Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources August 5 2008WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee August 5, 2008 Committee Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood None Bob Kelly _ Also Present: Sam Crawford COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. RESOLUTION RESCINDING, IN PART, RESOLUTION 2008 -016, PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTIONS AND ADOPTING OPERATING RULES FOR SUBZONE ADVISORY COMMITTEES (AB2008 -284) (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS) -and- 2. ORDINANCE RESCINDING PARTS OF ORDINANCE 98 -085 AND RESCINDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 2.93 IN ITS ENTIRETY (AB2008 -285) Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated there is language in -the existing County Code that is proposed to be rescinded, which the County Council will have to do, although it affects the Flood Control Zone District. The proposed resolution is to be considered and enacted by the Council acting as the Board of Supervisors. She referenced Council packet page 9. The memo on that page describes these two agenda items, which essentially provide consistent rules for all five subzones. Actions of the Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors will no longer be codified, because they aren't actions of the County. To have them easily accessible, the Code will have a separate tab in the codebook for the Board of Supervisor's actions. Beginning in 2009, Board of Supervisor resolutions will be numbered separately from Council resolutions. Exhibit A of the resolution is similar to Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources Management (BBWARM) District rules. There is clarification in the new version of a member's term of office. The proposed new ordinance removes a reference to codifying Board of Supervisor actions in Title 17A, which has never existed. Natural Resources Committee, 8/5/2008, Page 1 These are the first steps to clarify the relationship between the District and the County. More clarifying items regarding the Advisory Committee, County Council, and Board of Supervisors will come forward. Weimer asked if they expect these advisory committees to take their own notes or use a recording secretary. Craven stated they will take their own notes, however, they don't have to fully comply with the Open Meetings Act, but the Board expects them to hold open meetings and make some kind of a record. The advisory committees will turn on a tape recorder and deliver those tapes to the Public Works staff. The actual minutes will be taken and transcribed won't happen. If people want a copy of the record of the meeting, they can get a copy of the tape. Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, stated that in the past, one committee member has taken a few notes that encapsulate the nature of the meeting, who attended, and any official recommendations. That's preferred, if the advisory committee members are willing to do that. If that doesn't work, the department could provide them with tape recorders, although it hasn't done so in the past. She prefers to get a committee member to take a few small paragraphs of notes. Weimer asked if County staff attend these meetings. Cooper stated it depends on whether there are specific things the staff needs to discuss with the committee. Weimer moved to recommend approval of both items to the full Council and Board of Supervisors. Motion carried unanimously. 3. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS ON THE BOUCHARD AND TJOELKER FARM PROPERTIES (AB2008 -289) Samya Lutz, Planning and Development Services Department, stated Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Oversight Committee recommended six properties for purchase. Those properties were ranked highest to lowest. This item is for properties one and three. They are still negotiating with property two. She described location and characteristics of the properties. The Tjoelker property was divided into two phases. The 11 development rights were appraised at about $1 million. They didn't have enough money for that, so they are moving forward with two of the parcels and development rights. They hope to go forward with the remaining properties next year. Fleetwood moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. UPDATE REGARDING THE AGRICULTURAL TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE PROGRESS FROM FARM FRIENDS AND PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (AB2008 -288) Paul Grey, Whatcom Farm Friends, read from the packet beginning on packet page 78. The respondents were grouped into three categories. The first category was farmers. The second category was landowners, which are owners of larger land parcels that aren't Natural Resources Committee, 8/5/2008, Page 2 actively farming. The third category is the community at- large, which are citizens who didn't fall into one of the previous two categories. There is a fair amount of lack of understanding about the farmland conservation tools. The next phase of the project is public forums. The public forums will be a place to determine how much the general public knows about the tools. They didn't want to make the survey too difficult, because the first priority was to get people to respond to and return the survey. The public forums will be a place to gauge and verify public understanding. All the information is on the Farm Friends website. The process has been very transparent. He invited the councilmembers to the Northwest Washington Fair, where they will have an exhibit on these materials. Weimer asked if they will outreach to developers and municipalities that didn't respond. Grey stated they got three responses each from the developers and municipalities, but no responses from the tribes. They will all be invited to the forum. Fleetwood stated the survey results aren't surprising. He asked what information they found surprising. Grey stated the survey converts the results from being anecdotal to factual. The results about using regulation to protect agricultural land were surprising. Whatcom Farm Friends worked with two subcontractors and others on developing the survey. Kelly asked if there will be more information. He would like to know how the farming community defines regulations. Grey stated a better term to use would have been "agricultural land preservation tools" rather than the term "regulation." They are trying to determine what tools they should use to save agricultural land. Downzoning, a hard - handed approach to solving the problem, is construed as a regulation. Henry Bierlink, Whatcom Farm Friends, stated the agricultural community has been working with the County on this for many years. It builds on the Agricultural Advisory Committee's Rural Lands Study. He described the study. The agricultural community has been motivated to identify tools that are better than downzoning. The Technical Review Committee is about identifying those tools that allow the public to move densities. Right now, the only tool available is the purchase of development rights program. That isn't adequate. The committee didn't get started until the end of last year and early this year. He read from the information on packet pages 96 and 97. The list of tools they are working on is on Council packet page 99. They want more structure for the PDR program. They must explore the tools of transfers of development rights (TDR's), lease of development rights, and parcel reconfiguration. Fleetwood asked if the tools listed comprise the general extent of the tools that will be considered. Bierlink stated there are others. These are the main tools. Fleetwood stated he is concerned that the tools aren't enough. The PDR program is minute. It doesn't come close to protecting farmland. TDR's may be a long -term fix if they can make it work. It seems like all the solutions are small compared to the task of preserving agriculture. The 4,000 development rights will be developed sooner rather than later. A downzone can be done thoughtfully and appropriately in rural areas with prime soils adjacent to agriculture designations. He asked why they can't rezone those areas to Natural Resources Committee, 8/5/2008, Page 3 agriculture, and then compensate those folks through TDR's. Bierlink stated that is a significant challenge. Some densities are problematic. Some can be moved and reconfigured. They must be creative with the codes. The number of rights purchased each year is small, but it helps. They have to find receiving areas. Downzoning is a word that scares people. The perception is that the government will take their values. Be more creative and find other options. Kelly asked if there is any State legislation regarding TDR's. Bierlink stated they are tracking some ideas at the State level. One idea is to consider natural resource banking as a whole, rather than focusing on one resource only. The Army Corps of Engineers is also thinking about creative solutions. Fleetwood asked if the ordinances enabling the solutions will come forward at once or individually. Bierlink stated he hopes to present the Council with a suite of options from which they can choose. The package must make sense. People need to understand it and buy into it. They hope to pave the way for the Council by the time it has public hearings, so the public will be receptive. They hope the package will be in draft before the end of the year, and before this committee. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Bierlink stated that he hopes to have something before the full Council in 2009. Fleetwood asked how similar things have worked in other areas of the country. Bierlink stated they have some information from other areas. They haven't really found an area comparable to Whatcom County. Weimer asked the amount of acreage as it relates to the 3,898 development rights. Lutz stated the 3,898 development rights are on 103,000 acres. Beirlink stated the County's staff has been excellent to work with. Lutz presented and explained maps of certain development rights. There has been a lot of parcelization in the agricultural zone. Much of it is available for development. 2. UPDATE AND DISCUSSION REGARDING WHATCOM COUNTY'S SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM APPROVAL (AB2008 -261A) Weimer asked if they must pass this sooner rather than later. Fleetwood asked for an overview. David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated the Shoreline Master Program is adopted into State law. It is a partnership with the State government. The County Council adopted its Shoreline Management Program last year. It was sent to the Department of Ecology (Ecology) for its process. The County received approval from Ecology just last week. The State approved the Shoreline Master Program with required and recommended changes. The County must take some kind of action on the recommendations within 30 days. Someone from the County, such as the Council, can write a letter to Ecology. Natural Resources Committee, 8/5/2008, Page 4 1 Also recently, the Supreme Court changed the critical areas ordinance and its effect 2 within shoreline jurisdiction. That ruling has an effect on the Shoreline Master Program 3 also. Until they have the new Shoreline Master Program, critical area and shoreline 4 integration doesn't exist. Only the Shoreline Master Program, not the critical areas 5 ordinance, will apply. in Whatcom County. 6 7 There are some concerns about the required changes. Many of the public haven't 8 seen them yet. The staff haven't looked into it fully yet. 9 10 The Council can accept Ecology's approval with required and recommended changes 11 and introduce an ordinance tonight to set the hearing in September, which would be outside 12 the 30 -day timeframe. Another alternative is to have an extra Council meeting or allow the 13 Executive to sign the letter after the public has time to review the changes. 14 15 Because the Council adopted the program by ordinance, they will have to adopt 16 these changes by ordinance. The Council adopted the ordinance, subject to Ecology's 17 approval. They are trying to separate administrative procedures, so there will be two 18 ordinances. One ordinance will be for local administrative procedures and one for 19 substantive portions of Shoreline Master Program. The timing of this isn't working out well, 20 but they have options. 21 22 Weimer asked if it is incumbent upon the County to respond as soon as possible. 23 Stalheim stated he hasn't yet talked to legal counsel. The critical areas ordinance was 24 adopted after the legislation was put into effect that required mitigation of shorelines in the 25 Growth Management Act (GMA). Peter Gill, other County staff, and consultants are 26 reviewing the recommended and required changes from Ecology. 27 28 Peter Gill, Planning and Development Services Department, stated they haven't 29 looked at each comment thoroughly. A number of the comments are just for clarification. 30 Some of the comments are new. 31 32 Fleetwood stated put this item into the Natural Resources Committee meeting during 33 the first meeting in September. Stalheim stated they could introduce the ordinance tonight 34 and have the hearing the first meeting in September. 35 36 Gill stated one reason to move forward is because of the Supreme Court decision 37 that says the critical areas ordinance no longer applies in the shoreline jurisdiction. 38 39 Weimer stated he doesn't know what people may be allowed to do in the next 40 month, that the County may not want them to do, until the changes are adopted. Stalheim 41 stated any critical areas ordinance standards, which have more protections for the 42 environment than the current Shoreline Master Program, would no longer apply to 43 shorelines. 44 45 Weimer asked if someone could vest something in the next month. Stalheim stated 46 they could, with a complete application. Any active applications may also fall into that 47 category, also. They must discuss these situations with legal counsel. 48 49 Weimer asked if they would avoid that situation by pushing this approval through 50 today, and then do the public hearings to actually change the ordinances later. Stalheim 51 stated that is a choice for the Council. There is a risk. 52 Natural Resources Committee, 8/5/2008, Page 5 Fleetwood asked the risk. They could give cursory approval now, upon further review. After a hearing in September, the Council could amend the ordinance. Stalheim stated that if the Council approves of the changes today and sends a letter soon to Ecology, then the changes become a part of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Any changes done after the fact would have to go through a full amendment cycle. Weimer asked if the Council can legally send a letter approving the changes without having public hearings. The Council needs a legal opinion of that question. Stalheim stated it's a weird relationship. The State is asking if the County agrees with the changes, but it's Ecology's final decisions. Weimer asked if sending the letter of agreement is the same as agreeing to change the ordinance. Stalheim stated they are strongly inferring that. Gill stated that once the letter is sent, they aren't able to do many changes different from Ecology's changes. The County doesn't get to introduce new changes. It only gets to evaluate Ecology's changes. The Council can't make changes, even after the public hearing. If Ecology is steadfast about its changes, it can approve those changes without County approval. Barry Wenger, Washington State Department of Ecology, stated Ecology will not go over the County's head right away. That would involve a WAC amendment, which is a long process. The changes fall into two categories: WAC requirements and technical changes. The recommended and required changes don't change the purpose or intent. He is concerned about the two months it will take to get something into effect as a result of the Supreme Court decision. There could be a lot of damage in the interim. He handed out the WAC required changes and the recommended changes (on file). Fleetwood asked how they missed the WAC requirements. Wenger stated they just missed them, or they assumed they weren't that important. The changes aren't significant. Fleetwood stated they can schedule this item in today's Planning Committee. Crawford stated the public would like to have a hearing before the County responds, even if the County misses the 30 -day deadline. Jeff Chalfant, British Petroleum (BP) Cherry Point, stated he just received these changes. This has been the gold standard in the state because it went through a very robust public process. Folks were heard. All interests in the community went through extensive review. Continue with the public process and involvement. There will be ways to address the issues creatively, that doesn't alienate the community. Weimer moved to introduce the ordinance this evening. Motion carried unanimously, OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. Natural Resources Committee, 8/5/2008, Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transc iption coo 0,01, WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON y is �rs� rig 'Cou$cil Clerk Carl imer, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 8/5/2008, Page 7