HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources February 27 2007WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
February 27, 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:
Seth Fleetwood
Carl Weimer
Also Present:
L. Ward Nelson
Sam Crawford
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE WHATCOM COUNTY SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE — RESTORATION PLAN (AB2006 -442A)
Jeff Chalfant, Planning and Development Services Department, handed out and read
from his presentation on the Shoreline Management Program Restoration Plan (on file) and
submitted the Restoration Plan (on file). There is a resolution before the Council this
evening that outlines the basis for the restoration plan. It is incorporated by reference into
the Shoreline Master Program. It is not adopted as regulation. The focus is on voluntary
incentive measure. It highlights the fact that it's based on sound scientific analysis linked to
the shoreline inventory and characterization. It touches on coordination and collaboration
with the Marine Resources Committee, and that it intends to collaborate with other
restoration efforts in the community.
Fleetwood asked if there is no obligation on the part of Whatcom County government
to do restoration. Chalfant stated local governments must identify restoration opportunities
and take proactive steps to ensure there are restoration of shorelines over time. In the
context of incentives, they provide the framework and information to the community for
folks to enhance shoreline areas when they want. They know the priorities, what would be
truly effective, and what efforts would be valuable. There are provisions in the Shoreline
Master Program that allow for non -water oriented commercial and industrial uses. Where
they were previously prohibited, they are now allowed, provided that an applicant provides
for shoreline restoration associated with the project.
Fleetwood asked where the Shoreline Master Program resides in the code and
Comprehensive Plan. Chalfant stated it is incorporated by reference into the
Comprehensive Plan. It is it's own stand -alone component of the Comprehensive Plan. It is
a complete program, with policies, goals, and a regulatory component. It is in Title 23. The
restoration plan is referenced throughout the program, but it's not regulatory. The State
Department of Ecology advises that they not adopt the restoration plan because it is always
evolving.
Weimer stated the Drayton Harbor and Portage Bay Shellfish Protection Districts
aren't included in Chapter 5, which talks about existing restoration and protection programs.
Chalfant stated this isn't all inclusive. That's a good example of why they should approve it
Natural Resources Committee, 2/27/2007, Page 1
by resolution, and not adopt it. He will find out why those districts weren't included. It may
have been an oversight.
Weimer stated he would like to include the two shellfish protection districts to the
restoration plan, in Chapter 5. They belong in both restoration and protection sections.
Both districts have adopted plans for Drayton Harbor and Portage Bay.
Fleetwood asked if this can come back before the Council at any time to add
information. Chalfant stated it can. This is the first draft for a framework for a restoration
plan. It's not all- inclusive or completely comprehensive.
Fleetwood moved to recommend approval of the resolution to the full Council.
Atina Casas, Public Works Department and Marine Resources Committee (MRC)
Staff, stated the Marine Resources Committee is using this document as a framework. They
are setting up a prioritization and ranking strategy to focus on certain areas that have met
MRC goals. This document has been very important for the MRC to move forward with its
planning.
John Thompson, Public Works Department, stated the Salmon Recovery Plan includes
a section on the near shore marine environment. The section of the Salmon Recovery Plan
wasn't detailed. This is the next step to build project lists and ideas. It is compatible with
the Salmon Recovery Plan. It will meet the needs of the Marine Resources Committee. This
is a progression that they can add to and update as they need.
Fleetwood asked if there is anything in it that is problematic, or if anything
controversial was left out. Chalfant stated there isn't.
McShane stated it may be worth spending time having a Council discussion on this
item. He will vote to approve the resolution. This can come back before this Natural
Resources Committee. He would like to discuss issues surrounding Lake Padden, which is
the City's shoreline jurisdiction. However, a significant portion of that watershed is in the
County's jurisdiction. They may want to add information on that area and areas where
there is urban growth expansion. Also, add some information in the future about the
shellfish districts. As this gets broader public view, the committee can consider those
suggestions.
Weimer stated he supports the resolution also. They do need to discuss the
restoration plan more in- depth. If the shellfish protection districts aren't included, the
Council will hear from those people soon.
Motion carried unanimously,
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL - COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
1. RESOLUTION INITIATING THE 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENTS (AB2007 -090)
Docket #2007 -H: Agriculture to Rural Forestry for 39.5 acres on the Saxon Road
Natural Resources Committee, 2/27/2007, Page 2
1 Kraig Olason, Planning Department, gave a staff report and indicated the location on
2 a map. He described the site characteristics and surrounding zones and uses. The
3 applicant plans to use the property for forestry education.
4
5 Fleetwood asked the applicant's motivation. Olason stated the applicant now can't
6 do any educational program on the property because the agricultural zones don't allow it.
7 There is mention in the application of an easement with the Land Trust. The zone change
8 would add one density, but it's pretty remote. (Inaudible.)
9
10 Mariann Carrasco, applicant, stated they purchased the property last year. It has
11 been used as a retreat center, but was not permitted for that. They want to permit it for an
12 environmental education center. They won't do anything different to the land than what its
13 already there.
14
15 McShane asked if they are not allowed to continue the retreat center. Carrasco
16 stated that under the original agricultural zoning, retreats were allowed. That was changed
17 a few years ago. The previous owner was pretty far through the conditional use permit
18 process when they bought the property. They believe the better way to go is to get the
19 correct zoning, rather than a conditional use permit.
20
21 McShane stated that the retreat center use would be grandfathered in. Carrasco
22 stated other people tried to go that route, but were told that it couldn't be grandfathered
23 because it never had a legal permit to begin with. As new owners, they would have to start
24 from the beginning to get a conditional use permit.
25
26 McShane asked where the trail goes. Carrasco stated a loop trail goes through the
27 forest lands. It loops within the property boundary lines. They want to preserve wetlands
28 and ponds. They want to preserve the habitat and land.
29
30 Weimer stated his only concern is that the change would double the development
31 potential. Carrasco stated the conservation easement would allow no new buildings.
32
33 Fleetwood moved to recommend docketing.
34
35 McShane stated he is also concerned that the density would double. Docketing
36 doesn't mean it will be approved. A conservation easement would make this more
37 attractive to him. Because of topography and flood issue, the pastureland will probably stay
38 that way or will be restored. It's worth taking a look at. Olason stated this is a wrinkle in
39 the agriculture mitigation question. When land goes from agriculture to a forestry use, they
40 are going to have to think about agriculture mitigation. They don't have policy guidance on
41 that. This item will help the County work through that question.
42
43 Weimer stated he would vote for the motion. The intent is clearly a good intent.
44 They need to work through some of the policy issues.
45
46 Motion carried unanimously.
47
48 Docket #2007 -I: Agriculture to Everson UGA for approximately 5.5 acres
49
50 Olason gave a staff report and indicated the location on a map. He described the
51 site characteristics and surrounding zones and uses. Flood plain soils are the biggest issue.
52 The lot has split zoning.
53
Natural Resources Committee, 2/27/2007, Page 3
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Olason continued his staff report.
Fleetwood asked if the property can't be used for agriculture because of the split
zoning. Olason stated it can be used for agriculture. (Inaudible.) The Council must
consider whether it is worth looking at as a Comprehensive Plan docket item with the City of
Everson (inaudible).
Fleetwood asked the status of Everson in it's urban growth area (UGA) review.
Olason stated Everson and other cities completed their UGA's a few years ago. Their
planning is done.
Fleetwood asked if the City of Everson proposed including that area. Olason stated it
did not at that time. Anyone can ask for an extension of the UGA boundary at any time.
One of the problems is whether that's sensible, since the City just completed its UGA
review. A question is whether the City needs this area in its UGA, and whether the City has
made accommodations for it in its Comprehensive Plan.
Weimer stated the County is looking at the Everson UGA this year. This property
would be included in that review. He asked if there is any benefit to including this as a
docket item, since the County is going to work on it anyway. Olason stated that is a
question for the applicant. The staff could tie this to Comprehensive Plan docket item B.
Nelson asked why this is in Natural Resources Committee.
McShane stated it is in the agricultural zone.
Nelson asked if the property is being used as agriculture. Olason stated he doesn't
know.
Nelson stated the question for this Committee is whether it's appropriate to take this
property out of agricultural protection. The other natural resource concern is the floodway.
There needs to be good policies for zone changes in floodways, especially around the cities.
They must carefully consider putting flood lands into the UGA, which will be more densely
developed. Olason indicated the 100 -year floodplain on the map. It is the area that is
probably most impacted. The cities have fairly rigorous requirements for that. It's doubtful
that this will be used at all.
Nelson stated he doesn't have a problem with the western two and a half acres in
the application, as long as the City of Everson has controls to protect the floodway. Olason
stated there is also the issue of mitigation. In practice, (inaudible). That's another problem
with expansion outside the regular UGA process.
James Stanford, 1841 Front Street, Lynden, stated he represents the applicants.
Technically, they are asking that 4.77 acres be considered for inclusion in the UGA. Of that
4.77 acres, 2.6 acres are actually in the flood plain and 2.1 acres are in the floodway. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) won't let them build in that area, nor would
they choose to. It makes for great open space and protection from the flood plain. Base
flood elevations have been established for that area. There are residences to the east. Two
homes are currently 100 feet to the west of Johnson Creek and abut Main Street.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/27/2007, Page 4
1 When the applicants bought the property, they understood the duality of jurisdiction.
2 They've chosen to not do anything with the front piece of the property because they didn't
3 want to preclude or completely land lock that back 2.6 acres, which doesn't have any access
4 other than from Main Street.
5
6 The City of Everson supports this application. He read from the City's letter of
7 support. The applicants seek relief from the split lot. The best and highest use of this lot is
8 in the city. They can't do anything with the city limit property until this is resolved.
9
10 He agrees that viable farmland should be protected. This property hasn't been
11 farmed since 1983. If the Mickley's choose to do something with the Everson property,
12 nothing would be done to it ever. It has no viable benefit to anyone, other than maintaining
13 the inventory. It was inappropriately zoned agriculture and not included in the City UGA a
14 long time ago.
15
16 McShane moved to docket this item, but he won't vote for it. If they are to be
17 consistent about how they deal with urban growth areas, they must take a holistic
18 approach. If the City were to come forward with an argument up front that it supports
19 inclusion and will remove another area out of the UGA, then he is more inclined to docket
20 the item. He would also be more inclined to approve if someone came forward to expand
21 the UGA, and offers to assist them with identifying rural areas that will come out of potential
22 development as a mitigation measure. Otherwise, adding this area to the UGA is
23 significantly profitable. Those things could come up in discussion if docketed. However,
24 there are time constraints. He won't support the motion.
25
26 Fleetwood stated his inclination is usually to deny a change from agriculture to UGA.
27 They are fighting to maintain 100,000 acres of viable farmland. He's hearing now that they
28 may not have viable farmland. He agrees with looking at this holistically. However, he
29 questions whether holistic consideration is in the context of the agricultural work program or
30 in the context of the City of Everson's desire to reconsider it's UGA boundaries.
31
32 McShane stated the holistic consideration includes both contexts.
33
34 Fleetwood asked about the review that's been done and is scheduled to be done
35 soon. Olason stated the seven -year update was done, and they are scheduled to embark
36 upon the ten -year UGA area review this year. The County will work with the City of Everson
37 to certify those UGA's.
38
39 Fleetwood asked if the Mayor of Everson supports this application. Stanford stated
40 the Mayor did, after a unanimous vote of support by the Everson City Council.
41
42 Fleetwood asked if the City would ask the County to consider including this area in
43 the UGA during the ten -year review process going on this year. Olason stated it is
44 probable. The issue for the cities is to decide whether they can justify the need for more
45 land, or swap non -UGA areas for UGA areas. That's not the County's decision. Even though
46 the City supports the idea of taking this area into the UGA, it really must show it's
47 justification. Once a City does its review and says that its Comprehensive Plan is fine and
48 the land base is adequate for the next 20 years, it can't come back a year later and ask to
49 add another five or ten years later without showing that the original calculation wasn't right
50 or without findings to show changes that require more UGA areas. That is the standard to
51 which the County is trying to hold the cities. Ensure that these properties are truly needed
52 and have gone through property city review.
53
Natural Resources Committee, 2/27/2007, Page 5
1 Fleetwood asked if the City is likely to do that analysis, if it's probable that the City
2 will consider and review this area. Olason stated it's likely for the County to expect to see
3 that analysis from the City. For the County to certify the City's UGA, the County must see
4 the City's work. If the County preempts the work by just adding additional area, then the
5 County must justify the need for the area. It still must be part of a complete review.
6
7 Fleetwood asked if this truly is the applicant's final opportunity for relief, as Mr.
8 Stanford says, or if the County could see this again through the City UGA review process.
9 Olason stated it's possible that the City will evaluate its existing UGA and decide whether or
10 not it needs this additional area, or it will trade this area for another existing UGA area. It's
11 an equation, not an add -on.
12
13 Stanford stated this is the applicant's last opportunity for this year. He's asking the
14 Committee to initiate the application so they can have this dialog through the proper
15 process, over the course of that year. If it's not initiated this year, the applicant will be
16 back again next year. If initiated, the applicant can work within the parameters of what's
17 available. If it's not initiated, they don't have any other recourse than to wait another year.
18
19 Weimer stated he is in favor of docketing this item, even though he will probably
20 vote against it in the long run. It sounds like there are many issues they need to work
21 through. It coincides with the City of Everson review process. If the City has already said it
22 wants this area, this item can be tied to the ten -year review process. The City will have to
23 convince the County of some reason to allow this change. It sounds like the applicant
24 wants this docketed as a placeholder for the ten -year review process.
25
26 McShane stated docketing this item puts the responsibility on the County to do an
27 analysis of the City's need for expansion of urban growth area or a swap of UGA land.
28 Docketing would show a County bias for a given parcel of land, before that process even
29 begins. It puts this parcel in front of other properties in the Everson area that aren't on the
30 map, and that may be outside of flood areas, have less agriculture, and be better suited for
31 inclusion. Docketing skewers the debate that the City of Everson should have.
32
33 Fleetwood stated he agrees with Councilmember McShane.
34
35 Weimer stated this parcel has already been put forward by the City of Everson giving
36 an unanimous nod that it is interested in this property. The County must force the City of
37 Everson about the consequence of giving support outside of the review process. The City
38 must be responsible for that support, and tell the County were the five acres is coming out
39 somewhere else.
40
41 Nelson stated this process is to allow citizens the opportunity to come forward and
42 put their requests forward, according to the Growth Management Act (GMA). They pay for
43 that opportunity. Saying that the request is outside the city process is to ignore the law
44 that protects a citizen's ability to put forward their specific requests. If a request measures
45 up and meets standards, then include the request. There are two processes. One is to
46 protect the cities, and the other is to protect the citizens.
47
48 Fleetwood stated citizens are protected through their local government, which is
49 elected by the people.
50
51 Motion failed 1 -2 with Weimer in favor.
52
Natural Resources Committee, 2/27/2007, Page 6
1 Docket #2007 -1: Agriculture to Lynden UGA for approximately 12 acres
2
3 Kraig Olason, Planning Department, gave a staff report and indicated the location on
4 a map. He described the site characteristics and surrounding zones and uses.
5
6 Lesa Starken burg- Kroontje, Lynden, stated she represents the applicants. This is a
7 question of timing. They are learning as they go through the process. This area of Lynden
8 is the subject of recent developments. First, the southern UGA boundary for Lynden was
9 set as the flood plain line. That line has been surveyed, and the elevations are established.
10 Now they have identified the exact southern boundary of the UGA.
11
12 While that happened, the City of Lynden considered a plat application for the
13 development of an area within the city limits that was previously part of the Koetje's farm.
14 Through that process, the City placed a pump station at the corner of the property. It
15 handles the sewer for the East Lynden area. The City completed that project this year. The
16 manholes for that project were placed outside the UGA and city limits. They are in the
17 agricultural zone.
18
19 As that project moved forward, storm studies have shown that the city boundary,
20 which follows the flood plain boundary, causes a problem with storm planning. The ridge
21 continues downward before it flattens out in the peat area. The best approach seems to
22 move the UGA line and the city limits line south, to the bench area. The infrastructure area
23 for the plat would be within the city. The storm detention area can incorporate part of what
24 is now in Whatcom County, to create a better - engineered project.
25
26 In 2001, the Council specifically took out storm detention facilities as a conditional
27 use in the agricultural zone. It's now necessary to ensure that all of these things are placed
28 in urban areas. That's why this change to the Comprehensive Plan has come forward.
29
30 The City of Lynden supports this project. A letter of support from the City is en route
31 to her office. The survey information was just completed this last year. The pump station
32 just went in this year. Not everything will fall within the cities' planned seven -year review
33 cycles. This area would not change the population projections for the City of Lynden
34 because of the topography and limited appropriate development area. There would be no
35 additional density in this area. The request is strictly about infrastructure. The applicant
36 doesn't care if this comes forward as a separate docketed item or as part of the ten -year
37 review cycle, as long as it is handled. The application was submitted to spark the attention
38 of the Lynden City Council and the County. This problem area needs to be addressed one
39 way or the other.
40
41 This area is not going to retain an agricultural character any longer. It's been cut off
42 by the current city limits. It's configuration with the wetland areas no longer make it a part
43 of the agricultural base.
44
45 Fleetwood asked how much of the 12 acres is off the table for agricultural
46 production. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the topography removes nine acres from
47 agricultural production. There is a hill and wetland areas.
48
49 McShane asked if there would be some sort of stormwater pond, and where the
50 water would go. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the plan at this point is for a slow release of
51 the water. That plan is conceptual, and hasn't yet been submitted to the City or
52 Department of Ecology for review.
53
Natural Resources Committee, 2/27/2007, Page 7
I Nelson asked what prevents the City from putting the infrastructure in the current
2 UGA area. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated topography and the location of existing sewer pipes
3 and manholes, which are too far south, prevent further infrastructure development in the
4 current UGA.
5
6 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
7
8 Weimer moved to recommend docketing to the full Council.
9
10 McShane stated it won't technically increase the density in the agricultural zone. The
11 density increase will be because they can do their stormwater management outside the
12 current city limits in that urban growth area. Therefore, they can more fully develop in the
13 city limits. There is no major or minor population change issue. However, he has concerns
14 about the tiny loss of farmland. Granting this is a huge financial benefit to the applicant and
15 developer. This is a shift of wealth from one part of the community to the other. The land
16 will now be used as the stormwater land, and will not be economically beneficial to the
17 county. He is concerned there is no agricultural mitigation. It's better to keep these peat
18 soils wet so they don't evaporate. If moved forward, require mitigation for the loss of
19 agricultural land by using this property's stormwater.
20
21 Weimer stated he will support the motion to make sure that it doesn't disappear
22 between the cracks. He hopes this discussion will be tied to the ten -year review with
23 Lynden, and not done separately.
24
25 Nelson stated a bigger concern is the policy direction that could occur. It would be
26 easy for cities to designate areas for inclusion into their UGA's, planning for stormwater
27 retention and other infrastructure at a later time. That bothers him. If they are going to
28 put something into the UGA, it should include the necessary infrastructure. It changes the
29 density projections for the city. It impacts density, in a sense. Stormwater benefits could
30 increase densities in the UGA, but that should have come forward in the previous plan.
31 Don't bite at the land incrementally.
32
33 McShane stated he agrees. They will see a series of stormwater infiltration trenches,
34 disbursionaries, and ponds just outside the city limits, in the newly created urban growth
35 area stormwater strip.
36
37 Starkenburg - Kroontje stated they won't see that happen where the lines are fixed on
38 a map. In this area, the southern boundary of the UGA is described as the floodplain line.
39 When better survey information comes out, the line tends to change. The boundary was
40 never delineated on site. It was delineated by aerials.
41
42 McShane stated land in the flood plain will be added to the UGA if this goes forward,
43 one way or another. They are not sure how much land.
44
45 Olason stated they should discuss with the cities the comprehensive stormwater
46 plans for the cities, and comment on it.
47
48 McShane stated he is inclined to docket the application, partly because of the timing.
49 This applicant is actively looking to develop this land. In the long run, there should be
50 mitigation for the loss of farmland.
51
52 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood out of the room.
53
Natural Resources Committee, 2/27/2007, Page 8
1
2 Docket #2007 -K: Rural Forester to R10A for 20.11 acres on Paradise Valley Road
3
4 Jessica Buer, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report
5 and indicated the location on a map. She described the site history, characteristics, and
6 surrounding zones and uses.
7
8 Norman DesRosiers, 346 Sudden Valley, stated he is the applicant. This is one
9 residence that won't create sprawl. The property is in close proximity to other smaller lots.
10 The only commercial forestry abutting his property is owned by an overly - concerned
11 neighbor. The zoning issue is not a problem. This isn't going to affect the property use.
12 One will still be able to commercially harvest the timber on this property. The property was
13 clear cut in 1997. Reforestation was not to par. Few evergreens are growing on the
14 property. It won't be a productive piece of land in 40 years. Designating the property
15 rural and giving someone the opportunity to steward this property is a healthier use for the
16 land. The residents of the county should have an option to live in an area that isn't urban.
17 There is already a small community on top of this hill. Adding one more resident would be
18 healthy.
19
20 Crawford asked how a nearby property ended up with a rural, one unit per five acres
21 (R5A) zone. Olason stated the parcel size probably had something to do with it. He doesn't
22 remember.
23
24 Crawford stated this probably won't pass through the Planning Commission and
25 County Council because rural forestry is a buffer area. He asked if this property has an
26 Open Space /Forestry designation. Olason stated it does.
27
28 Crawford stated everything about this parcel is rural forestry. There is a heavy
29 workload this year. This item is not a priority. Don't docket it.
30
31 Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
32
33 McShane stated he agreed with Councilmember Crawford.
34
35 Motion failed 0 -2 with Fleetwood out of the room.
36
37
38
39 Amy Pederson, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report
40 and stated this proposes to amend Chapter 2, the Lake Whatcom Special Study Area of the
41 Land Use chapter, to add additional background information regarding the Clean Water Act
42 303(d) listing status of Lake Whatcom and the total maximum daily load (TMDL) study
43 efforts. The amendment would also incorporated language related to the adoption of the
44 State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) landscape plan and its implementation and
45 effects on the Lake Whatcom watershed.
46
47 McShane stated this is his application. It's a draft effort to provide more accurate
48 background information about the situation in Lake Whatcom. The language now was
49 written in 1997. Since then, they've received new information, including the landscape
50 plan. The language would reflect better the circumstances with Lake Whatcom. It will help
51 inform the policy decisions being made about the watershed.
52
Natural Resources Committee, 2/27/2007, 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
Nelson stated he is in favor of docketing this information. They have to have up -to-
date information for their policies and directions. They must also recognize private foresters
in addition to commercial and DNR lands. Recognize that they use those forestry lands to
maintain water quality protection. He asked what language is proposed.
McShane stated he proposes adding a description of the TMDL study listing of the
lake.
Pederson stated the proposed text references the 303(d) listing, the pending TMDL
study, and the DNR landscape plan, which are all elements they should consider and which
should provide background to management decisions.
Weimer moved to recommend docketing to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:01 a.m.
Jill Nixo es Transcription
0%. 0i Y C /� 111%r
�i 0 'WHA'� *G
V: o ryas C)
• r
Lana 8rb"Ari's, CRTncil Clerk
��r�rrrfll1111��,,
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
J
G--
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 2/27/2007, Page 10