# Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole Gets Down to Business on Development Rules and Lake Management The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole convened Tuesday afternoon for what Chair Kaylee Galloway called a "time-sensitive" meeting that would tackle some of the county's most pressing planning challenges. The session began with an unexpected executive session before diving into discussions about comprehensive planning, development permitting, and lake management that stretched nearly three hours. All seven council members were present: Barry Buchanan, Tyler Byrd, Todd Donovan, Ben Elenbaas, Kaylee Galloway, Jon Scanlon, and Mark Stremler. The meeting's hybrid format allowed both in-person and remote participation, continuing the county's post-pandemic approach to public access. ## Executive Session Interrupts Planned Business Before any regular business could be conducted, Galloway called for an immediate executive session to discuss "proposed agency employment action and Loudermill hearing processes" — the latter referring to due process protections for public employees facing disciplinary action. The request caught some council members off guard, with Galloway clarifying this wasn't related to the Planning and Development Services issues already on their agenda. "This is an independent item," she said, before the council unanimously voted to enter closed session with County Attorney George Roche. The executive session ran slightly over its planned 2:15 p.m. conclusion, ending at 2:16 p.m. No action was announced following the closed discussion. ## Wrestling with Comprehensive Plan Coordination Once back in public session, the council turned to what Councilmember Todd Donovan called a "coordination problem" around the county's 2025 Comprehensive Plan update. Speaking with the weariness of someone who'd been through multiple rounds of planning battles, Donovan laid out a series of missed opportunities and communication breakdowns between the council, the Planning and Development Services department (PDS), and various cities. "I think there's been things that I think we dropped the ball on," Donovan said, referring to earlier scoping discussions. "I don't think anyone remembers when we were asked to participate in that." The core issue, as Donovan explained it, was that the council hadn't formally voted on population projections for rural areas (settling informally on 9,000 new residents) and hadn't responded to planning staff about what information they wanted in the environmental impact statement. Meanwhile, cities were submitting their own population growth requests, and some — like Ferndale — were asking the county to impose development moratoriums in areas they hoped to eventually annex. "We've got letters from other... there's the letters that are in our packet about what cities' population allocation requests are," Donovan said. "But then we also have like, we have a letter from the mayor of Ferndale saying our rural zoning policies are concerning them so much about their ability to annex and grow into areas that might get built out in terms of low density stuff that they're worried about their ability to annex those places." The solution, Donovan proposed, was to dedicate time from the council's newly hired Legislative Coordinator/Policy Analyst to coordinate comprehensive planning work. Council Clerk Cathy Halka confirmed this was the recently hired position designed to help the council navigate complex policy issues. "Can we allocate a proportion of our lead generalist time to coordinate with the council to represent the council's interests in the [comprehensive plan] — not just chapter two, but these things generally," Donovan moved. Tyler Byrd supported the concept but suggested more flexibility than a rigid percentage: "Maybe we should consider setting it as the number one priority for that individual... so that we have some variability over time for what it looks like." Ben Elenbaas raised a deeper concern about the county's approach to planning. "Staff will drive the car as long as we let them," he said bluntly. "What I think we need to do is... prior to them tackling it and making recommendations to us, we set forth our priority to them and have them respond, because if we're responding to them, they're always gonna drive the car." Elenbaas pointed to lessons from the county's recent struggles with Senate Bill 5290 implementation: "There's massive opportunities here to fix things that have been wrong for 20, 30 years that we've known about since the last comp plan update." Executive Assistant Aly Pennucci acknowledged the coordination challenges from the county administration's perspective. "Sometimes there's going to be this push and pull, and sometimes it may not feel like we're coming to you at the time you need," she said, while noting that planning staff had been working hard to follow previous council direction. The motion ultimately passed unanimously, allocating council staff time for comprehensive plan coordination without specifying an exact percentage. ## Cities Want Population Numbers for Capital Planning The discussion then shifted to the technical but crucial question of population allocations — how many new residents would be planned for in different areas of the county. Planning Director Mark Personius, looking somewhat weary himself, explained the bind his department was in. "We probably this comp plan update cycle, we probably have twice as much to do in half as much time," Personius said. "We've got a whole bunch of new bills, new climate entirely new elements in terms of climate change. We've got a ton of housing bills... and we didn't get the money from commerce until late last fall." The immediate pressure was coming from cities that needed population targets to plan their infrastructure investments. As Personius explained, state law requires cities to have capital facility plans that can demonstrate they can provide adequate urban services — water, sewer, roads — for their projected growth. "That's why it's important to know what the target is first, and then figure out, well, how much is it going to cost?" Personius said. But Donovan remained skeptical about the rush to lock in numbers before seeing the full picture. The conversation revealed the complex chicken-and-egg problem of regional planning: cities need population targets to plan infrastructure, but those targets should logically be based on actual development capacity and annexation likelihood. "We don't know what those UGA proposals are going to be, and we don't know if they're ever going to be annexed," Donovan said, referring to Urban Growth Areas. "The inability for anyone to be able to concretely say they're ever going to annex anything, whether we have it in UGA or not... it's this circular thing that I just can't get." Personius acknowledged the frustration but pointed to practical constraints. "The annexation issues are a really tough nut to crack," he said. "We've been working with the state legislature and our lobbying crew to get as much financial incentives as we can for cities to annex." The current comprehensive plan allocated 16% of county-wide growth to rural areas — about 11,000 people. The new proposal would reduce that to 9,000 people, or about 13% of total growth, with most new residents directed to cities and urban growth areas. Galloway suggested focusing more on policy questions than specific numbers. "I feel less inclined to pick the actual numbers. I feel more inclined to engage in the sort of the why and the how to achieve those numbers," she said. The council agreed to hear presentations from the ten urban growth areas at upcoming February meetings, where city staff would explain their preferred growth scenarios and infrastructure plans. ## Development Permitting Rules Draw Fire The afternoon's most contentious discussion centered on implementing Senate Bill 5290, which requires counties to streamline their permit review timelines. The law cuts permit review times from 120 days to 65 days for most projects, but disagreement has emerged over how to structure the process. The Building Industry Association of Whatcom County (BIAWC) sent a letter just 24 hours before the meeting, arguing that the county's proposed approach would actually slow down permitting by requiring two separate 65-day reviews — one for site plan approval, one for building permits — rather than combining them into a single process. Amy Keenan from Planning and Development Services defended the county's approach. "Last year, 2024, we did 250 site plan reviews," she said. "Those were permits that we issued an approval of a site plan and that allows someone to apply for a building permit." The site plan review, Keenan explained, addresses crucial issues like road access, septic placement, well location, fire truck turnarounds, and storm water management. Only after those issues are resolved should someone submit structural building plans. "If we don't have the site plan review process... you may have to redesign all of those elements while you're in the building permit process," Keenan said. "We have 65 days to approve that or deny that. That will cause you to redesign many different elements." But Elenbaas wasn't buying the explanation. "It almost seems like we're trying to make it take longer," he said. "I hear I keep hearing the same thing like for the last 10 years... 'We just don't have the staff, we'll get the staff.' Come to us and ask us for help to get the staff." Elenbaas also questioned the county's practice of requiring applicants to hire consultants for wetland delineations and other technical studies, only to have county staff go out and verify the work independently. "We're looking for efficiencies and looking at the spirit of the law. I think there's a lot of things we could do to meet these timelines," he said. Tyler Byrd echoed the concern about double review. "It seems odd to me that we would require individuals to go out and hire a third party consultant to do this work... just to turn around and go out and verify every single one of those projects as well," he said. Garrett Smith from the Natural Resources Division explained that verification timing can be challenging, particularly for wetland delineations that may need to be checked during different seasons when water levels and vegetation patterns are more visible. Dan Dunne from the Building Industry Association made the case for consolidating the reviews: "When I read 5290 to me, it means when I walk up the permit counter, I want to put a house on my five acres... I put that paperwork on the counter. I've got the county has 28 days to say, 'Yep, your application is complete.' And then they've got 65 days to say, 'Yep, your permit is complete.'" Mark Personius pushed back, warning that combining the processes could lead to more permit denials. "If we combined site plan review and building permit into one 65 day period, there's two likely outcomes and they're both really bad," he said. "I don't know why we would design a system to fail." The item was scheduled for a public hearing that evening, with no final decision made in the afternoon discussion. ## Lake Whatcom Management Program Wins Approval The meeting ended on a more positive note with unanimous approval of the Lake Whatcom Management Program's 2025-2029 work plan. Gary Stoyka from Public Works presented what he called the most collaborative planning process the multi-jurisdictional program had ever undertaken. "We received many more comments than we ever have before. 307 to be exact," Stoyka said. The public input came from 37 individuals and six organizations, requiring staff to spend months revising the plan and responding to each comment. The work plan coordinates efforts between the City of Bellingham, Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District, and Whatcom County to protect the lake's water quality. It includes 12 program areas, including two new ones focused on climate action and forest management. Tyler Byrd praised the result. "I just wanted to let you know, I really appreciated the report you gave. I think this is my favorite report that you guys have ever done," he said, specifically citing the addition of SMART goals — strategic, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound objectives. Jon Scanlon asked about modeling efforts to track progress toward the lake's 50-year phosphorus reduction goals. Stoyka explained that two sophisticated models now use 17 years of data compared to the single year that informed the original Total Maximum Daily Load requirements. The discussion also touched on the lake's potential as a regional water source. Scanlon noted that Boston's Quabbin Reservoir, at 400 billion gallons, serves 3 million people, while Lake Whatcom holds about 250 billion gallons. "It probably could serve a lot of people," he mused, though Stoyka noted that would involve complex water rights adjudication issues. The work plan was scheduled to go before the Bellingham City Council Monday night and the Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Tuesday, with all three jurisdictions voting on identical resolutions. ## Setting the Stage for Continuing Debates The committee meeting revealed the multiple complex planning challenges facing Whatcom County as it tries to balance growth management, environmental protection, and efficient government services. The comprehensive plan discussions showed ongoing tension between county and municipal priorities, while the permitting debate highlighted disagreements over how to implement state mandates for faster development review. With presentations from all ten urban growth areas scheduled for February, and a public hearing on the development permitting rules that evening, the council's planning work was just beginning. As Galloway noted, "There's a lot, a lot more to do, which is kind of an exciting opportunity." The meeting adjourned at 4:21 p.m., with the regular evening council session set to begin at 6 p.m. in the same chambers. The afternoon's discussions had set the stage for what promised to be continued debate over how Whatcom County would grow and develop in the coming decades.