic be diverted off of Birch Bay Drive. Stony Lacsdahl, 2597 Donovan, stated there is only one American party. He is not chairman Mao. He will run for governor against Governor Locke. Governor Locke promised him a ticket to work in 2001. Processing is not his favorite activity. He is a little left of center but is not a right -wing radical. If one doesn't stand up, one has to sit down. He needs a job. He requested that they create a performance Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, Page 2 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. library in the area behind the library. They can't make kids sit and read books when they're performers. Gary Lysne, 2472 Northshore Road, stated his comments are addressed to District One representatives McShane and Nelson. He has been working on Northshore during the past week. Surveyors working on Northshore say the work is to widen the road. Last week, the Council passed an ordinance to protect water quality. There's been talk by committees in the county and city of putting a fence around the lake and moving the road back. Now, they are surveying to widen the road. County Road Engineer told him Northshore is probably the worst road in the county and probably the most difficult to deal with. He asked Councilmembers McShane and Nelson to talk with Mr. Rutan to find out the timeline and if they are really going to widen the road and put more blacktop down. In some areas, the road is only 25 yards from the lake. The average distance is probably 50 yards from the lake. There is no water treatment or stormwater runoff control. He would like to hear back from the councilmembers after they talk to Mr. Rutan. The Drayton Harbor Advisory Committee did a good job. The Council picked one object from the citizens advisory committee for motor boating on Lake Whatcom. Reopen that and institute every issue and address every issue in that citizens advisory committee. Chris Ungern, 2095 Northshore Road, stated he would comment on the clean green yard waste area that is a city project that the County helps fund. He's been using the opportunity to get away from doing open burning to dispose of brush trimmings. He was disappointed when the hours were cut back this summer. He understands the hours will be reinstated. Open burning has an impact on the watershed. This project is very positive and may, unknowingly, do something good for lake quality by giving people an alternative. He agreed with Mr. Lysne about continuing to work in other areas of Lake Whatcom water quality. Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, thanked the members of the Birch Bay Community to come up with a model used to create the Sudden Valley Community Plan. Without management, materials, models, and money to get anything done. The Watershed Management Plan gives them a place to go. Consider ecology and humanity as a whole. Many people have lived at Lake Whatcom for many years. Basin three is pretty clean. All the diversion water doesn't go to the bottom of the lake. It's a surface flow. The watershed is two -third full. There isn't room for two - thirds more growth. They don't have to fill it all. Regarding planning, Birch Bay and Sudden Valley came up with plans. After the board accepted the plan, a realtor asked for more gate security. If they have a plan, they have to stick to it. He thanked everyone who worked on it. CONSENT AGENDA Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, Page 3 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through five. McShane withdrew item four. Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through three and five carried unanimously. 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND FAIRBANKS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. FOR A CLAM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY AND SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION ASSESSMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,500 (AB2004- 280) 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES — RECOVERY CENTER FOR OUTPATIENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES (AB2004 -281) 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDED PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND JAN LOR, ADMINISTRATOR, FOR EMPLOYMENT SERVICES TO PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,560 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED AMOUNT OF $25,360, EXTENDING THE CONTRACT TO JUNE 30, 2005 (AB2004 -282) 4. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CRP NO. 903005 AND AWARDING THE BID FOR THE FROST ROAD SAAR CREEK BRIDGE NO. 242 CONSTRUCTION TO THE LOW BIDDER, AWARD CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $618,308.26 (AB2004 -283) Crawford moved to approve the resolution. McShane stated he has always been opposed to this project. The contract amount doesn't include preliminary engineering, construction engineering, testing, and contingency. The potential total is over $763,000. Frost Road should be closed. Caskey- Schreiber stated she is also opposed to this project. The Park Road experience turned out very expensive for a low volume use. Many other roads are in desperate need of attention. Crawford stated two of the homeowners wanted the road closed and eleven wanted the road kept open. The Mt. Baker School District wants the road open. The Fire District wants the road open. They would have done a culvert Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. replacement, but it wasn't feasible for salmon. This is a project that will enhance the salmon. Brenner stated she agrees with Councilmember Crawford. Many people who don't live on the road use the road as a transportation route. Some of those business people would be highly inconvenienced. They're talking about the public good, not just a few people. Motion carried 5 -2 with Caskey - Schreiber and McShane opposed. S. RESOLUTION TO ELECT EXPENDITURES OF NATIONAL FOREST RELATED SAFETY -NET PAYMENTS UNDER PL 106 -93 (AB2004 -284) PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BIRCH BAY COMMUNITY PLAN (AB2004- 121) Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager and Jeff Chalfant, Senior Planner, gave a staff report with a Power Point presentation (on file). The first Birch Bay plan was adopted December 1978. The zoning then is similar to the zoning in the plan tonight. There were areas of suburban zoning at four houses per acre. The Point Whitehorn and Birch Point areas were zoned suburban residential, four units per acre. At Arne Road near Alderson Road was zoned commercial. Ten years later, during the next planning process, changes were made that were adopted in November 1987. The zoning became urban residential, four units per acre (UR -4). The commercial zone at Arne Road was dropped. Commercial zones were focused at Birch Bay- Lynden Road, Blaine Road, and along the shoreline. The medium density zones were seven units per acre. High density areas are now zoned resort commercial. In 1997, the Comprehensive Plan process revisited and created urban growth areas. It was adopted in November 1997. The urban growth area they are considering was adopted then. Tonight's plan adds one hundred acres to the urban growth area (UGA). Most of the zoning in the propose plan is similar to what was adopted in 1997. At that time, the Point Whitehorn and Birch Point areas were zoned at a density of four units per acre. That plan was appealed. The issue in 1997 had nothing to do with Birch Bay. The appeal was eventually upheld by Superior Court and is in place today. The current effort started in about 2000. The Birch Bay Economic Development Action Plan was adopted in 2000. At that time, the community members realized they need to resolve infrastructure issues. The Steering Committee was formed in 2001. Their plan was adopted in 2003. Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Goodwin continued to read her presentation (on file) regarding major issues considered in the planning process. Population projections were initially higher than in the proposed plan. The County Council modified them. Much of the transportation focus is on getting traffic off Birch Bay Drive. The Capital Facilities Plan in the proposed plan addresses public services and facilities. There is consensus that building height will generally get higher. There are still setbacks and height restrictions. The largest recreational shellfish harvest is in the area. Tourism is important to the economy. Many assumptions in the plan is that wetlands and critical areas will remain undeveloped. The Council talked about the area eventually incorporating. Much of the debate now is on population, land supply, and how large the UGA needs to be. She discussed the land supply and demand statistics from the presentation. Fifty -one percent of the housing units are seasonally occupied. Crawford asked if recreational vehicle sites are counted as households. Goodwin stated they are counted as seasonal, recreational households. Many people live seasonally or recreationally in Latitude 49 and Leisure Park. They are not legally occupied all year long. They can't differentiate between seasonal and full -time households when issuing building permits. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Goodwin continued to read from her Power Point presentation (on file). If the trend in growth from 2000 to 2004 were to continue for 20 years, they would need 5,568 housing units, not the 3,457 units projected. Goodwin continued to read from her presentation regarding recommended environmental controls and capital facilities costs and funding. An issue on everyone's minds is whether they should or should not include Point Whitehorn and Birch Point in the UGA. She displayed an aerial photo from February 2004 that shows development in these areas. The Birch Point shoreline is already substantially developed and subdivided. The lot sizes along the northern bluff are three - quarters to one acre. Smaller lots are 6,000 to 7,000 square feet. There are a few un- subdivided parcels on the shoreline between the road and bluff. The interior has larger tracts, five acres and more. The Point Whitehorn area in questions is zoned UR -4 along the southwest portion of the Point, which is about 35 acres. Most of the small platted lots are developed. There are water and sewer facilities for those areas. Roy asked the exact area being discussed. Goodwin stated the area being discussed is everything on the Point south of the areas already developed. If they are going to modify the UGA, they will need to take out all that area out, including the areas to the south that already have water and sewer, and is already developed. Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, Page 6 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. McShane stated that developed area to the south is served by a different water district. Goodwin stated the most controversial issue is whether to leave those two areas in the UGA. She concluded her presentation about the arguments for and against inclusion in the UGA. She recommends adopting the plan as it is. Caskey- Schreiber stated Ms. Goodwin mentioned that the current UGA withstood an appeal. She asked if that is how the short- and long -term UGA designations evolved, and if there were ever conditions on when the County should go into the long -term UGA areas. Goodwin stated Whatcom County proposed the short- and long -term UGA's as part of the Comprehensive Plan in 1997. That was how the County proposed to deal with the issue of the area being already oversized. They wanted to make sure development occurred in areas along the bay that already have utilities, as infill, before they extended utilities. In the Comprehensive Plan, there are specific criteria that have to be met for an area to transfer from a long -term to a short -term planning area. This subarea plan tightens up the conditions even more. It was not court - ordered. It was done before the plan was adopted and appealed. McShane asked if there has been an environmental impact statement (EIS) for cannery hill. Goodwin stated there has, and also from West Semiahmoo, which has also expired. There was also planning for south Semiahmoo, which was withdrawn. McShane asked how many homes were proposed for Cannery Hill. Goodwin stated it seems to have been around two thousand, plus a golf course. It straddled the line between Blaine and Whatcom County. McShane asked if it was done before the salmon endangered species listing. Goodwin stated it was. It addressed other habitat. That EIS is on file in her office, but is not a part of this record. McShane asked Ms. Goodwin to explain the second public hearing item, the ordinance amending the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan text and map regarding the Birch Bay urban growth area (AB2004 -122). Goodwin stated this ordinance amends the countywide Comprehensive Plan. There are two pages in it that describes the Birch Bay urban growth area. There is a map showing the UGA. This ordinance amends the map to add the 100 acre area at Blaine Road and Alderson Road. Caskey- Schreiber asked if some of the numbers were based on the 2000 Census, and the population of Birch Bay at that time. Roy stated the population at that time was approximately 4,700. McShane opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, Page 7 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Al Hanners, 3007 Plymouth Drive, Bellingham, stated he recommends that the Point Whitehorn area be removed from the plan. He is a retired geologist and botanist. Point Whitehorn is a classic example of a feeder bluff. Eliana Steel - Friedlob, 6934 Holeman Ave, stated she urged the Council to withdraw the Birch Point and Point Whitehorn areas from the UGA. Richard Grout, Washington State Department of Ecology, Bellingham Field Office, stated he urged the Council to withdraw the Birch Point and Point Whitehorn areas from the plan because of the impermeable soils. Alan Friedlob, 6934 Holeman Ave, submitted his testimony in writing (on file, Exhibit D) and read his testimony. He asked the Council to withdraw 95 undeveloped and wooded acres south of Grandview Road and West of Koehn Road. Also, rezone that area from UR -4 to rural, one unit per five acres (R5A). Kip Lachner, 8563 Semiahmoo Drive, Blaine, stated he had concerns about Birch Point, and asked the Council to withdraw Birch Point from the plan. There is already room to accommodate the population. Cathy Seemann, 6057 Birch Point Road, stated the Birch Point area can be protected without removing it from the UGA. Keep Birch Point in the plan. Property owners deserve predictability. Judy Eaton, 8369 Semiahmoo Drive, Blaine, asked the Council to withdraw the Birch Point and Point Whitehorn areas from the UGA. Jo Slivinski, 6163 Semiahmoo Lane, submitted her testimony in writing (on file, Exhibit E) and asked the Council to withdraw the Birch Point and Point Whitehorn areas from the plan. She presented a petition to the Council to remove those areas. Linda Tucker, 4371 Bay Road, Blaine, stated she would support taking out Point Whitehorn and Birch Point if that is what the majority of the neighbors want and if it protects the bluffs from erosion. Don't increase the UGA by 100 acres. Don't increase the commercial areas. Retain the short -term and long -term planning areas. Tom Pratum, North Cascades Audubon Society, stated this area is probably the most important birding area in the county. He asked the Council to remove Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA. The conditions for changing to short -term planning areas aren't adequate for protection. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Steve Irving, 2664 Brown Road, Ferndale, asked the Council to withdraw Birch Point and Point Whitehorn areas from the UGA. He's concerned about the wetlands and sensitive environmental areas. Eve Pryce, 2480 Autumnwood Court, stated she agreed with everyone whose spoken. This is an opportunity for the Council to save this unique area. Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association (BIA) of Whatcom County Governmental Affairs Director, stated she submitted the BIA's testimony at earlier Council meetings. Support the Birch Bay Steering Committee's recommended plan. The Council can't put a moratorium on growth. It's against the U.S. Constitution. Bill Eaton, 8369 Semiahmoo Drive, asked the Council to withdraw Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA. Support responsible growth while protecting sensitive areas. Shirley Cortez, 4435 Fleet Road, Blaine, asked the Council to not take areas out of the UGA. People bought property while it was in the UGA . It would not be fair to change it now. Adopt the plan as it is. Ivy Sager - Rosenthal, People for Puget Sound, asked the Council to remove Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA. The shoreline is very important for wildlife habitat, ecological functions, and to save Puget Sound. Jim Torgerson, Anchorage, Alaska, referenced the property surrounded by Shintaffer Road, Lincoln Road, Anderson Road, and Harborview Road. He asked the Council to adopt the plan as put together by the community. Develop areas close to well - developed roads. Preserving the plan protects the process of putting the plan together. Ellen Gray, Thousand Friends of Washington, submitted information for the record (on file, Exhibit F). She read her comments into the record and stated the UGA is bigger than it needs to be to accommodate the projected growth. She asked the Council to shrink the UGA. Kathy Berg, 7585 Sterling Avenue, Birch Bay asked the Council to leave Birch Point and Point Whitehorn in the UGA, but designate them as sensitive areas. Stuart Pennington, 5625 Whitehorn Way, asked the Council to remove Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA because bank erosion will increase if developed fully. Rick Poitras, 6914 Holeman Avenue, asked the Council to remove Point Whitehorn from the UGA because the land is unstable. Lincoln Rutter, 8373 Semiahmoo Drive, submitted information for the record (on file, Exhibit O), and stated the Birch Bay Subarea Plan doesn't adequately Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, Page 9 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. provide for financing to fund the plan. The cost is on the taxpayers, not the developers. Patty Rutter, 8373 Semiahmoo Drive, asked the Council to remove Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA because of the negative environmental impacts that will result. Becky Raney, 6933 Holeman Avenue, submitted information for the record (on file, Exhibit G). They need proper storm drains. Before there is more planning, fix what they already have. Jack Grant, Trillium Corporation Representative, stated he submitted a letter to the Council on June 10, 2004. Of the 1,000 acres that Trillium holds in the area, only 450 acres have been and will be developed. Trillium supports the staff report and leaving Birch Point in the UGA. Adopt the plan as it is. (Clerk's Note: The Council took a five - minute break at 9:14 p.m.) Wayne Schwandt, Trillium Corporation Representative, stated he appreciates the problems homeowners along the bluff are having but doesn't see the correlation to what Trillium is doing. There is no evidence that the clearing work on more than 500 acres is impacting the bluff. The development of houses won't happen in the next two to three years. They are looking 20 years into the future. The process is very important. Adopt the plan as recommended by County staff. McShane asked if there has been any discussion with anyone who might purchase Trillium land at Birch Point or Point Whitehorn. Schwandt stated the long- term plan at Birch Point is to undertake a comprehensive plan for that problem. They have not discussed selling land at Birch Point, but they have at Point Whitehorn. Those properties are on the market now. Dan Warner, Pro - Whatcom, stated the County should remain predominantly rural. Steering Committee members didn't know they had the option of shrinking the UGA. He asked the Council to consider shrinking the UGA in the Birch Bay Subarea Plan. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) Steve Kozer, 6917 Holeman Avenue, submitted information (on file, Exhibit H), and stated Whatcom County holds the public trust. He asked the Council to remove Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA because the plan doesn't adequately address stormwater issues. The area is designated a marine reserve area. The plan says it will cost about $80 million to fund the essential services. The UGA is too large. Craig Erdman, Geo- Engineers Representative for Trillium Corporation, stated Geo- Engineers did an assessment of groundwater and surface water changes Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, Page 10 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. resulting from Trillium's conversion activities. No one has criticized that assessment. In the future, a UGA with high density will help protect the environment because controls will be implemented to protect the environment. Caskey- Schreiber asked if two assumptions were built into the report. The first is that re- planting will occur, and the second acknowledges that the subsurface may change, depending on manmade events. Erdman stated the first report simply looked at the harvest activities, without conversion. A second report dealt with the actual conversion to pasture. Caskey- Schreiber asked if they are banking on a vegetative cover. Erdman stated the report dealt with the conversion from timber to pasture. Further development would require additional analysis. Rosemarie Francis, 5328 Canvasback Loop, Blaine, asked the Council to keep Birch Point in the UGA. Adopt a management plan in addition to a development plan. Bring sewer into the area. Doralee Booth, 8188 Birch Bay Drive, submitted information (on file, Exhibit I). She read her comments into the record, and asked the Council to approve the plan as it is. Claudia Hollod, 8240 Birch Bay Drive, submitted a videotape (on file, Exhibit J), and stated she wants orderly, predictable, planned growth that is sensitive to the needs of the community. Approve the plan as it is. Leave Birch Point and Point Whitehorn in the UGA. Roger Ellingson, 3033 Alderwood, Bellingham, asked the Council to remove Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA because it is an important birding area that provides the community economic resources. Smaller UGA's are a more efficient use of tax dollars. Keep populations in the cities and dense areas away from rural areas. Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, asked the Council to adopt the plan as presented. They've already over - estimated their buildable land supply. Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, stated the plan has an excessively large UGA. Make the UGA smaller. He asked the Council to remove Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA. Chris Dillard, 2216 G Street, asked the Council to remove Birch Point, Point Whitehorn, and wetlands from the UGA. Don't expand the UGA. It's too large. Cathy Cleveland, 4961 Morgan Drive, submitted her testimony into the record (on file, Exhibit K) and asked the Council to remove Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA. Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, Page 11 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Laura Leigh Brakke, 585 Pleasant Bay, asked the Council to remove Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA. The only reason to develop is from those who want to make money selling homes. Wendy Steffensen, North Sound Bay Keeper and RE Sources Representative, submitted her testimony into the record (on file, Exhibit L), and asked the Council to remove Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA. Kay Schuhmacher, 5583 Point Whitehorn Way, asked the Council to remove Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA. Keep some areas worthwhile to visit and be proud of. Keats Garman, 8710 Oertel Drive, asked the Council to remove Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA to protect the marine and bird habitat, to reduce the erosion of the high banks, and to protect the rural character of the area. Barbara Skudlarick, 8361 Semiahmoo Drive, submitted information for the record (on file, Exhibit M), and asked the Council to remove Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA to protect wildlife habitat. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B.) Ken Pettichord, 8677 Semiahmoo Drive, submitted information for the record (on file, Exhibit N), and asked the Council to remove Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA. His land is eroding away. Dick Skudlarick, 8361, Semiahmoo Drive, asked the Council to remove Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA. Bill Hinely, 2676 Donovan Avenue, asked the Council to remove Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA. Bill Grant, Goldstar Resort President, stated the Blaine Road and Alderson Road intersection was designated zoned as a prime commercial business center. Include the area because it will eventually become the town center for Birch Bay. Bruce Pederson, 6167 Semiahmoo Lane, asked the Council to remove Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA to preserve the area. Ted Morris, 5105 Helwig Road, Birch Bay, stated he supports the plan as it is hL• Donna Rae Pederson, 6167 Semiahmoo Lane, asked the Council to remove Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA. They are using huge chucks of the bluffs because of what is happening inland. Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Dave Determan, 6989 Birch Bay Drive, asked the Council to leave the UGA alone. Put more stringent controls on the UGA in that area. Gaylee Ankerberg, 6932 Holeman Avenue, stated stormwater drainage is not adequate and is not working. Protect the bay and bluff. She asked the Council to remove Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA. Doug Stark, 2813 Birchwood Avenue, stated he volunteers in Birch Bay as a beach naturalist. Protect the natural areas. Grow smarter, not bigger. Fred Schuhmacher, 5583 Whitehorn Way, asked the Council to remove Birch Point and Point Whitehorn from the UGA. Carol Sandvig, 8212 Birch Bay Drive, asked the Council to approve the plan as it is. Keep Point Whitehorn and Birch Point in the UGA with stringent development guidelines. Hearing no one else, McShane closed the public hearing. Nelson moved to adopt the ordinance as presented. Caskey- Schreiber stated the steering committee did a good job. The Council has made it even better. She is still concerned about keeping Birch Point and Point Whitehorn in the UGA. The councilmembers have more information that the steering committee had. The Puget Sound Action Team recommends removing the areas from the UGA because of the unstable soils. She read from the letter from the State Department of Ecology. They've heard from many other groups that all acknowledge that they have to protect the land above the nearshore areas. The marine shore bird population is declining, which is linked to the declining forage fish, which is declining because they are harming the habitat. Pull out the sensitive areas. A UGA designation is a green light for growth. It will be a more successful plan. When the UGA is so large, it jeopardizes the commercial areas. The Birch Bay UGA is twice the size as the City of Blaine's UGA. The County may not be able to service that urban level of development. Caskey - Schreiber moved to amend the ordinance to remove Birch Point from the UGA. Crawford stated the plan addresses all the things Councilmember Caskey - Schreiber mentioned. There has been additional information on marine issues, but the Birch Bay community groups are active in addressing those marine issues. The County is not set up to provide urban levels of service in that area. Because of that, those issues are being acknowledged. Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. They are able to separate long -term and short -term planning areas. Growth won't continue as they are seeing it today. In ten or 20 years, they will be better equipped to deal with growth issues. A long -term planning area is a place holder to make sure everyone has opportunities and is flexible in the future. He will vote to keep Birch Point in the UGA. Brenner stated someone made a comment that stormwater detention doesn't work. Engineers showed her today how detention does work when it's actively maintained. Private associations and people aren't maintaining their stormwater detention. There should be more stringent regulations. Make people responsible for maintaining their stormwater detention. Someone mentioned that Point Roberts is in the same position, and they think it's okay. It's not okay. Point Roberts has been difficult for the County to maintain. Someone mentioned that they didn't want to pay for sewer. That area can't exist without sewer. It's not good to have the drain fields and septic systems. The problem is already there. Trillium's property is flat. They're putting in bio- swales. If sewer goes in, it will remove much of the problem. She doesn't think the few people out there will elect to install a sewer. She doesn't see the problem they're worried about from development that will happen in the future. She will vote to keep Birch Point in the UGA. McShane stated everyone wants to protect Birch Bay. The question is how to get there. Some think it will be protected if it is in the UGA. It has been in the UGA for some time. There are already pretty bad problems, and they're not doing a good job. That won't change without a significant commitment from the County to go to that level. Ultimately, Birch Bay will not remain at a density of one house per five acres, but a lesser density has to ultimately be the solution. Geo- Engineers' report confirmed a lot of his views. It emphasizes the shallow aquifer. Low impact development over shallow groundwater will be challenging. There is an idea they can install drainage, sewer, and stormwater runoff lines. Pipes break. They will dump water on one spot on the bluff. Piping is not a solution. He is in favor of figuring out an appropriate development approach, but not at a density of four houses per acre. As a geologist, he goes to Puget Sound shorelines all the time. There are not many places like this on the west side of Puget Sound. Support the motion, and revisit this area specifically about how this area will develop. When the Birch Bay plan came forward, he wasn't thinking about a downzone. He thought Ellen Shay's idea was great. Maybe they can put Birch Point back into the UGA at a lower density in the future. Overall, the UGA is concerning because of the commitment to implement heavy transportation impact fees, parks impact fees, a parks levy, and a Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. stormwater utility levy. They're also assuming the water and sewer rates will cover the costs involved. Roy stated each of those fees and levies must be approved by either the Council or the citizens. The Council isn't guaranteeing that they will happen. Take those one at a time. (Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side A.) Roy continued to ask if Councilmember McShane is saying those fees and levies should be eliminated. McShane stated he is not. To generate the revenue for those types of services, it's a big commitment. Roy stated the Birch Bay community members are going to have to tax themselves to get what they want. Caskey- Schreiber stated she doesn't have much confidence in the difference between short- and long -term planning areas. The Council recently approved a development in a long -term planning area. She never heard a planner tell them they have to fill in a short -term planning area before going into the long -term planning area. Had she known at that time what she knows today, she would not have done it. Councilmember Brenner mentioned the area being mitigated for stormwater, and the engineers can do wonders. However, Dick Grout the expert from the Department of Ecology says the area has sandy soil, which shifts and is easy to permeate. Underneath the sand is clay, which doesn't allow infiltration. That's why the area sloughs. They can't dig down to develop stormwater infrastructure because the water table is two to five feet below the surface. Engineering something isn't an option unless it is above - ground. The Department of Ecology engineering expert doesn't think how that can be done in either Point Whitehorn or Birch Point. It's not someone has done successfully. McShane stated there has been a lot of focus on the slope stability, which can be addressed by drainage systems that will be put in. The consequence of that is they'll be putting fresh water in locations where there hasn't been before. That will alter the nearshore habitat. The other consequence is that it might stabilize the bluff, which would eliminate the feeder bluffs. Many of the lots on the bluff are on large lots, and could be subdivided further. They have to have the wherewithal to have a critical areas ordinance and shoreline ordinance that allows the houses to be unprotected. Roy stated she seems to be the swing vote. She went to the Birch Bay Steering Committee meeting last night. This decision is something she's thought a lot about. She doesn't see her decision as a reflection of their deliberations, work, Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. efforts, or dedication to this area. The steering committee started out with a map. There wasn't any impression given that they could take these UGA's out. The steering committee did not put these areas in the UGA. It inherited the problem. Many people all over were impacted by a developer's logging activity. There are many people who she respects and who are on both sides of the issue. Before the meeting, she didn't know what to decide. In her heart, the right thing to do at this point is to remove Birch Point. Something should be in the plan that makes the Council review it. There are items coming forward that will have an impact. Also, a developer has a right to request a rezone. She's more comfortable doing development that way. Up until a couple of days ago, her view was to leave the area in, and put in a lot of restrictions. She's uncomfortable with that now because the County doesn't always have the staff to follow up on those restrictions. She would rather take the area out of the UGA, study everything they need to, and put it back in the UGA if they need to. The environmental reasons speak for themselves. She spoke to the stormwater expert at the Department of Ecology (DOE). She's annoyed that this has become everyone's holy grail. One of the biggest issues with shoreline degradation in the Puget Sound area is the shoreline armoring. The DOE and County are supposed to enforce that, but they aren't. There are illegal bulkheads all over. The DOE and the County has to get on it. They are destroying the shoreline. She won't support this if it means increasing any density in Birch Bay. They know what that will do to shellfish. The zone is currently zoned one house per five acres. The Council is not downzoning it. It will stay at that zone. They are leaving the zoning the same while they look at the issues. Caskey- Schreiber stated she is comfortable with removing these areas and not increasing the density in Birch Bay. The projected growth is high. Nelson stated this is a tough issue. He's been around this community for many years. It has grown and has become a wonderful community. Let the community have a hand in how it grows. These are valuable pieces of real estate that will have environmental and livability impacts. There are positive ways that development can help. He is concerned about taking these areas out of the UGA. The result is that developers and another Council that is not environmentally sensitive may put them back in. They have the opportunity to put in restrictions and controls that will keep the community safe. McShane stated the local people have an opportunity to appeal Council decisions. Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Roy suggested a friendly amendment to add language that says the County will review area in the future. McShane suggested a friendly amendment to add language that says the County will review the area for future types of development compatible to the Birch Bay plan and the environment. There are areas in the County that have a higher density, but are considered rural. That is something the County should explore. Possibly, Birch Point could be put back into the UGA at a lower density. Caskey- Schreiber did not accept a friendly amendment. A developer will bring forward development requests. Don't change that protocol. They won't forget about this area. Nelson stated this area allows close to 1,000 dwelling units. He asked the current density in similar communities. Goodwin stated the goal in the Comprehensive Plan averages six to eight units per acre. There is an excess of land supply in the County, but not as much as Ellen Gray said earlier. Decreasing the UGA will not require an increase in density in other areas. Now, there is an excess of 870 units. They will only be 121 units short. She asked the Council to clarify the area in the motion. Nelson stated they are pushing against the envelope for densities. They have already lowered density in Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish. Lummi Island will probably be next. Their children will suffer as the Council decreases the ability of people to find affordable places to live. Motion to amend carried 4 -3 with Nelson, Crawford, and Brenner opposed. McShane moved to remove Point Whitehorn from the UGA, from the portion of Point Whitehorn that is part of section 11, which is south of the line if they were to continue Grandview Road all the way to the water. Goodwin stated that area does not have sewer. It does have public water. Caskey- Schreiber stated the population is estimated at about 6,000. There has been quite a lot of permits issued this year. The population projection is around 9,700. At 2.3 residents per home, they actually need to accommodate only 2,000 more units. The 100 acres that is being added and some of the new properties should accommodate that with no problem. Once the community's commercial centers are viable, she will support expanding the UGA at that point to accommodate more. They have to incorporate first. The community will have a population of 9,000 in ten years, not twenty years. If the community is not going to incorporate, then the added population should go to Blaine. McShane amended his motion to remove the area south of northern line of Section 11. Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Brenner stated someone said the councilmembers may already have their minds made up. Her mind was changed about Point Whitehorn. There are already sewer and water where it needs to be. It's not going to affect what happens at Point Whitehorn. She's still very concerned about Birch Point. It doesn't seem like the problems with Birch Point will happen at Point Whitehorn because Point Whitehorn already has sewer. She will support the motion. Roy stated Point Whitehorn has a pristine bank without houses. It's serving its natural function. She will support the motion. Crawford stated it's not theirs. The acreage being withdrawn at Point Whitehorn is about 90 acres, not 35 acres. He has the same concerns about losing density. This is a long -term planning area that is a placeholder for the future. It would be nice to propose a park in that area, but Birch Bay State Park is just to the north. Keeping this in the long -term planning area designation gives them the most flexibility. By taking this area out of the UGA, the zone will go to one unit per five acres. He's not sure that is good, either. Motion to amend carried 5 -2 with Nelson and Crawford opposed. McShane stated they have to have another hearing on this item because of significant changes. Ms. Goodwin has done a tremendous job working on this with the Council. He thanked Ms. Goodwin and her staff. Goodwin suggested postponing the next hearing due to the substantial changes made to this item. The staff has to rewrite the text on that item. The staff will also need to rewrite major portions of the plan. She won't have it done by the next meeting. (Clerk's Note: Councilmember Nelson left the meeting at 11:40 p.m.) 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING THE BIRCH BAY URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2004 -122) item.) (Clerk's Note: See the staff report for the above item for discussion on this McShane stated this item would be postponed. OTHER ITEMS 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2004 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, 10TH REQUEST (AB2004 -276) Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, Page 18 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried 6 -0 with Nelson absent. 2. REPORT ON COMMITTEE ACTION REGARDING THE 2005 INTEGRATED ROADSIDE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (AB2004 -285) Brenner reported for the Public Works and Safety Committee and stated the committee approved the program. 3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 20) CHAPTER 20.10, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 20.71 WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.89 DENSITY TRANSFER PROCEDURE, AND CHAPTER 20.90 AMENDMENTS, RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (AB2004 -275) Fleetwood reported for the Planning And Development Committee and stated the Council will have a public hearing on: 1. This ordinance with minor changes, and 2. This ordinance with the same minor changes plus a significant change to the impervious surface limit from 2,500 square feet to 2,000 square feet. 4. APPOINTMENT OF IAN SMITH TO THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, ALTERNATE POSITION (AB2004 -264A) (Clerk's Note: The Council acted as the Flood Control Zone District Board Of Supervisors.) Brenner moved to appoint Ian Smith to the alternate position. Motion carried 6 -0 with Nelson absent INTRODUCTION ITEMS McShane moved to accept the Introduction Items, including the addenda. Motion carried 6 -0 with Nelson absent. 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2004 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, 11TH REQUEST (AB2004 -286) Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, Page 19 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. ADDENDA 2. INTERIM ORDINANCE AMENDING WCC, TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.80 — SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS, TO INCLUDE THE BIRCH BAY WATERSHED UNDER SECTIONS 20.80.635 — STORMWATER SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND 20.80.735 — WATER RESOURCE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REGULATORY PROTECTION FOR THE BIRCH BAY WATERSHED (AB2004 -287) 3. INTERIM ORDINANCE AMENDING WCC CHAPTER 16 TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REGULATORY PROTECTION FOR WETLANDS AND GEOLOGICAL HAZARD AREAS (AB2004 -288) 4. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 20) CHAPTER 20.10, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 20.71 WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.89 DENSITY TRANSFER PROCEDURE, AND CHAPTER 20.90 AMENDMENTS, RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (AB2004- 275) S. ORDINANCE AMENDING WCC 20.10, 20.71, 20.89, AND 20.90 RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACES IN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED. (AB2004 -289) OTHER BUSINESS McShane stated that Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor Dave Grant requested an executive session to a land use consistency hearing for BP. He would recuse himself from the executive session because of his position on the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC). He moved to go into executive session. Motion carried 4 -2 with Brenner and Roy opposed. (Clerk's Note: The Council retired into executive session for approximately two minutes.) Brenner moved to authorize the amended language in the agreement. Motion carried 5 -0 -0 with McShane abstaining and Nelson absent. Caskey- Schreiber stated she will sign the agreement. Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Crawford stated the Sheriff's Office asked him to bring forward a resolution opposing housing for sex offenders in Peaceful Valley. Crawford asked permission to be excused from the next meeting due to a family vacation. REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS McShane stated he has a meeting scheduled on Friday at 10:00 a.m. with Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor Karen Frakes and representatives from Thousand Friends regarding an appeal. (Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side B. Tape four, side A, begins earlier in the meeting, at the motion to approve the language regarding EFSEC.) McShane continued to state that the appeal is regarding their rural chapter. Roy asked the Council to respond in support of the Mt. Baker School District. McShane asked Councilmember to write a letter. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:48 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk . 2004. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dan McShane, Council Chair Whatcom County Council, 7/27/2004, Page 21