HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning September 23 20031
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.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
September 23, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 3:08 p.m. by Committee Chair Seth
Fleetwood in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber None
Dan McShane
Also Present:
Barbara Brenner
Sam Crawford
L. Ward Nelson
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(AB2003 -075A)
Fleetwood stated the committee would not take a vote on this today. It
would be held in committee for two more weeks. He will take testimony from the
public today.
Dan Warner, 3854 Squalicum Lake Road, stated the population of Whatcom
County has grown 30 percent in ten years. That is a 2.8 percent population
increase. At that rate, the population will double every 23 years. Whatcom County
is facing an enormous population increase. The county is changing into something
that people don't want it to become. The difference between Whatcom County and
Los Angeles County is population. Sunset Drive is an example of what happens.
There are a couple of things that are useful to keep in mind when they talk about
the government and the support for population increase and growth. Growth is
good for awhile, then it's not good anymore. At some juncture, the growth will
stop. The question is when the growth will stop. If there are enough people who
want the growth to stop, it will. First, growth is not inevitable. The county
residents have the power to address this issue. Second, there is no particular
relationship between growth and economic prosperity. If there is an increase in
population, there will be an increase in the number of people employed. There will
not be a decrease in the unemployment rate. All they are doing is paving the
property, increasing the traffic congestion, destroy what is nice about living here,
and do nothing to address the problem of unemployment.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/23/2003, 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.
It's been said that any attempt to control the population increase will raise
the price of housing. The fact is that growth controls have a small effect on the
price of housing, between 12 and 20 percent. The largest factor affecting housing
affordability is good schools. Couples with children will bid up the price of real
estate in communities that have good schools, according to research done by
Harvard University. That is the single most important factor, by far. There are
many other factors affecting housing prices. Growth control is a small piece of it.
There is some price to be paid. The benefit is the maintenance of the community.
Third, the most obvious manifestation of the problems in Whatcom County is
the traffic situation. Traffic is terrible. The solution is not improving the roads.
Research shows that improving the roads makes the traffic problems worse. There
is a small window of time when there is a perceived improvement, but the
additional easy access just encourages people more to use their cars.
One of the reasons for the traffic problem is bad planning. The traditional
cul de sac housing development has no place for people to walk. All the
developments feed onto the Mt. Baker Highway, for example. Anyone who wants
to buy a loaf of bread must get in the car and drive out of the cul de sac to get to
the grocery store. That's bad planning. They should be building traditional city
developments with alleys, so the front yards of the houses do not feature garages
and paved aprons.
It is possible to do something about this issue. Increase in population and
the traditional concept of growth does nothing to address economic welfare in the
community. Improving roadways does nothing to address the traffic problem.
If development in a community causes traffic to be more than an allotted
amount on a certain road, don't issue permits for any more buildings. They have
reached the point where growth is no longer good for the community. He hoped
the County Council has the political courage to adopt the low population projection.
That is the first tool they need. If they pick a high figure and plan for it, that's
what they'll get.
Pat Jones, Jones Engineers, stated his firm has conducted population
projections for the Bellingham urban growth area (UGA) using conventional
methods. His firm has conducted such projections for numerous counties, utility
districts, and cities in terms of infrastructure planning for 35 years. His
methodology used is completely different from the methodology used by the
consultant. However, the result of his analysis agrees almost exactly with the
consultant's conclusion.
Projecting growth has nothing to do with what they wish the growth would
be. The desired projection has little to do with what will occur. Growth cannot be
controlled in the United States. A person's free movement is guaranteed in the
Constitution. They cannot pass laws that prohibit people from traveling freely in
Planning and Development Committee, 9/23/2003, 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.
the United States. Two - thirds of growth is from in- migration. The appropriate
population projection is what science and experience tells them it will be.
The consequences of picking the wrong number are significant. If they
underestimate the population growth, they will set the wheels in motion for
infrastructure planning that is inadequate. If they don't plan for that reality, they
will have the consequences, which will be undersized facilities that have to be
upgraded at enormous cost. Infrastructure sizes are based on Comprehensive Plan
numbers. Underestimating the population projection has enormous negative
consequences in terms of capital costs down the road and spurs urban sprawl.
Whatcom County has thousands of large lots outside the urban centers. If they
don't plan for it in the cities, it goes into the counties. Urban sprawl is one of the
worst things to do and makes transportation more painful.
Fleetwood stated the claim is frequently made that if they don't plan well,
infrastructure won't exist and they'll have enormous problems. He asked if
infrastructure is established consistent with the planned developments. Jones
stated that is correct for infrastructure inside of subdivisions, which is planned for
and constructed by the developer at the time of construction. The infrastructure
he's talking about includes schools, arterial streets, water storage tanks, sewage
treatment plants, and parks facilities. Those things are developed in response to a
long -term plan for a certain population demand. They are called general facilities.
Fleetwood asked if it's true that local government creates policy that
influences the number of people who come to the area, to a certain extent. They
have some control over the number of people who come here. Jones stated that is
true. They can create an environment that is so onerous that there would be an
out - migration. Government can do that. However, short of draconian measures,
it's not something they do in the United States.
Fleetwood asked if limiting the number of permits issued is draconian to the
person being denied a building permit for a house. Some people would argue that
limit permits is in the public interest to the vast majority. Jones stated there are
circumstances under which permits should be limited. They are crisis situations.
They are often the result of inadequate planning. That's not the way Americans like
to live.
Brenner stated she doesn't understand how any population projection would
interfere with the free movement of people. People can come and go wherever
they want. If the Council sizes growth to a certain level and sticks to that level
with zoning measures, they won't be undersized. They will only be undersized if
premise of a certain level, create infrastructure at that level, and then change plans
to allow more than what they decided. There has to be an end to growth. They
have a finite amount of land. Jones stated that if they plan for no population
growth or an out - migration population level, it means they don't need anymore
schools or parks. Those actions are not going to stop certain people who want to
live in Whatcom County. If the facilities aren't available in an urban area, the
Planning and Development Committee, 9/23/2003, 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.
people will go to the countryside. To affect growth over 100 years or longer, they
have to ask how they maintain a population within the current urban area. One
way is to establish greenbelts around urban areas using zoning and other effective
measures. Another option is to start an entirely new urban area away from the
current urban areas.
Brenner stated that at some point, no matter what they do, they will run out
of land. She asked if the reason growth will stop is because they run out of land in
the county. Jones stated that would be true in the abstract. There are other
phenomenon that will occur, such as the economics of the area. People will find
other solutions. There is some point where that isn't economically viable.
Crawford stated many economists project zero population growth for the
United States between 2050 and 2060. There would have to be serious economic
shifts or changes to create areas that would grow indefinitely.
Jones stated they are talking about two percent growth. That's very low.
That's lower than what they've seen in the last ten or twenty years.
Crawford stated people can choose to move for economic and lifestyle
reasons, such as those who chose to move out of California.
Brenner stated those people will move only if they can afford to move. The
prices here will go up and up until the prices here becomes just as expensive as it
is in places where people are leaving.
Crawford stated that is the economics of it. The economics don't allow them
to pave over Whatcom County because of endless numbers of people.
Brenner stated those places such as California did get paved over, which is
why people are leaving. Los Angeles has many ruined areas.
Crawford stated the growth is still occurring there.
Jones stated he agrees with the recommendation of the Planning staff.
Jack Petree, Bellingham, stated they all have a stake in choosing the right
population projection. Everyone agrees that, when planning for a certain end
result, they need to know what will happen during the time they are planning for.
In Whatcom County, there is enough land supply outside of the cities to allow all of
the population that might come here for the next 30 or 40 years to live outside the
urban growth areas. No matter where a person stands on how to grow and plan,
no one wants all the people moving into the county. They are to try to keep people
in and near the cities. Size urban growth areas at a level in which they are
attractive for people to live. If they are unattractive, there are other options
elsewhere in Whatcom County. There is a lot of parcelization in the county. They
need people to be attracted to the cities so they don't want to live in the county.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/23/2003, 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.
Also, the Council should hold people to task for the studies they cite. They need to
look at the full spectrum of impacts when reviewing the cost of growth. According
to an Oregon study, a new home in Oregon generates 150 percent more property
tax than an old house. That extra 50 percent is part of the benefit of the growth.
Look rationally at what will happen and make rational decisions. If they plan for
too little growth, they have too much sprawl. If they plan for too much growth,
they produce a little bit of sprawl. If they plan for the right amount, they will
produce as little amount of sprawl as possible.
Brenner asked if the Oregon study says that the new houses pay for the
effects of the development. Petree stated it ends up with a $4,500 shortage, but
also with a one -time tax income from the building and a permanent tax income that
is about 150 percent higher than an existing house.
Dave Pros, Lake Samish resident, stated it's hard to get a good handle on
what population numbers actually mean. Think about what will happen if they
choose the high number or choose the low number.
The process of determining population projections is disconnected from
reality. The population projection for Whatcom County has nothing to do with the
actual growth. However, when they choose a population projection number, it
becomes a hammer that different interest groups will use to go to court to make
infrastructure and other things become a reality. A land use attorney said they are
under no obligation to take anything more than the lowest number the State
provides. Anything more than that is purely a political decision.
The next disconnect is to the actual process that they are supposed to go by.
He questioned the legitimizing factor in any kind of planning. He'd like to see the
big picture of what they are supposed to do. It comes down to the Comprehensive
Plan visioning process.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Pros continued to state that growth management dictates that 75 to 90
percent of the private land base in Whatcom County should be designated for rural,
agricultural, and forestry use 50 years hence. Urban sprawl should be discouraged.
The population projection is disconnected from that mandate.
The third disconnect is from the claim that people will move out to the
county if they don't put people in the urban growth areas. He's heard land use
professionals who are asked the number of lots they need to generate to encourage
people to move into the urban growth areas or the city instead of the county. No
one has been able to come up with an answer. There is not a number that makes it
economically desirable to move into the urban growth area. It's cheaper to move
into the rural area. Until they find a way to make it less expensive or more
desirable to move into the urban areas, people are going to move into the rural
areas.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/23/2003, 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.
The fourth disconnect is from the proper order for planning, which begins
with what the whole county wants, not what an individual wants. If the visioning
process is fatally flawed, then do another one. Plan for what they must protect.
Plan for what the citizens want to protect. Determine locations where additional
population will enhance the quality of life. The city is a good place for most of the
population to go. They have to decide whether the government should lock out a
certain amount of population in those areas that don't enhance their quality of life.
If they are going to allow upzoning in areas, it should be done by a transfer of
development rights (TDR) or purchase of development rights (PDR) process. Don't
burden the taxpayers with the government trying to buy out all the development
rights. Always choosing the high or medium, anything more than they have to, will
lead them to a place they don't want to be.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the councilmembers received information from staff
about the staff's recommendation. She asked about the Planning Commission
process. Pros stated the Planning Commission heard a lot of testimony. He does
not speak on behalf of the Commission because his recommendation is different.
The councilmembers should look into the Commission's testimony. It would be nice
for the councilmembers to receive more information about why Planning
Commission decisions are made the way they are. The medium number was
determined to be the most accurate number. Anything more than the State's low
projection is purely a political choice.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the minutes covered the spirit of the meeting.
Pros stated the minutes are a synopsis of what had occurred. Some Planning
Commissioners want to revisit the population projection. The amount of people in
the low projection could all fit into the city urban growth area, and there would still
be 300 lots left over. They don't have to expand and densify the urban growth
areas. If they pick the high numbers, they do have to expand and densify the
urban growth areas. The higher the number they pick, the fewer the options they
have.
Brenner asked about who should get the TDR's. Pros stated any upzoning
should be done by TDR. If a person wants to take an area zoned one house per
five acres and put ten units on it, that person should buy nine development rights.
Brenner asked about the people who are next to the developer who don't get
any benefit from the development, only the impacts. Pros stated that is a worry.
In the reports about population projections, there is no evaluation of the economic
or emotional impacts. He would like to ask the residents in each urban growth if
they want to change the zoning so it's denser.
Bob Tull, attorney, stated he's afraid that the forecast issue has become
distorted in terms of its relevance and sequence. Neighborhoods don't want the
impacts of change. Bellingham is divided into a lot of neighborhoods that have
clear distinctions from other neighborhoods. Those neighborhoods stated they
Planning and Development Committee, 9/23/2003, 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.
don't want to densify, and they can't densify without going through a process of
destabilization and rebuilding. A few neighborhoods can take some additional
units. Whatcom County has been the shock absorber for the varying successes on
growth matters over the last 30 years, especially by the City of Bellingham. The
ability of Bellingham to respond to market demand for more lots has been
depressed. Bellingham's pipeline for lot construction has been constricted. They
are not getting the yields that zoning calls for due to site constraints and for
political reasons. The County is under increasing pressure to supply building
permits to people who want to build in the county. A lot of people want to live
closer in the city. In Seattle, the areas closer in demand tremendous premiums.
Only the well -to -do can pay tremendous premiums. Working people rarely can.
That results in people commuting long distances. Distortions have occurred
because there hasn't been enough pressure on the cities to understand that it has
to go along with growth management. If Bellingham can't attract more and more
of the population, then Whatcom County will have all the problems of King County.
They have to manage it. That's what the State decided in 1991. The cities have to
carry a certain population. Bellingham must be convincing about how it will provide
the mixture of housing types and densities with the appropriate infrastructure that
works. Transfers and purchases of development rights could work, but it won't
happen if it changes the economics. The building community can't subsidize
growth management. Get back to what will make the urbanization happen that is
called for by the Growth Management Act, and how they will support it in a way
they like it. It has to do with development standards, proper impact fees, and
coordination with school districts and other service providers. They have to get into
management mode, and stop wishing away the impacts of change. They can
impact how change will affect them, such as by having strong parks. Figure out
what they really want to do and how to get there. A particular part of the
community can't exclude all others. That's what got them into the mess they are in
now. One of the things that will affect people in this community is if they are
careless in how they let the housing costs rise higher and higher. The law of supply
and demand has not been repealed. When they drastically restrict the supply, they
will not hurt the rich people who want to retire here. They will hurt the people who
don't have choices and who would like to raise a family here. The County has to
ask Bellingham what it's going to do to bring about overall densification and to
ensure that the city attracts its share of the population. Say similar things to the
other cities. All the cities have asked to have the tools for planning that they think
are associated with the higher numbers. Bellingham won't densify if they are faced
with the lower projection.
McShane stated the committee would have more discussion on this at the
next meeting. Councilmember Roy would like to be present for the vote.
McShane stated he liked the analogy of the hammer. He fully intends to use
that hammer to direct growth away from the areas it should not go. That is a
significant tool they have available to them. That tool will not be available if they
go with the low projections in the city. Many of the issues have little to do with the
population projection, and have to do with how the County implements certain
Planning and Development Committee, 9/23/2003, 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.
things after it chooses a population projection. He doesn't fully believe in high
population projections in the city to encourage growth in the city. They need to do
more than encourage it. They need to really manipulate what they have to direct
growth into the city, or they will lose their farmland and forestland. Having higher
population projections in the cities will do that. Otherwise, they will have sprawl.
Brenner stated she doesn't see any relationship. It has to do with what they
do and don't allow in the County. If they are going to influence what happens in
the county, they influence people by the expectations for people who locate out
there.
Caskey- Schreiber stated her biggest concern if they follow Councilmember
McShane's plan is when the Cities come to the County to expand the urban growth
areas. She's not necessarily willing to do that, and then ask the people who live
here now to pay for the infrastructure for expanding those urban growth areas.
McShane stated that approving the high population projection does not
commit them to expanding the urban growth areas. His proposal is to adopt a high
population projection for the cities, as the cities have asked for, and the established
urban growth areas and a low population projection for the unincorporated areas
outside the urban growth areas. It is option four that staff presented to the
Planning Commission, including all the cities.
Aamot stated that if all the cities were given a high population projection, it
may result in a low or negative population growth projection for the rural areas.
He'd have to look at the numbers. Staff can put together a scenario where they
adopt the high numbers for urban areas and low number for rural areas, and see
what the total is. The total may be more than 231,000.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like to see the numbers if Bellingham is
given a medium population projection, which is the reality.
Aamot stated he would work up a population scenario based on
Councilmember McShane's and Councilmember Caskey - Schreiber's comments.
Fleetwood stated the committee would have a final discussion in two weeks.
(Clerk's Note: The committee took a break at 4:33 p.m.)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.37 — POINT ROBERTS
TRANSITIONAL ZONE DISTRICT AND CHAPTER 20.80 —
SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS (AB2003 -317)
Amy Pederson, Planner I, gave a staff report. This ordinance is just for
amendments to setback requirements and updates to the cluster subdivision
standards. Staff amended the cluster subdivision standards in the transitional zone
Planning and Development Committee, 9/23/2003, 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.
to be the same as what's being currently reviewed for the watershed regulations.
There was some confusion regarding setbacks. Depending on how a site is
developed, there are different setbacks. The question was how they handle the old
lots that are already there. To avoid confusion, staff proposes just one setback for
all. The remaining changes are administration and code scrub.
McShane moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they want to discuss the changes proposed by
Michael Rosser of the Point Roberts Taxpayers' Association in a letter dated today.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend section 20.37.321(2), "...adjacent
tracts it would help to better further the objectives listed in WCC 20.37.305...."
McShane accepted the motion to amend as a friendly amendment to his
motion to approve.
Motion to approve with the amendment carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.71 — WATER RESOURCE
PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.80 —
SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS (STORMWATER AND CLEARING),
CHAPTER 20.85 — PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, AND CHAPTER
20.97 — DEFINITIONS, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REGULATORY
PROTECTION FOR SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS (A62002 -2226)
Amy Pederson, Planner I, stated she submitted a memo (on file) with
attachments that summarizes the history of watershed regulations as they relate to
the original Lake Whatcom subdivision moratorium, which was adopted December
2001. The memo also provides a review of key amendments proposed and
associated background information for those amendment topics, including seasonal
land clearing restrictions, impervious surface limits, and cluster subdivisions. She
also discussed alternatives considered.
Fleetwood asked for the alternatives they've considered to tree retention.
Pederson stated there were four key alternatives: native soil retention, vegetative
retention, post- construction soil amendment, and re- vegetation.
Fleetwood asked if they are viable alternatives. Pederson stated they are all
viable and effective measures to address stormwater management and runoff.
However, in light of current scientific information available regarding tree retention,
Planning and Development Committee, 9/23/2003, 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.
this is determined to be the most effective and least burdensome alternative. Soil
retention and native vegetation retention are applicable on a broader scale of the
watershed than tree retention, so this option is the least burdensome on property
owners.
Fleetwood asked why the alternatives considered would not achieve the
objective. Pederson stated the alternatives could potentially achieve the overall
objective of managing and decreasing potential stormwater impacts from
residential development. However, tree retention has also been demonstrated as
an effective measure of managing stormwater. Based on the information in the
research materials, tree retention is an effective measure and is the least restrictive
of the options. Another approach could be effective, but it would be more
burdensome on property owners and developers.
McShane stated it could also be burdensome on other property owners than
the one actually doing the development, in terms of others having to make up and
pay for the costs.
Kurt Baumgarten, Planner I, stated tree retention without having the
vegetation retention beneath it, provides greater flexibility to a property owner for
what they do beneath those trees. That was an issue that was bought up. There is
a higher probability that trees will be retained during construction because there
are more options for folks in the long run. In the long run, it will be easier to
monitor and track the percentage of tree cover using the geographic information
system (GIS) and aerial photographs.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to implement the seasonal clearing, subsection
20.80.735(2)(e), beginning January 1, 2004.
Motion to implement January 1, 2004 carried unanimously.
Fleetwood stated a public hearing on this item would be held in two weeks.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
Planning and Development Committee, 9/23/2003, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Seth Fleetwood, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 9/23/2003, Page 11