Whatcom County Council Special Committee of the Whole

The Whatcom County Council held an intensive special Committee of the Whole session on March 17, 2026, to review five chapters of the comprehensive plan update, marking a critical juncture in the county's 20-year planning process. The marathon 7-hour session (with lunch break) resulted in preliminary approval of dozens of policy amendments across transportation, capital facilities, utilities, economic development, and land use chapters, though several contentious items were held for further review. The meeting began with 30 minutes of public comment featuring testimony from industry representatives, environmental advocates, and neighborhood groups, setting the stage for heated debates over industrial zoning conflicts, environmental justice, and competing visions for development. BP Cherry Point and Heidelberg Materials representatives urged caution on late-stage policy amendments they argued could create legal vulnerabilities and unintended consequences, while community advocates pushed for stronger environmental protections and buffers between heavy industrial uses and residential neighborhoods. Council's most significant action was approving a 5% minimum allocation of Transportation Improvement Program funding for active transportation projects, despite concerns from some members about mandating specific spending percentages. The narrow 5-2 vote reflected broader tensions about setting aspirational goals versus creating binding fiscal commitments in the comprehensive plan. Council also approved language prioritizing diversion and behavioral health services in jail planning, consistent with the county's Justice Project implementation plan. The land use chapter proved most contentious, with council ultimately striking several proposed industrial land use policies after industry pushback about insufficient review processes. Policies affecting the Birchwood/Alderwood area near industrial facilities were removed, though council retained language about maintaining existing industrial zoning boundaries. The session concluded with council agreeing to hold open discussion on Chapter 2 for potential future amendments, acknowledging the complex balance between environmental justice, housing needs, and economic development. Throughout the day, council wrestled with fundamental questions about the comprehensive plan's role: Should it set aspirational goals or create enforceable mandates? How should the county balance competing interests when industrial operations and residential neighborhoods exist in close proximity? These tensions will likely resurface as the comprehensive plan moves toward final adoption later this year.

**Transportation Chapter 6:** - **Policy 6A-7 and 6A-8:** Approved 7-0 with amendment adding "subject to funding availability" language for active transportation standards - **New Policy 6L-7:** Approved 5-2 requiring allocation of "at least 5% of funding" in County's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program for active transportation projects - **Policy 6D-6:** Approved 7-0 retaining Planning Commission language prioritizing transportation investments and encouraging housing in urban growth areas - **Policy 6E-2:** Motion withdrawn after discussion about implementation challenges **Capital Facilities Chapter 4:** - **Goal 4D:** Approved 5-2 with language consistent with Justice Project Implementation Plan, prioritizing "diversion, treatment, and behavioral health services" in correctional facilities - **Policy 4D-2:** Approved 6-1 (with Galloway away) changing "inmates" to "incarcerated individuals" and adding comprehensive review factors for jail bed determination - **Policy 4J-2:** Approved after lunch break, adding language to "aim to achieve net ecological gain of salmon and other aquatic species habitat" for public projects - **Policy 4J-4:** Approved adding new policy on fish barrier removal - **Policy 4M-5:** Approved climate resilience language for county facilities **Utilities Chapter 5:** - **Policy 5A-1:** Approved expanding environmental review for utility facilities not under EFSEC jurisdiction - **Policy 5F-2:** Approved requiring review and update of county code to align with state law - **Policy 5H-2:** Held until next meeting for further discussion **Economic Development Chapter 7:** - **Policy 7A-3:** Approved defining "living-wage jobs" as those at or above state median income with essential benefits - **Policy 7A-11:** Approved establishing "competitiveness review" of county policies affecting businesses - **Items 15-20:** Held until April 7 meeting **Land Use Chapter 2:** - **Policies 2A-9 and 2A-10:** Struck after industry concerns about insufficient review process - **Policies 2N-8 through 2N-11:** Struck (industrial land use policies) - **Policy 2U-10:** Approved with "retention" language, striking 2U-11 through 2U-13 - **Policies for Everson, Nooksack, and Sumas (Items 121-123):** Approved with "Continue to" language All actions were preliminary approvals, with final amendments due to staff by March 20 and additional review scheduled for March 24.

**Council Member Scanlon, on active transportation funding:** "My goal here is to improve safety in our community. And you know, when you're having projects on our roads that help to separate different types of users, that improves safety." **Council Member Elenbaas, on mandated percentages:** "My concern is that if we put that 5% in there, that it's going to -- we could find a situation where it's problematic in the future. And I think experience shows us that." **Ryan Bowman, on environmental justice:** "Environmental justice is not just about policy language. It is about who carries the burden and who is protected from it. This council represents those residents and they deserve to see that reflected in the decisions you make." **Lisa Adam, on industrial-residential conflicts:** "When we know better, we do better. And it's been done before with the revitalization of Old Town, which could be a model for a real solution for this neighborhood and existing businesses." **Amy de Vera (Environmental Resources Management), on policy process:** "If new amendments are introduced and pose potential environmental impacts that were not analyzed in the final EIS, the county must complete a supplemental EIS." **Council Member Elenbaas, on salmon recovery:** "Ben, if there are no fish returning, obviously habitat isn't our limiting factor. And so if you have five fish returning, there's definitely habitat for five fish."

## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council convened a special Committee of the Whole meeting on Tuesday morning, March 17, 2026, to review five critical chapters of the county's comprehensive plan update. Chair Kaylee Galloway called the hybrid meeting to order at 9:34 AM with all seven council members present: Elizabeth Boyle, Barry Buchanan, Ben Elenbaas, Jessica Rienstra, John Scanlon, Mark Stremler, and Galloway herself. This was the third in a series of comprehensive plan review sessions, continuing work from earlier meetings on March 3rd and 10th. The meeting's ambitious agenda called for reviewing chapters on transportation, capital facilities, utilities, economic development, and land use — representing the core infrastructure and development policies that will guide Whatcom County's growth for the next two decades. With a scheduled break for lunch from noon to 1 PM and an adjournment target of 4:30 PM, the council faced a packed day of deliberation on policies affecting everything from bike paths to jail facilities to industrial zoning. ## Industrial Land Use Tensions Frame Public Comment Before diving into policy amendments, the council heard from nearly twenty speakers during a thirty-minute public comment period that revealed the meeting's underlying tensions. At the center of the debate were proposed policies affecting Cherry Point's heavy industrial lands and the residential neighborhoods of Birchwood and Alderwood near Bellingham's airport. Pamela Brady from BP Cherry Point opened the testimony by challenging Policy 2CC-16, which would require notification to the Lummi Nation and Nooksack Tribe for all pre-application discussions regarding refinery or transshipment expansion. "The predictable result is that applicants will avoid early conversations with staff, which reduces transparency, not increases it," Brady argued. She contended that automatic notification for preliminary discussions that might never materialize into actual applications would discourage the very early coordination the policy aimed to promote. Tamara Linhart, also from Cherry Point Refinery, raised concerns about Policy 2A-9 regarding inactive industrial parcels and proposed aquatic reserve policies. "Language suggesting inactive parcels may be subject to review or rezoning could introduce uncertainty for long-term investments and establish land use expectations," she testified. On the aquatic reserve policies, she warned that additional blanket mitigation requirements would duplicate existing federal, state, tribal, and county oversight through SEPA review. The other side of this industrial debate came from Lisa Adam, representing the Birchwood neighborhood. Standing at the podium, Adam presented a detailed timeline challenging the "who was here first" argument often used to defend industrial operations near residential areas. "Alderwood Elementary School established in 1956, Birchwood Elementary School, established in 1928, Shucks and Middle School, established in 1956, BTC, 1957," she recounted, while noting that Heidelberg established its cement plant operation at the Marine Drive location in 1977 and Bell Lumber arrived in 2022. She reminded the council that the Osier Land site, now owned by Bell, was designated a Superfund site in 1997 due to contamination with "toxins like creosote, PCP, carrier oil, and dioxins." Ryan Bowman delivered perhaps the most pointed testimony, framing the entire debate through the lens of environmental justice. "Washington State did not pass the Healthy Environment for All Act in a vacuum," he told the council. "Here in Bellingham, we have already seen the consequences of industrial contamination through the legacy of the Osier Company Superfund site. That history should have changed how we approach land use decisions moving forward." His testimony concluded with a direct challenge: "Who is protected by this plan and who is being asked to accept the risk?" ## Transportation Chapter: The 5% Funding Debate The council's first substantive policy debate centered on transportation infrastructure, specifically how much funding should be dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The discussion revealed fundamental differences in how council members view government's role in mandating spending priorities versus setting aspirational goals. Councilmember John Scanlon proposed amending new Policy 6L-7 to require "at least 5%" of the county's six-year Transportation Improvement Program funding be allocated to active transportation projects. Doug Raney, the county engineer, provided helpful context: "We're budgeting right now for the 2027 annual program, and we're spending approximately $3 million in local funds. And of that, we're already spending over 5% on ADA improvements alone, not to mention pedestrian and bicycle improvements." This revelation that the county was already meeting or exceeding the proposed threshold didn't settle the debate. Councilmember Ben Elenbaas raised concerns about locking in percentage-based mandates. "My concern with having it be a percentage is, say we have some giant project that we've gotten...5% of our average budget might be one number but say you come in a year and you're going to like replace you're going to add a bridge across...the Nooksack River that connects Pole Road and what ends up being Grandview Road, which would be so amazing. And we get like a billion dollars in federal funding just for the EIS," he said, noting the absurdity of having to spend fifty million dollars on bike paths as part of such a project. Scanlon defended his proposal by connecting it to safety outcomes: "My goal is here is to improve safety in our community. And you know, when you're having projects on our roads that help to separate different types of users, that improves safety." He also shared a personal anecdote about biking to a bakery in Ferndale as an example of how better active transportation infrastructure supports both safety and economic development. The debate ultimately revealed different philosophies about comprehensive planning. Elenbaas argued that "these goals turn into whereas statements, which justify our actions. But these goals can also turn into...holding us to account for inactions as well. And so I guess in that situation where we might have a giant project...and we didn't spend 5% of that budget on ADA compliance or one of the listed things, it would open the door for...some group to just be like, oh, you only spent 4.97%. It says a minimum of five in your comp plan. So now therefore, we're gonna sue you." Despite these concerns, Scanlon's amendment passed 5-2, with Elenbaas and Stremler voting against the specific percentage mandate while supporting the underlying goals of improved active transportation infrastructure. ## Justice System Facilities and Language The capital facilities chapter sparked an extensive debate about correctional philosophy that consumed much of the post-lunch session. At issue were proposed changes to Goal 4D and Policy 4D-2, which would guide the county's approach to jail and behavioral health facility planning. The discussion began with a seemingly minor language change proposed by Councilmember Elizabeth Boyle, who suggested replacing "inmates" with "incarcerated individuals" throughout the document. "Inmates is occasionally used through the report. I think incarcerated individuals is much more appropriate when referring to people," she explained. "Inmates suggests that everyone has been committed of a crime...where the majority of our people in our jail have not yet been committed of a crime." This led to a deeper philosophical debate when Councilmember Mark Stremler proposed changing language about "prioritizing" diversion and treatment programs to simply "including" them. Stremler argued that "the community needs an outcome. And if however we can achieve that outcome, I think is what we need to prioritize...gives us the flexibility that we need to achieve an outcome that reflects the community's needs." Councilmember Jessica Rienstra countered with recidivism statistics: "When we're talking about outcomes, we know that 66 to 77% of incarcerated persons fail basically because they have recidivism rates. And so I think if we're looking at success rates, we have to look at them across the board." She argued that traditional incarceration wasn't delivering desired outcomes, necessitating stronger language prioritizing evidence-based interventions. Elenbaas, drawing from personal experience, noted that "the success rate of treatment...is even worse" than incarceration recidivism rates, arguing for flexibility rather than mandated priorities. The amendment to change "prioritize" to "include" failed 2-5, with the council ultimately maintaining stronger language supporting diversion and treatment approaches. ## Environmental Standards and Salmon Recovery One of the meeting's most technical debates emerged around environmental standards for capital projects, specifically the concept of "net ecological gain" versus traditional "no net loss" approaches. Chair Galloway had proposed amending Policy 4J-2 to include language about achieving net ecological gain "of salmon and other aquatic species habitat." Councilmember Elenbaas challenged the habitat focus, arguing for outcome-based rather than process-based goals. Drawing from his background in agriculture and conversations with tribal fisheries staff, he argued: "If there are no fish returning, obviously habitat isn't our limiting factor. And so if you have five fish returning, there's definitely habitat for five fish. If there's 100 fish returning, there's definitely habitat for 100 fish." He pushed for striking the word "habitat" from the policy, arguing that the county should focus on actual salmon population recovery rather than habitat metrics. "35 years we've been doing habitat and water quality. That's the only thing the state's given money for. So that's the only thing that people are going after...When you're hitting your water quality standards and you've restored all this habitat and the fish still aren't there, what's the next thing you're going to do?" John Thompson from the county's Natural Resources Division provided technical context during the lunch break, explaining that "typically, with our work, we are more focused on the habitat impact...if we're removing a culvert that's blocking access to fish habitat, we're kind of going at it from that lens." But he acknowledged Elenbaas's broader point: "What's harder to measure is kind of that larger ecological...what we want to get is...we want to see more fish. But that's harder to measure and there's a lot of other factors beyond our control on that." The debate reflected a fundamental tension between what county government can directly control through its capital projects versus the broader ecological outcomes those projects aim to achieve. Ultimately, the council retained the habitat language while acknowledging the legitimate concerns about focusing on process metrics rather than outcome measures. ## Economic Development and Living Wages The economic development chapter generated relatively little controversy, with most amendments passing quickly. However, the council did spend time refining Policy 7A-3 regarding living-wage jobs. The final language committed the county to fostering "living-wage jobs—defined as jobs that offer compensation at or above the state median income, and include essential benefits such as health insurance and employer retirement contributions—to ensure long-term economic stability for workers and their families." This represents a significant policy commitment, establishing clear benchmarks for the types of employment the county will prioritize in its economic development efforts. The inclusion of specific benefit requirements beyond just wage levels reflects the council's recognition that true economic stability requires comprehensive compensation packages. ## Industrial Zoning: The Unfinished Business The meeting's most consequential discussions were left incomplete due to time constraints. The land use chapter, scheduled last on the agenda, contained the most contentious proposed amendments affecting heavy industrial zoning near residential areas. Several policies would specifically address the Birchwood/Alderwood situation that dominated public comment. Council ultimately voted to hold discussion of Chapter 2 open "to revisit again at a later date, potentially April 21, or another date as agreed upon by Council and properly noticed." This decision ensures that the industrial zoning debates will continue, likely with additional public input and more detailed analysis of the proposed policies. The incomplete nature of this discussion means that the fundamental questions raised in public comment — about environmental justice, industrial compatibility, and long-term land use planning — remain unresolved. The April continuation will be crucial for determining how Whatcom County balances economic development with residential livability and environmental protection. ## Closing & What's Ahead Despite the ambitious agenda, the council managed to work through four of five chapters, approving numerous policy amendments that will shape Whatcom County's development for decades to come. The meeting demonstrated both the complexity of comprehensive planning and the democratic process's messiness when dealing with competing values and interests. Chair Galloway maintained control of what could have been an unwieldy process, keeping discussions focused while allowing adequate debate on complex issues. The council's willingness to hold controversial items for future meetings rather than rushing to decisions showed appropriate caution given the long-term implications of comprehensive plan policies. The meeting adjourned with the understanding that second-round amendments from the day's discussions would be due to staff by Friday, March 20th, with final amendments considered during the regularly scheduled March 24th Committee of the Whole meeting. The incomplete Chapter 2 discussion was scheduled to continue at a properly noticed future meeting, likely in April. As council members gathered their papers and headed for the exits, the weight of their decisions was evident. From bike path funding to jail philosophy to industrial zoning, the policies they were crafting would affect every resident of Whatcom County. The democratic process had been messy and time-consuming, but that messiness reflected the genuine complexity of balancing competing community needs and values in a growing region facing pressures from development, environmental protection, and social equity concerns.

## MODULE S1: STUDY GUIDE **Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-CTW-SPC-2026-03-17 ### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council held a Special Committee of the Whole meeting on Tuesday, March 17, 2026 to discuss five chapters of the county's comprehensive plan update: Transportation, Capital Facilities, Utilities, Economic Development, and Land Use. The meeting featured extensive public comment followed by detailed policy deliberations across all five chapters. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Committee of the Whole:** A meeting format where all council members participate in committee-style discussion rather than formal council proceedings, allowing for more flexible debate and preliminary decision-making. **Comprehensive Plan:** A 20-year planning document required by Washington State's Growth Management Act that guides how the county will grow and develop, covering topics like land use, transportation, housing, and economic development. **Urban Growth Area (UGA):** Designated areas where urban development is concentrated to prevent sprawl and protect rural lands. The county was considering expanding several UGAs during this meeting. **Level of Traffic Stress (LTS):** A measurement system for evaluating how comfortable and safe bike and pedestrian facilities are for users of different skill levels, with lower stress being more accessible to all ages and abilities. **Net Ecological Gain:** An environmental concept requiring projects to not just avoid harm but actually improve ecological conditions, going beyond the traditional "no net loss" standard. **Heavy Industrial Impact (HII):** A zoning designation for intensive industrial uses that may conflict with nearby residential areas, particularly relevant in discussions about the Birchwood neighborhood. **Justice Project Implementation Plan:** Whatcom County's strategic plan for reforming the criminal justice system, emphasizing diversion, treatment, and behavioral health services over traditional incarceration. **Transportation Improvement Program (TIP):** The county's six-year plan for transportation infrastructure projects and funding priorities. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Elizabeth Boyle | Council Chair | | Barry Buchanan | Council Member | | Ben Ellenboss | Council Member | | Kaylee Galloway | Council Member (Vice Chair) | | Jessica Rienstra | Council Member | | John Scanlon | Council Member | | Mark Stremler | Council Member | | Mark Personius | Planning & Development Services Director | | Chris Como | Transportation consultant (Transpo Group) | | Doug Raney | County Engineer | | John Thompson | Public Works Natural Resource Division | | Pam Brady | BP Cherry Point, Senior Government Affairs Manager | | Tamara Linhart | Cherry Point Refinery, Government Affairs Manager | | Lisa Adam | Birchwood neighborhood representative | | Peter Condelius | Heidelberg Materials representative | | David Parsons | Heidelberg Materials site manager | | Amy de Vera | Environmental Resources Management (representing BP) | | Dan Kaszewski | County Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee member | | Brian Heinrich | Puget Sound Energy | | Bill Guyer | Guyer Associates (representing affordable housing project) | | Barbara Chase | Whatcom Business Alliance Executive Director | | Ryan Bowman | Environmental justice advocate | ### Background Context This meeting was part of a comprehensive plan update process required every 10 years under Washington State law. The county had been working through this update for several years, with extensive input from advisory committees, the Planning Commission, and the public. Several contentious issues were coming to a head, particularly around industrial zoning conflicts in the Birchwood neighborhood, where residents live adjacent to heavy industrial facilities including a cement plant and lumber operations. The Growth Management Act requires counties to balance economic development needs with environmental protection and housing availability. This creates tensions between existing industrial operators who want regulatory certainty, residents concerned about health and safety impacts, and county officials trying to manage growth pressibly while protecting both jobs and neighborhoods. The meeting also addressed transportation funding priorities, with advocates pushing for more investment in bike and pedestrian infrastructure, and ongoing discussions about how to reform the criminal justice system through the Justice Project Implementation Plan. ### What Happened — The Short Version The council spent about 30 minutes hearing public comment from industrial representatives, neighborhood advocates, and other stakeholders. Industrial representatives from BP Cherry Point and Heidelberg Materials raised concerns about proposed policy changes they felt could threaten their operations. Neighborhood representatives called for stronger protections from industrial impacts. The council then worked through five comprehensive plan chapters, making preliminary decisions on various policy amendments. Key actions included setting a 5% minimum for bike/pedestrian funding in the transportation budget, strengthening language around criminal justice reform, and tabling several contentious land use policies for future discussion. The most significant debate occurred around industrial zoning conflicts, with the council ultimately postponing final decisions on the most controversial land use policies affecting the Birchwood neighborhood and industrial operations until a future meeting. ### What to Watch Next • The council scheduled continuation of Chapter 2 (Land Use) discussions for April 21 or another properly noticed date, where the most contentious industrial zoning issues will be resolved. • Second round amendments are due to staff by March 20th, with additional review scheduled for March 24th. • Several economic development policies (Items 15-20) were held until April 7th for further consideration. ---

## MODULE S2: FLASH CARDS **Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-CTW-SPC-2026-03-17 **Q:** How many council members were present at this meeting? **A:** All seven council members were present: Elizabeth Boyle, Barry Buchanan, Ben Ellenboss, Kaylee Galloway, Jessica Rienstra, John Scanlon, and Mark Stremler. **Q:** What percentage of Transportation Improvement Program funding did the council approve for active transportation? **A:** The council approved allocating at least 5% of TIP funding to active transportation projects, despite some concerns about flexibility during large capital projects. **Q:** Which neighborhood was central to industrial zoning conflicts discussed in public comment? **A:** The Birchwood neighborhood, where residents live adjacent to heavy industrial facilities including the Heidelberg cement plant and Bell Lumber operations. **Q:** What is the Heidelberg cement plant's operational history according to testimony? **A:** According to Peter Condelius, the cement plant has been in continuous operation since 1913, with Heidelberg purchasing it in 1977, contrary to claims that it was ever dormant. **Q:** What concept did Council Member Scanlon propose for evaluating bike and pedestrian facilities? **A:** Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), a measurement system for how comfortable and safe facilities are for users of different skill levels, particularly on roads like Hannigan Road. **Q:** What change did the council make to language about incarcerated individuals? **A:** The council approved changing "inmates" to "incarcerated individuals" throughout the comprehensive plan document for more appropriate terminology. **Q:** What environmental concept was debated regarding salmon habitat projects? **A:** Net ecological gain, which goes beyond "no net loss" to actually improve ecological conditions, though there was debate about focusing on habitat versus salmon populations. **Q:** According to County Engineer Doug Raney, what percentage does the county already spend on ADA improvements? **A:** Over 5% on ADA improvements alone, not including other pedestrian and bicycle improvements, from approximately $3 million in local funds. **Q:** What is the Justice Project Implementation Plan's approach to corrections? **A:** It emphasizes prioritizing diversion, treatment, and behavioral health services over traditional incarceration as part of a comprehensive justice system reform. **Q:** Which transportation consultant provided technical guidance during the meeting? **A:** Chris Como from Transpo Group, who confirmed that vehicle level of service should remain adequate for the next 20 years with only two exceptions. **Q:** What major trail corridors were discussed for future development? **A:** Coast Millennium Trail (connecting Bellingham, Ferndale, Birch Bay, and Blaine) and Beta Baker Trail, both prioritized by the Parks Department. **Q:** How often is the comprehensive plan required to be updated? **A:** Every 10 years under Washington State's Growth Management Act, though this update process had been ongoing for several years. **Q:** What concern did Ben Ellenboss raise about percentage-based funding mandates? **A:** He worried that a fixed 5% requirement could become problematic during years with unusually large capital projects funded by federal grants. **Q:** Which state legislation was referenced regarding environmental justice? **A:** The Healthy Environment for All Act, cited by Ryan Bowman as recognition that certain communities have borne disproportionate environmental harm. **Q:** What was the timeline for additional amendments and next steps? **A:** Second round amendments due to staff by March 20th, additional review on March 24th, and continuation of Chapter 2 discussions tentatively scheduled for April 21st. ---