HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources February 13 2007WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
February 13, 2007
Committee Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Carl Weimer
Also Present:
L. Ward Nelson
Barbara Brenner
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
2. RESOLUTION INITIATING 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENTS (AB2007 -090)
Gary Davis, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report and
stated that once adopted, they will be able to tie the Parks Plan and the Comprehensive
Plan with the concurrency and special districts. They will have a stronger position to deal
with new subdivisions as they come in.
Weimer asked when the Council will adopt the Parks Plan. Davis stated he doesn't
know the timeframe for that adoption.
Fleetwood asked if the consultant work results in this process today. Davis stated
there is a draft plan. They are still working on many details for level of service and
financing. Once resolved, it will go to the Planning Commission.
McShane moved to recommend docketing this item.
Motion carried unanimously.
Docket #2007 -G: Comprehensive Agricultural Prg,,ram pdate
(Clerk's Note: The committee took a five - minute break at 9:06 a.m.)
Kraig Olason, Planning and Development Services Department, stated this item and
the next agenda item are the same discussion. He submitted and read from a presentation
(on file). The Council docketed items in 2006 to address issues in the agricultural program.
The focus was narrowed to agricultural issues exclusively. He read the presentation on the
proposed agricultural work program's general purpose, program scope, proposed objectives,
staffing and resources, general timeline and tasks /activities, the program's work flow of
information, proposed technical review committee, public process, and phases one and two.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/13/2007, Page 1
1 McShane stated that understanding potential changes that could occur in the
2 agriculture protection overlay (APO) may inform the clustering process. He anticipates that
3 the APO will need to be changed. Olason stated that clustering in rural and agricultural
4 areas provides for a way to sequester lots. The concept behind the cluster design ordinance
5 is the possibility of reverting back to a cluster reserve lot to allow the sequestering of lots in
6 one spot, but also allows an opportunity to have a reserve of those lots to purchase over
7 time. A problem is how they can deal with people's needs over time, if the only mechanism
8 to get a marketable product is the subdivision. Once people do subdivisions, they are into
9 the process with a high expense, and have to start selling. They are looking at ways to
10 allow better opportunities for everyone. Clustering has tremendous potential for everyone.
11 Even if transfers of development rights (TDB's) don't work, clustering can work with
12 purchases of development rights (PDR's). They propose the cluster design ordinance;
13 agricultural mitigation, addressed through urban growth area (VGA) expansion and other
14 conversions, and; dealing with transferring development rights. Evaluate if they have
15 enough receiving areas to have a meaningful TDR program. Originally, much of the concern
16 that spawned the APO update had to do with a lot of conversion in rural areas. They've
17 addressed that to some degree by identifying rural areas that are extremely important for
18 agriculture. The other aspects of rural need to be considered also, as they relate to further
19 conversions. This program isn't set up to do that initially.
20
21 He continued to read the presentation on phase three of the proposed agricultural
22 work program.
23
24 He submitted and read from the scope of work for the agricultural preservation
25 program (on file). He would like the Council's approval of this scope so staff can move
26 forward. The administration approves of this scope of work.
27
28 McShane stated the Council's Planning Committee is discussing the urban growth
29 area around Bellingham. He anticipates challenges with that conversation. The Planning
30 Commission recommendation is substantially different from the City's recommendation. An
31 issue that hasn't been incorporated at all is the potential expansion of the Bellingham VGA.
32 Other cities are getting ready to go, as well. The conversation needs to include that
33 discussion. He asked if it's a possibility to add conditions to expansion. The information
34 he's received is that they need to expand the urban growth areas to save the agricultural
35 and rural areas of the county. He doesn't believe that. The market in the urban growth
36 areas will be a different market than the rural area market. Expanding the urban growth
37 areas won't save the rural areas, without linking the two activities together. His concern is
38 the timing issue. He asked if they need to tie this thought process to the conversations
39 regarding the City of Bellingham's urban growth area expansion. Olason stated item G of
40 the work plan also has to do with all the other cities. He doesn't know how timely that item
41 is in the City of Bellingham VGA process. They are never done with these things. There is
42 no reason it can't be addressed the next time around. Regarding agriculture, expansion of
43 the VGA into additional agricultural areas is a good nexus point to require mitigation to
44 accommodate for the loss. In other areas that aren't as directly linked to agriculture, it's
45 more complicated.
46
47 Nelson stated the reason to save the land is the perceived economic gain based on
48 what they already have. There is no analysis of what this will do, other than gain extra land
49 through mitigation or the TDR /PDR program. He asked if there has been an economic
50 analysis. He's trying to get a nexus between actual agricultural practices and the need for
51 marketing and processing of new products. He asked if a part of this program will address
52 that issue for farmers, so they get the help they need to facilitate loans or startup
53 programs. Olason stated there was a component of that in the draft proposal. People from
Natural Resources Committee, 2/13/2007, Page 2
1 the Agricultural Preservation Committee, Agricultural Advisory Committee, and others was
2 to not focus on that now. The County's focus is directly on land use. That was more
3 important to the community immediately than throwing in some additional marketing
4 programs. They want the County to focus on the basic land use issues, and they will deal
5 with the other issue. That has been the agricultural community's message to the County
6 throughout.
7
8 Nelson asked what it would cost to do an economic analysis on the incentive for
9 doing these programs. He needs to tell the entire community the benefit of buying up
10 agricultural lands. Olason stated the cost of conversion does that. The theory of 100,000
11 acres said that too few acres results in losing too many service providers. That is not a
12 scientific approach. It does provide some basis for mitigating and trying to stay at that
13 level. That's really what they're trying to do with all of these programs. They are trying to
14 keep as much of that bulk land base together as possible, and allow the industry to figure
15 out what to do with that land base.
16
17 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
18
19 Olason continued to state that Clark County did an agriculture economic study. He
20 can look into what such a study would cost.
21
22 Nelson asked how they know they are conserving the best portion or the right
23 portion of the land. He asked where the analysis is. He asked the connectivity with the tax
24 dollars. Olason stated they would compare locations, soil types, and activity. It's historical
25 use as indicator of probable future use, but historical use has a lot to do with quality.
26
27 Nelson asked if there is nothing that evaluates the program economically. Olason
28 stated they could do studies.
29
30 Nelson stated the committee should consider doing a study to demonstrate the
31 economic benefit to the agricultural community and community as a whole.
32
33 Brenner asked if the scope of work takes into account the small parcels being farmed
34 across the county. They have an economic benefit. Olason stated they would only be
35 impacted by more neighbors or greater regulatory constraints. They aren't proposing to do
36 either.
37
38 McShane stated the report on the rural lands will address that issue to a degree. A
39 current issue is the current APO's influence on areas that are in the APO, but are zoned
40 rural, one unit per five acres (R5A). The small five -acre parcels that are being farmed may
41 potentially be impacted because they could end up with cluster development right next to
42 them.
43
44 Brenner stated that if the County is going to do an inventory, it should include two -
45 and three -acre farms that do things like organic farming and other things. Olason stated
46 staff isn't proposing anything that would negatively impact small farms.
47
48 Olason continued to read the scope of work for phase three. He submitted and read
49 from a handout of the public process for the agricultural work program (on file).
50
51 Fleetwood asked why it's necessary to docket this program this year. Olason stated
52 that happens with multi -year projects. It's the difference between a work plan and a
53 Comprehensive Plan designation. With this, there are spin -offs that can happen within the
Natural Resources Committee, 2/13/2007, Rage 3
1 year, such as the APO zoning change. At one point, they talked about the Council
2 approving this work plan via a resolution.
3
4 McShane stated that because these are Comprehensive Plan docket items, they
5 won't be forgotten. Someone will have to deal with them at some point. Olason stated that
6 is correct. However, know that it won't be done by November.
7
8 Fleetwood stated it seems like they haven't done a lot on this since last May. He
9 asked the reason. Olason stated they've done some work. Because it's a big issue, he
10 must make sure that this is the direction the Council and administration wants to go.
11
12 McShane stated this item got bumped last fall for the budget and Shoreline
13 Management Program.
14
15 Fleetwood asked if this program will require a supplemental budget request. Olason
16 stated it may.
17
18 Fleetwood stated a number of special studies by consultants are budgeted. He asked
19 if the same consultant could do the different studies. Olason stated that's possible.
20
21 Fleetwood asked if the cost of conversion would include identifying the service costs
22 the County would have to pay as a result of conversion. Olason stated they tried to look at
23 the cost of things including Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements, stormwater, and
24 other mandated programs. When they start looking at the resources required, there is a
25 significant expense. It`s all a part of the value of the property for the community.
26
27 Nelson stated any study must also consider revenue differences, not just
28 environmental costs. Olason stated they will, at best, get a sense of relative values.
29
30 McShane stated include the staff cost of monitoring development. There is a huge
31 cost to providing services.
32
33 Nelson stated balance those costs with long -term tax revenues.
34
35 McShane stated he doesn't believe it will add up.
36
37 Brenner stated there is a halo effect of a half -mile or mile from urban areas.
38 Acknowledge the effects, and have different types of development and farming that can
39 coexist. When looking at agriculture, consider the overlay with this halo effect.
40
41 Fleetwood asked if the best allocation of staff's time would be spent on 700 hours on
42 the interim PDR program. In terms of preserving farmland on an annual basis, the interim
43 PDR program a minute item. He asked why that much staff time would go to that task, and
44 if there are better alternatives. Olason stated a reason for looking at it is to determine the
45 reason for presenting some of these areas as PDR candidates. They spend one -third full -
46 time equivalent (FTE) employee staff time on the PDR program anyway, which is extremely
47 time consuming. That estimate includes geographic information system (GIS) help. In the
48 past, they've gotten some applications, but not many. They received a graduate student's
49 thesis on the PDR program. The PDR program works for some areas, but not all. They are
50 focusing a lot of the time in the established target areas. They are reevaluating those areas
51 when considering a combined program. It is an opportunity to talk to the public about
52 clustering and other things. It's more than an interim program activity. It's a very
53 proactive effort in the community that will provide insights.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/13/2007, Page 4
Weimer moved to recommend approval of docket item G and the agricultural work
program.
Nelson asked if the Agricultural Advisory Committee discussed marketing of
agricultural products. Make sure there is discussion during the public process phase about
meeting the needs for marketing.
Henry Bierlink, Agricultural Preservation Committee, stated this is an important topic
to his committee. They must keep agriculture profitable, whether or not they protect the
land. They are also aware that profitability includes both the market and the cost. A huge
concern recently is the disproportionate high cost of the land. They have urged the County
to concentrate this effort on agricultural land. Focus on what the County can do for this
land. Now, ability to build drives up the cost of land. That development ability must be
moved out, and the farmer should get the difference. Support the Economic Development
Council (EDC), the Northwest Agricultural Center, and the Washington State University
(WSU) Extension Office, which focus on the marketing side of the industry. The technical
committee is the key to getting this running. It's very important to put people on the
committee who are committed to this issue countywide and who understand the issues of
this community.
Nelson stated the big concern is what the community looks like. Social engineering
is not the responsibility of government. Tax dollars must be used for the entire community,
not to enhance some vision. Make sure that there is a positive economic impact as well as
an economic justification. Bierlink stated he disagrees. If it goes counter to basic
economics, then this effort is doomed.
Fleetwood asked what's wrong with using public dollars to implement a public vision
and ideal.
Nelson stated there is nothing wrong with implementing public ideals or vision. It's a
waste of public funds and vision to engineer something that isn't feasible. Make sure they
can support the vision, which means it must meet the needs of the community and the
community supports the vision over time. Be careful that the Council's vision, or the AFC's
vision, is an actual, functional program.
Weimer asked how the technical review committee will be created. Olason stated it
will either be an ad hoc committee appointed by the administration or a formal committee
with approval by the Council. He was looking to the Executive's Office to authorize the
committee creation.
Brenner stated that if they are going to spend a lot of money on a public vision,
there should be a public vote. The concept of public vision is very subjective.
McShane stated he is in favor of the work plan as presented. The only concern with
the work plan is how they engage the cities in this process. He's not sure they can answer
that concern. They may need to talk to each city council about the importance of this. That
goes to the economic issue.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated Oregon looks at
agricultural lands in proximity to urban development through the Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment (LESA) system. It is a way to look at agricultural lands and their proximity to
urban development. They've also been looking at very long term agricultural land
Natural Resources Committee, 2/13/2007, Page 5
1 preservation. They've had recent setbacks, and are trying to deal with those by going back
2 to more traditional tools.
3
4 The County will engage the cities through staff and through the UGA discussions with
5 each city. The way the cities interact with the surrounding agricultural land is important.
6 Urban separators will come forward from staff through the urban fringe subarea plan. It is
7 a set of policy starters. One of them is deciding what they want the future to look like.
8 Now is the time, through the urban fringe plan, to set out some markers. Part of the
9 County's natural resource charge is to take into account that the agricultural land feeds over
10 two million families beyond this region. It's a statewide significant resource. The Council
11 must balance that with the need to grow the community. Think about how the urban
12 separator ties to the land base, especially for salmon purposes and long term commercially
13 significant agricultural lands. That conversation will occur with the UGA work,
14 transportation issues, and continued efforts to coordinate salmon recovery.
15
16 Nelson stated one of his concerns is what the cities want to surround them and the
17 necessary resources the cities may need. They are going to have to consider the
18 transportation impacts to agricultural practices in the rural areas and how the cities will
19 support the water resource requirements of agriculture. He's glad to hear that those
20 discussions will take place. Without support and infrastructure, agriculture won't survive,
21 despite whatever the vision may be.
22
23 Brenner stated she's encouraged by the effort to enhance agricultural value -added
24 businesses. There is a gold mine for jobs and production like that. She's impressed with
25 what's going on. She's optimistic about this.
26
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28
29 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING PRESERVATION OF WHATCOM COUNTY'S
30 AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND NATURAL RESOURCE LAND BASE (AB2006-
31 203)
32
33 This item was discussed as the above item, resolution initiating 2007 Comprehensive
34 Plan and zoning amendments (AB2007 -090), Docket #2007 -G, Comprehensive Agricultural
35 Program Update.
36
37
38 OTHER BUSINESS
39
40 Fleetwood asked if the Natural Resources Committee will begin at 9:00 a.m. from
41 now on.
42
43 McShane stated it will.
44
45 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
46
47 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (AB2006 -442)
48
49 Jeff Chalfant, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted a letter
50 and stated the County received a memo from the Building Industry Association (BIA) and
51 Roger Almskaar on no net loss, regarding the shoreline management program (on file).
52 Staff recommends changes, according to the memo he submitted (on file). He was not able
53 to address their concern with the concept of adding the term `significant" in front of
Natural Resources Committee, 2/13/2007, Page 6
1 "adverse impacts." Legal counsel advised against adding that term. The State Department
2 of Ecology (Ecology) mandates addressing cumulative effects. If they can only mitigate for
3 significant adverse impacts, there is no way to address cumulative effects of smaller
4 impacts. Their concern was with the possibility of a rogue administrator.
5
6 Brenner stated she was not comfortable with Mr. Almskaar's suggestion of adding
7 the word "reasonably" in terms of no net loss standard. That word makes her nervous.
8 Chalfant stated legal counsel raised that concern also, because it may weaken the concept
9 of achieving no net loss. That is one for the Council to consider.
10
11 Brenner stated they would have to define "reasonably." Most of the suggestions
12 from Mr. Almskaar were good suggestions.
13
14 Weimer referenced the term "at its current level of environmental resource
15 productivity." He asked why they would apply that language to shorelines that have been
16 impacted and must be improved. He asked if that language would allow a shoreline to
17 continue to degrade. Chalfant stated the concept of no net loss is to look at baseline
18 conditions at this point in time, and make sure any actions taken don't dip below that
19 amount of loss or that there is sufficient mitigation to get back up to that baseline. There is
20 also a restoration plan that relies on voluntary efforts to lift that baseline over time to
21 increase the level of environmental productivity. That language comes directly from the
22 Washington Administrative Code (WAC).
23
24 Nelson stated he is reluctant to include vague definitions of what is reasonable or
25 significant. They are difficult to define. That's why they have a three tiered system in
26 government, including the courts. If someone can't operate under the public policy, that's
27 what the courts are for. The courts would decide whether or not the public policy is
28 constitutionally fair. Chalfant stated that legal counsel recommended removing the term
29 "reasonably" because it is the court's jobs to decide. The County is to apply its regulations
30 and codes reasonably.
31
32 Fleetwood moved to approve proposed amendment one in staff's memo.
33
34 Motion carried unanimously.
35
36 Weimer moved to approve proposed amendment two in staff's memo, with one
37 change, "...such determinations will be provided to the applicant in writing stating the
38 relationship(s)...."
39
40 Nelson asked if Ecology or anyone else would get the notification. Chalfant stated
41 Ecology would also receive notice.
42
43 Nelson stated that notification goes to more than just the applicant. The additional
44 change implies that only the applicant gets the notification.
45
46 Weimer stated earlier language in the chapter section makes the notification process
47 clear.
48
49 Fleetwood suggested a friendly amendment to not include the change to
50 proposed amendment two from the staff's memo, since the notification process is described
51 elsewhere.
52
53 Weimer accepted the friendly amendment.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/13/2007, Page 7
1
2 McShane restated the motion to
3 with no changes.
4
5 Motion carried unanimously.
6
approve proposed amendment two in staff's memo,
7 Weimer moved to approve proposed amendment three, with one amendment, in
8 staff's memo, "...on it's ability to r-easenably meet the no net loss...."
9
10 Fleetwood asked if it weakens the enforceability of no net loss by referring to it as a
11 general public policy goal, as opposed to an emphatic, enforceable statutory provision.
12 Chalfant stated the first sentence of the proposed amendment describes how the concept of
13 no net loss is to be interpreted and applied programmatically and as a development
14 standard. The definition achieves both objectives, and doesn't weaken the provision.
15
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17
18
19 ADJOURN
20
21 The meeting adjourned at 10;45 a.m.
22
24 25 Jill Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
26 `��t�tt n ihirr
28 ATT � ' . • • • . le
29 .• HAT ��•
C .�
•, t
31
32 — •
33
34 Dap Br6A� +0 oGndixlerk
'•16!!111.14 %''
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
0 W TCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Z�� Al��-
Dan McShane, ommittee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 2/13/2007, Page 8