HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council April 13 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
Special County Council
April 13, 2004
Council Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner L. Ward Nelson
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING A REVISED LUMMI ISLAND SUBAREA PLAN
WITH REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 20.34 OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY
ZONING ORDINANCE (AB2004 -147)
McShane opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Fred Kinney, 4164 Legoe Bay Road, Lummi Island, submitted (on file) and
read his testimony. He does not like the plan. The plan isn't consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan visioning process. Community input was ignored. Property
rights are not protected. The plan discriminates against large property owners.
The maps are incorrect. Find the money to fund a hydrological study and table the
plan until the study is complete.
Charles Antholt, 2265 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, submitted (on file) and
read his testimony. He is opposed to the plan. This plan is not much different from
the current Lummi Island plan, which allows low density urban sprawl. Most
islanders want less growth. Water availability is unknown. The ferry has not been
able to meet its adopted level of service since 2000. He recommends that the
Council send the plan back to Lummi Island Planning Committee to make it
consistent with the majority of islanders and impose a moratorium on further
development until a water study is completed.
Steve Luke, 3342 Sunrise Cove, Lummi Island, submitted (on file) and read
his testimony. He is a lifetime resident of Lummi Island. He does not support
punitive and excessive regulations, mandatory clustering, or special interest groups
contributing to the plan. He supports updating the 1979 plan, a water study and
water management, increased ferry service, sheriff protection, a fire department,
and the changes made by the Planning Department and Planning Commission.
Pat Hayes, 2072 Granger Way, Lummi Island, described the island and stated
Whatcom County needs to regulate growth. She supports a the minimum of five
Special Whatcom County Council - Lummi Island Subarea Plan Hearing, 4/13/2004, 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
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.
acres per parcel, a maximum house size limitation, keeping County -owned land in
the public domain, and keeping Lummi Island a rural paradise.
Rich Frye, 2072 Granger Way, Lummi Island, stated Lummi Island faces four
different specific constraints on development: water supply, water quality and
septic systems, the ferry system and level of service, and the rate of growth.
Anna Lou Hall- Hallenbeck, 1594 S. Nugent, Lummi Island, stated she signed
and agree with the petition. Until a water study is done, 1979 should stay in place.
Sheila Marshall, 2781 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island submitted (on file)
and read her testimony. The rural residential, one unit per acre (RR1) zone and the
lack of standards for allowed light industrial and commercial uses need to be
addressed.
Albert Marshall, 2781 West Shore Dr, Lummi Island, stated he is a member
of the Lummi Island Planning Committee. The County staff and Planning
Commission did not consider any of the Lummi Island Planning Committee
recommendations. Put the interest of the community first. Preservation of rural
character should be the Council's primary concern.
Pam Gould, 2384 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, submitted (on file) and read her
testimony. She is a member of Lummi Island Planning Committee. She explained
the process the committee took in coming up with its recommendations for the
Planning Commission. Institute the five -acre density, require lot consolidation, and
protect water quantity and quality by limiting septic systems.
Wynne Lee, 2171 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, stated she moved to the island
for it's rural character. There are times when growth is not good and, if unchecked,
can kill. Protect water quality and maintain rural character. There is evidence from
the Department of Health to show they have water quantity and quality problems
now. Take a conservative approach to prevent the water problem from getting
worse. Last, the survey went to 1,400 people. It went out equitably. There were
multiple questions in which people could provide multiple answers. She does
survey research for a living. In contrast to the survey, the petition had one
statement that people could or could not agree to. The quality of information on
public opinion is not comparable to the planning survey. Take that into account as
people talk about the petition and survey.
Linda Kinney, 4164 Legoe Bay Road, Lummi Island, submitted (on file) and
read her testimony. The new subarea plan is flawed. Many fear that property
rights and quality of life are threatened. Site and building design standards in
policy 1.8 and 3.1 have no place in a rural setting. Cluster housing of up to 15
single family dwellings aren't rural. The redefinition of the aquifer recharge area is
concerning. The change creates a five -acre downzone on the north end and will
take property rights from a number of people. This map substitution is not best
available science. There are map errors. Mr. Kremen suggested that a new water
Special Whatcom County Council - Lummi Island Subarea Plan Hearing, 4/13/2004, 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.
study is paramount, which he would fund, and that any update to the subarea plan
needs to be tabled until a water study is complete and implemented into the plan.
She asked what has been done about this suggestion.
Jerry Brown, P.O. Box 32, Lummi Island, stated he has confidence in the
Lummi Island Planning Committee's work. The process is fatally flawed by the
County. He urged the Council to pass the plan as written by the Lummi Island
Planning Committee, not the County version.
Jean Kershner, 3417 Sunrise Road, Lummi Island, stated the rural character
of Lummi Island is extremely important. She supports the Lummi Island Planning
Committee's recommendation.
Tamara Hall, 1594 South Nugent Road, Lummi Island, stated it appears the
plan intends to devalue the non - resident land. Many of the properties owned by
non - residents is passed down from generation to generation. Rural character
should not be pursued at the loss of the non - resident property owners' ability to
build or spend time on the island. Property owners, especially non - residents, do
have some rights.
John Robinson, 3679 Sunrise Road, Lummi Island, stated he is a member of
Lummi Island Planning Committee. People value rural character, a sense of
community, and a sense of belonging. He values the wildlife of the area. Don't
destroy that by allowing small lots with park -like lawns. He asked the Council to
look at lot consolidation incentives. Comply with the Growth Management Act
requirement of having a minimum of five -acre lots in the future.
Victoria Luhrs, 1642 Seacrest Drive, Lummi Island, stated she owns 16.3
acres and does not plan to subdivide. However, people who want to subdivide
should be able to. Don't allow an island that only wealthy people can move to.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Luhrs continued to state that Planning Commission recommendations 11, 12,
and 14 don't have anything to do with growth management. There is no definition
of what low- impact standards are. The language is vague and can be interpreted
many ways by County staff who want to push their own agenda. Low - impact
development is for more urban areas, not a rural island community. She is
opposed to the plan.
Richard Harris, 1642 Seacrest Drive, Lummi Island, stated selection of the
Lummi Island Subarea Planning Committee members was not done lawfully. The
public had little or no input. Minutes of critical meetings have disappeared. Most of
the committee has small lots with homes already built. They have much to gain
from the regulations and nothing to lose. The committee has tried several ways to
stop growth. Science does not support their agenda. These regulations will result
in inflated building prices and higher land prices. Keep the present plan. Appoint a
Special Whatcom County Council - Lummi Island Subarea Plan Hearing, 4/13/2004, 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
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.
lawful committee to come up with a plan that supports the majority of the
landowners, including the absentee landowners. He is opposed to the plan.
Hugh Cameron, 4351 Cedar Place, Lummi Island, submitted (on file) and
read his testimony. There are ferry - related problems, excessive and punitive
regulations, and proposals with unknown consequences, such as designating Lummi
Island as sole source aquifer. The proposed subarea plan contains many proposals
that are not supported by the majority of residents and property owners.
Dorothy Granger Hanson, 2608 North Nugent Road, Lummi Island, submitted
(on file) and read her testimony. The current plan works fine. The existing plan
doesn't address the water question. A water study, promised by Mr. Kremen,
needs to be completed and implemented before the plan is adopted. She
questioned the reason for the change to the aquifer recharge map. None of the
changes to the plan have been made in good faith.
Jack Mulhern, 3820 Lane Spit Drive, Lummi Island, stated he supports the
1979 plan. Executive Kremen stated that he would find the money to do a water
study and implement it into the plan. He agrees. This process has been flawed
from the beginning. Many on the island haven't been notified. He just found out
last June about the Planning Committee. Start over. They can't agree on a
definition of rural character.
Margaret Cameron, 4351 Cedar Place, Lummi Island, submitted (on file) and
read her testimony. Blizzard Road should be open from North Nugent Road to West
Shore Road. Look at the present plan to make sure human and property safety
concerns have been addressed.
Joanne Hammerberg, Lummi Island, stated significant growth will not
maintain rural character on the island. Most of the people want to preserve the
uniqueness of what they have. Do anything to maintain that uniqueness.
Bob Busch, 3612 Sunrise Road, Lummi Island, stated he would yield his time.
He can't add anything more than what has already been said.
Kent Doughty, 4285 Matia View, Lummi Island, stated the Planning
Committee expressed the community's view. There was a lot of information that
went out about the formation of the Lummi Island Planning Committee. There was
an open invitation to participate. Some people chose not to participate until they
realized they don't like the results. Planning doesn't mean that they should do
nothing until there is a problem. Do a five -acre downzone. There is a density
transfer out of aquifer recharge areas. The map in the plan now is a conservative
approach for an unknown problem. The conservative approach is the way to go. It
is balanced and allows people an opportunity to use their land.
Michelle Luke, 3342 Sunrise Cove, Lummi Island submitted (on file) and read
her testimony. The survey had too many flaws and biases, so a petition was
Special Whatcom County Council - Lummi Island Subarea Plan Hearing, 4/13/2004, 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.
created. They collected 350 signatures with comments on the petitions. Consider
all community input.
Mary Sadler, 3316 Sunrise Cove, Lummi Island, stated she favors continuing
with 1979 plan until a water survey or evaluation has been completed.
Wanda Terry, 2882 North Nugent Road, Lummi Island, submitted (on file)
and read her testimony. She is a casting director and producer for firm and
commercials. She has not experienced any water shortage from her well. There
are two main concerns in the community. The first is about water supply and use.
A water study from a graduate student will soon be done, and can be used as a
base for a professional study. Before making a decision, wait for a water study.
Mary Culbertson, 4102 Lego Bay Road, Lummi Island, stated there is a
strong need for a water study before significant changes are made to the 1979
plan. Some of the policies and implementation measures in the current plan are
too vague. Significant growth management issues aren't addressed in the plan.
Todd Granger, 2101 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island, stated public
participation goals and requirements of the Growth Management Act were not
followed, which are required to conform to the due process clause of the
Constitution. Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.090 is the density bonus
transfer in the 1979 plan. It has been removed. The committee passed out a lot
consolidation relief handout after it voted for mandatory lot consolidation, against
the Fifth Amendment. It's a taking of vested legal lots of record. People have
spent money transferring legal vested lots of record.
Steve Schneider, 2455 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, submitted (on file) and
read his testimony. A five - minimum density throughout the RR1 zone should be
retained. If the County continues to use the 1979 plan, it will be out of compliance
with GMA and the critical areas ordinance (CAO). Fifteen lot clusters are too large.
Use a maximum of six lot clusters. Last, they need a water study within three
years. Implement a management plan based on that study.
Ben Rogers, 2877 North Nugent Road, Lummi Island, stated they could
purchase another ferry of identical size to the existing ferry and would not require
an update of the facilities. He lives in condominiums on Lummi Island. There are
22 units on 22 acres. Ninety percent of that land is open. Growth is going to
happen. It is a means of converting land in a way of preserving the open quality of
the island. Collect most of the water they need from precipitation. New housing
should be required to have catch - basins.
Hank Baumgart, 1504 Fairview Street, Bellingham, stated six generations of
his family are from Lummi Island. Lummi Island is mainly a retirement and
bedroom community to Bellingham, where the jobs are. Not all large land owners
are developers. There are about 1,100 buildable lots left on the lot, not including
the 346 lots at Scenic Estates. The five -acre downzone will reduce those lots by
Special Whatcom County Council - Lummi Island Subarea Plan Hearing, 4/13/2004, 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.
65. That unfairly places the burden on a handful. Few people on the island own
more than six acres. He supports the Planning Commission version of the plan.
Art Thomas, 2620 Island View, Lummi Island, stated the goal in 1979 was a
plan for the community. He is opposed to the downzone. It won't preserve rural
character. Water is a major problem. A water study is advisable before moving
forward with any kinds of restrictions or regulations.
Dave Kershner, 3417 Sunrise Road, Lummi Island, submitted (on file) and
read his testimony. The Planning Commission recommendations are out of step
with the community and don't meet the Growth Management Act. The petition
submitted requested a grace period for the five -acre downzone, not that it be
eliminated. The Planning Committee recommended a six housing unit maximum for
clusters, and the Planning Department staff did not challenge it, yet the Planning
Commission increased it. He asked why.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Kershner continued to state that the planning survey didn't collect data about
the size of clusters. It's unlikely that 15 -house clusters are the preference of the
majority of islanders.
David Dickinson, 4100 Legoe Bay Road, Lummi Island, stated the existing
Lummi Island plan from 1979 is flexible enough to suit the present and future uses
of his property. The Lummi Island Planning Committee meetings were not
recorded, and committee formation was not advertised. There are many procedural
and appearance of fairness issues with the process. The maps don't show that any
required best available science was used. The maps are incorrect. The plan invites
the public onto his private property. A definition of rural character as it pertains to
Lummi Island is included in the existing 1979 plan. One aspect of rural character
includes freedom from government regulation.
Mary Dickinson, 4100 Legoe Bay Road, Lummi Island, submitted (on file) and
read her testimony. Don't pass the plan due to procedural process errors. The
plan violates Washington State law, gives authority to trespassers, and does not
represent the majority of the people on the island. Historically, Lummi Island was
an urban industrial community. There is documented evidence that the Planning
Committee never intended to do a water study. Nonconforming lots are vested.
They were accepted by the community in 1979. The plan talks about trespassers
rights. Trespassers have no rights. They're criminals.
Colin (Ken) Brown, 1882 Seacrest Drive, submitted (on file) and read his
testimony. There are no prime agricultural soils on Lummi Island. Attempts are
being made to turn Lummi Island into a gated community, with inadequate ferry
service serving as the "gate." Think carefully before removing their sacred right of
freedom from potential neighbors.
Special Whatcom County Council - Lummi Island Subarea Plan Hearing, 4/13/2004, 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.
Dave Ernst, 2884 West Shore Road, Lummi Island, stated Lummi Island has
an extensive amount of class II Kickerville loam prime agricultural soils. There is
internal inconsistency in the plan. The plan was not very well drawn by the island
community in the first place. One action item is to maintain the existing zoning.
However, that language is not clear, due to the way Title 20 is written. He hopes
the Council will clear up the inconsistencies before adopting the plan. Item 3.5 of
the staff's recommendation calls for an open space plan to be prepared. There is a
more detailed way to organize that process. It will give islanders a chance to do an
open space plan to marry growth on the island to the island's ecology.
Meredith Moench, 1185 Beach Avenue, Lummi Island, stated she supports
the definition of rural character, which she read from the Growth Management Act.
Preserve the rural character as it is now. If 1,100 lots are allowed to develop, they
will have congestion and a residential density not consistent with rural character.
Polly Hanson, 2781 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island, stated they need to
keep Lummi Island special, which has to be done through regulation.
Jim Dickinson, Lummi Island Land Company President, 2094 West Shore
Drive, Lummi Island, stated Lummi Island is not a rural community. It is a
bedroom retirement community interspersed amongst large tracts of land. It was
an industrial community in the early 1900's. Because of the loss of agriculture, it is
no longer rural. They are the largest landowner on the island. Reject the plan.
Every piece of his property is saddled with new regulations. If allowed to be
implemented, he will be unable to survive. His property must pay for itself. On
page 41, the language is in direct violation of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is illegal
to be compelled to invite the public onto private shorelines. Many of the same
members of the local Planning Committee have opposed his legal, sustainable, and
conserving logging efforts, which would help keep his property in its current state.
If he can't keep his property sustainable, he will be forced to liquidate for the most
amount of gain possible from real estate development. He wishes to be left alone
to pursue his usual interest. Reject the plan.
Tim Trohimovich, 1,000 Friends of Washington Planning Director, submitted
(on file) and read from his testimony. The density provision violates the Growth
Management Act. The highest density allowed is one dwelling unit per five acres.
If the rural residential, three units per acre (RR3) zone were implemented, then 98
percent of the water would be committed. Reduce the density. Update the water
study. Until that's done, don't over - commit the available water on the island. The
plan is not specific about the allowed light industrial and commercial uses on the
island. Be more clear. Include standards to protect rural character. The exception
from lot consolidation requirements doesn't make sense on Lummi Island. The
environment is sensitive and water is limited.
David Puckering, 2515 Taft Road, Lummi Island, stated he is the water
manager for Isle -Aire Beach Association. The island is rural. There are no
industries present. The island will always have a rural character. Zoning to
Special Whatcom County Council - Lummi Island Subarea Plan Hearing, 4/13/2004, 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
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.
prohibit a dense build out is already in place. The island water supply has
supported a much larger past population and the water - intensive industry of the
cannery. Lummi Island is full of water. There are many springs across the island.
There is enough water for the current population. There are locations of arsenic in
wells in many places on the island. More incidents of arsenic in the water may be
attributed to more data being collected and because acceptable levels are lower.
Many controls are necessary to protect wells. A water study is needed.
Sue McCaslin, 2025 Legoe Bay Place, Lummi Island, stated rural character
exists in Lummi Island. They all have differences of opinion on what defines rural
character. Something good can happen if they all try to solve the problem rather
than fighting on different sides of the issue.
Victor Armfield, 1210 Scenic Avenue, Lummi Island, submitted (on file) and
read his testimony. The estimate of water used per day per person is intentionally
inaccurate. There has been an urban level of development since 1979. There are
many more water associations than there were in 1979. In the absence of detailed
hydrologic data, rely on land use controls to safeguard resources. Groundwater
deterioration occurs with growth.
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a break from 7:40 p.m. to 7:44 p.m.)
Chris Dillard, 2216 G Street Bellingham, stated he is in favor of protecting
the rural nature of the island. Follow the Growth Management Act, which doesn't
allow density greater than one house per five acres. Use the precautionary
principle in terms of water. Unless there is data on water consumption per person
a hundred years ago, the claim that there is plenty of water today is arbitrary.
Nettles Farm on Lummi Island has very bountiful garden beds, and produce a large
amount of produce from a small area.
Bud Jewell, 3805 Center View Drive, Lummi Island, stated rural character is
something that has many viewpoints. Nobody represents the majority because
they don't know what that is. One item in the plan is for public trail access. Lizard
Road ends at the water on the east side of the island. It was a public access area
for a long time. The County has allowed neighbors to put a fence across it and
plant trees in it. It is public property. The situation needs to be taken care of. It is
one of the very few public beach access roads on the island.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, submitted a letter that was sent
to him from the Health Department (on file). It was said that water is a big
problem. However, only one person who testified at the Planning Commission
asserted that they had a water shortage. No one said their water was impacted by
a drilled well. People have complained about the process. They felt their opinions
were not being considered at all. The process was flawed. That's what caused the
war. If there were a diverse group of people, such as in Birch Bay, they may be
able to resolve the problems. He has a problem with 1,000 Friends of Washington
asserting that the County has to downzone the area. The area conforms to the
Special Whatcom County Council - Lummi Island Subarea Plan Hearing, 4/13/2004, 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.
Comprehensive Plan. No one has ever been required to downzone from a historic
zone or plan. They might be able to justify it if they started from the beginning.
Wanda Cucinatta, 2303 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, submitted testimony (on
file) and stated she has a concern for the natural environment and natural
hydrology. People don't understand how sensitive Lummi Island is. There's no
study of what will happen to the shoreline if there is build out.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Cucinatta continued to state that people don't understand how sensitive the
Lummi Island environment is.
Janice Walker, 2395 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island, stated she is a large
property owner. The taxes are a big issue. They put their land into open space tax
designation to keep taxes down. They have plenty of water, but her neighbor has
run out. The water study should be done. She appreciates the work of the
committee, however the process was flawed because of the short timeframe and
the changes made by the Planning Commission. Water is an important issue for
people to understand.
Hearing no one else, McShane closed the public hearing.
McShane stated this plan will go now to the Council Planning and
Development Committee. If the Planning and Development Committee chooses to
recommend any changes to the Council, which is possible, another public hearing
will be required. He thanked everyone for attending the hearing and giving the
Council a good sense of what the issues are. It was instructive to councilmembers.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on May 18 , 2004.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Council Chair
Special Whatcom County Council - Lummi Island Subarea Plan Hearing, 4/13/2004, Page 9
1
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.
Special Whatcom County Council - Lummi Island Subarea Plan Hearing, 4/13/2004, Page
10