HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources March 13 20071 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Natural Resources Committee
3
4 March 13, 2007
5
6 Committee Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 9:06 a.m. in the
7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Present: Absent:
10 Seth Fleetwood None
11 Carl Weimer
12
13 Also Present:
14 Barbara Brenner
15 Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
16 Sam Crawford
17
18
19 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
20
21 1. PRESENTATION OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY
22 COMMITTEE'S RURAL LAND STUDY (AB2007 -139)
23
24 Chuck Antholt, Agricultural Advisory Committee Chair, stated the target amount of
25 acreage for agricultural protection is 100,000. Now, 88,000 acres are protected in the
26 agricultural zone. If they need to protect additional land, they must identify where it is and
27 how to do that. This effort identifies lands that are worth considering for additional
28 agricultural use protection.
29
30 Kraig Olason, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a presentation
31 (on file). He read through the presentation on the contributors, the rural land study report
32 contents, primary objective, data and analysis, and the area selection process. Many of the
33 rural areas have a lot of forest, especially in the Mt. Baker Highway area. They identified
34 those areas with reasonable parcel sizes to see if they would be usable for farming. He
35 indicated the nine selected areas on a map. Some rural five acre parcels are adjacent to
36 existing agriculture. Parcels in Columbia Valley were smaller, and mostly forested. In the
37 Custer area, there are large lots, but they're wet. They are still in agricultural use. It's
38 interesting to see what's going on now and how much is being used. All the areas are
39 spread around. It's interesting to see how much land has major agricultural character.
40
41 Some lands left out include areas that are very parcelized. There weren't many
42 agricultural areas to tie together. These are areas that tie into the core agricultural areas
43 more than these outlying areas. As long as they can survive, they are important to the
44 agricultural industries. This effort was to tie up blocks of land connected to bigger
45 agricultural areas, are more actively farmed, and easy to use in the existing agricultural
46 core.
47
48 He continued to read his presentation on the Ten Mile Road area. The large parcel
49 sizes are important when they think about buying or trading development rights. That is an
50 important component of what they look for when creating additional protections in an area.
51 Having a number of forested acres that could come into production heightens the benefit.
52 This area is actively being developed. It will continue to be subdivided over time. They've
53 noticed that the rural, one unit per ten acres (R10A) seemed to go slower that the rural,
Natural Resources Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 1
one unit per five acres (R5A). If a ten acre parcel is too big, the cluster lot is the same size
or a little bigger than five -acre parcels. So it's not really the issue. They may be working at
cross - purposes there. Think about that.
He continued to read his presentation on the Loomis Trail area. The area has been
heavily developed for home sites over the years. Part of the reason is that the soil is sandy,
and they can easily get water and septic systems in that area. However, there are still
properties available out there. These properties were brought to the advisory committee
regarding the 20 -acre cluster threshold for the agricultural protection overlay (APO). When
those farms are subdivided outside the APO, they disappear. The ability to do well on
smaller acreages is much greater than on big grass property. The agriculture out there
tends to be berry crops and crops that do okay on smaller parcels. There is a tradition of
that type of farm. The landowners are used to it. A number of large parcels are still being
actively farmed. Farther to the west end of this area, the parcel sizes are smaller.
He finished his presentation on the conclusions and recommendations. These areas
have a strong agricultural use. These areas almost get them up to the total 100,000 acres.
Fleetwood asked about the selection criteria, including proximity to existing
agriculture. Many people envision making areas agriculturally viable on smaller parcels. He
asked how much thought they gave to a future of farming that is done on smaller lots. He
asked if that would lessen the concern about proximity to agriculture. Olason stated
additional areas of importance to agriculture include a range of uses. Nothing presupposes
that they would write off other places. The many small lots available should supply organic
farmers forever. The County doesn't limit a small parcel's ability to farm those properties.
They don't discount any parcels with agriculture. They looked at large parcels that
contribute to large scale agriculture. The limitation for small scale agriculture is marketing
and how it's sold.
Fleetwood asked the distinction between active farming and something that is
commercially viable. Olason stated part of the distinction has to do with whether the
operation is self- sustaining or part-time. A small percentage of the farmers make a full -
time income from the farm, but they do produce a large percentage of what is produced.
They have to look at the reality that a lot of people get into agriculture as a sideline
business. If they didn't make money on the farm, they wouldn't starve. They have another
job with money coming in. Those with a competitive business, the majority of the income
coming from the farm, and a lot of investment are those who can say the farming is their
livelihood. They are saying that some areas still have large parcels that can be, protected
for agriculture on a larger scale.
Antholt stated that over time, the mainline agricultural enterprises, such as dairy and
raspberries, have issues with economies of scale. They must be able to spread their capital
investments over a larger area to respond to market demands and labor costs.
Brenner stated there are people who are doing this for a living with smaller than five
acres. It is their main income. She's disappointed that this happened without looking at
what else is out there. Small acreage will become more and more important as costs go up.
Nothing in here is about the total amount of small acreage farms have an agricultural use.
The County doesn't provide incentives for those people.
Brenner asked if the farming community agreed with this report. Olason stated that
the advisory committee approved this. All the farmers who showed up are included on the
advisory committee.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 2
1
2 Brenner asked if they consider agriculture more important than forestry. Olason
3 stated the Agricultural Advisory Committee's role is to advise the Council on agriculture
4 issues. Also, this is a follow -up from the discussions that occurred after last year's
5 Comprehensive Plan amendments. One of the issues was about identifying appropriate
6 areas to do things. The advisory committee said it will work with staff to identify areas it
7 thinks are important to agriculture. In this process, it's clear they are a lot better at
8 creating small lots than keeping big lots. That is the issue. Small organic producers have
9 market assistance, and can be helped in other ways. They have plenty of land available for
10 small parcel farmers. The problem is that they aren't going to have anything left for the
11 large parcel farmers. That is the focus of this report.
12
13 Brenner stated they must acknowledge the small farmers by allowing subsidies and
14 open space farming designations for small lots. One recommendation was in the report
15 about doing clustering in rural forestry zones. She asked why the Agricultural Advisory
16 Committee is making recommendations on rural forestry.
17
18 McShane stated the advisory committee didn't make that recommendation. They left
19 that issue alone because they were working on agriculture.
20
21 Caskey - Schreiber stated she thanks Councilmembers McShane and Fleetwood for
22 pushing this report forward and the Agricultural Advisory Committee for looking at this
23 issue. From 1994 to 2004, they lost 8,000 acres of farmland. That statistic is scary. Their
24 entire base can be wiped out in ten to fifteen years at that rate. Only ten percent of the
25 2002 farm bill was implemented because the federal administration neglected to staff it. If
26 they depend on other areas to solve this dilemma, they are going to fail. Take aggressive
27 action to plot out the future and secure these lands forever. The average economy sector in
28 agriculture is four percent. Whatcom County has ten to 20 percent of its economy in
29 agriculture. This is worth fighting for. She will support anything they recommend to keep
30 this land base. They must be aggressive to keep from losing acreage. Also, support
31 businesses cannot maintain their business with small businesses. They need the large
32 demands from large scale production.
33
34 Weimer stated he agrees with Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber. He asked what
35 they are going to do now for protecting this land. Olason stated that's part of the
36 agricultural program. Many people talk about (TDR's). A TDR presentation is scheduled
37 next week. There are many incentives and disincentives they have to sort through. Local
38 farm family displacement is concerning. The land base is the one thing they have some
39 control over. That's why they are focusing on that now, and not the incentive programs.
40 The agricultural community requested that. If they look at other counties, they don't have
41 much land. The big parcels are gone. Their equipment suppliers are gone.
42
43 Crawford asked why they don't take out all the five acre lots, in terms of the
44 purchase of development rights (PDR) program, if they want to focus on the larger tracts.
45
46 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
47
48 Crawford stated it might clean up the PDR map a bit to isolate the larger tracts that
49 are subject to that pressure. Olason stated they always debate this map. It's easier to map
50 of they don't drop out every five -acre parcel. They are not going to buy the developments
51 that are already developed.
52
Natural Resources Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 3
1 McShane stated that there isn't necessarily a cluster of five -acre lots with contiguous
2 ownership. This is an opportunity to add incentive to trade them out. Olason stated they
3 have to talk to people to find out what they want to do. Many times people do a plat just so
4 it's there. Driving by, one wouldn't know that an area is platted because it looks just like a
5 field. The costs are two or three times as high for those kinds of lots.
6
7 Brenner stated she supports a lot of this report. Obviously there is more benefit to
8 purchasing 44 -acre parcels than five -acre parcels.
9
10 Fleetwood asked if the Agricultural Advisory Committee would be the clearinghouse
11 of ideas for creating protections. Olason stated the advisory committee will continue to
12 advise. The Technical Review Committee (TRC) will be more involved. Today's product is a
13 building block. The next thing is to consider what the enhanced protections will be. That is
14 what the TRC and advisory committee will work on.
15
16 Fleetwood asked how aggressively they will be in creating protections. Olason stated
17 they've initiated conversations with Western Washington University (WWU) on a cost of
18 conversion study and real estate analysis necessary for the transfer of development rights
19 (TDR) study. The TRC committee is working. They are trying to get three studies off the
20 ground by April, for results by the end of the year. Those will be recommendations they will
21 consider to develop specific text amendments and programs.
22
23 McShane stated it seems that there is some policy decision that might need to be
24 made about whether these areas are the areas where they want to move forward, and drop
25 other areas out of concentration, especially regarding the current approach of protection
26 that is the APO causing clustering. They are looking at larger scale commercial farming to
27 protect big chunks of land that use economy of scale. He asked if there is a point when the
28 staff will want guidance about this approach to protect economy -of -scale farming. The
29 Council could approve these efforts. Olason stated a resolution to that effect would be
30 helpful. When they originally talked about this product, he thought that's where the APO
31 would be implemented, and they would have maps. However, if they took that out, there
32 would be no cluster requirements in rural at all. They may debate the merits of clustering,
33 which is one of the best ways to end up with some additional land that could benefit smaller
34 farmers. It protects the soil, land base, and has open space benefits. If they use clustering
35 to ensure an owner gets all the allowed development density, instead of clustering to get
36 the density to benefit the resource, then that's where the language may need to be
37 modified. A landowner must really have buildable sites to use their cluster density.
38 Consider the real purpose of clustering, which may be to ensure everyone gets every
39 possible lot or to retain areas that are beneficial for a variety of problems.
40
41 Brenner stated she doesn't have a problem with clustering in agriculture. One idea
42 to consider is getting help from the State, specifically about how taxes are done. There is a
43 broad benefit to agriculture and resource protection in general. She asked if they can work
44 with the State to get a tax exemption for the one -acre home site on a farming property if
45 someone is openly farming. Make it more attractive for people to farm. Olason stated
46 some people have concerns about that for not only their houses, but also for their dairy
47 parlors and other farm related buildings. The legislature could look at it. It's an extremely
48 big issue, particularly for larger dairies.
49
50 Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is room for improvement with the cluster to create
51 incentives for conservation goals. She asked if there is room for improvement in the cluster
52 allowance to get to their goal for conservation. Solve the situation locally. The more they
Natural Resources Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 4
1 look to external resources such as the State and federal government, the less likely it will
2 happen.
3
4 Crawford stated they are already doing that with conservation easements. Bob
5 Martin is working on a code revision for adjusting lot lines. There are some things they can
6 do locally. As they revise the agricultural zone, keep an eye out for disincentives in the
7 regulations.
8
9 Brenner stated this is not about asking the State for money. This is about asking the
10 State to help them modify exemptions for property taxes.
11
12 Fleetwood asked if they've given up on vetting the ideas expressed in the
13 Comprehensive Plan amendment applications from him and Councilmember McShane.
14 Olason stated that in a TDR program that works generally, there is some disincentive in the
15 form of a downzone. There must be a program with legitimate value to exchange. They
16 have to work with the cities and the building industry that can absorb the cost. That's why
17 they are doing the TDR study. Be clear on the goals as they move forward. It is a
18 frightening thing for people. If there isn't a way to secure some sense of value from their
19 property, they will have a run on premature short- plats. The County must consider how to
20 help people secure their development rights in a way that their interest will be protected
21 without dividing up their land. They are really expecting people to trust the County to not
22 take away their rights. At some point, they will have to find which options have merit.
23
24 McShane stated this report is consistent with the large planning process. This
25 approach is to give focus where they need it. The Council should approve of this report.
26 This is where their efforts should be focused. Don't forget to look at other areas to protect
27 soil bases, using the APO or cluster regulations. That's worth looking at in the future. Look
28 at incentives that make people as whole as they can be. Have this focused area where they
29 can concentrate their efforts and reach a much higher level of success. The Council must
30 support the community's efforts.
31
32 Brenner asked if Councilmember McShane is suggesting that they support these
33 areas, but not what they will do in these areas.
34
35 McShane stated that's correct. He doesn't know what the solutions will be.
36
37 Crawford asked if the Ten Mile area should be included in the map. Olason stated it
38 should be.
39
40 Fleetwood stated he agrees with the areas included in the report. He asked if efforts
41 would not only be in these areas, but would also be in the agriculture zones as well. Olason
42 stated that is correct.
43
44 Caskey- Schreiber stated one of the biggest pressures will be urban growth area
45 (UGA) expansions from the cities. They must decide on policy about how much the County
46 will allow that to happen.
47
48 Brenner stated she hopes this doesn't limit them to these areas in the report,
49 especially the small areas with good soil.
50
51 Antholt stated the advisory committee will be as aggressive as the Council directs.
52 Also, staff support is important. Their staff support is Mr. Olason and Ms. Buer. The Council
53 should support them.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 5
Fleetwood asked if this effort is number one on the Agricultural Advisory Committee's
priority list. Antholt stated it is.
Olason stated Council approval of this report is important.
McShane moved to recommend that the full Council accept this report, and
concentrate agricultural protection efforts on the areas identified in the report.
Motion carried unanimously,
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A CONSERVATION
EASEMENT ON THE DICKSON FARM PROPERTY (AB2007 -140)
Jessica Buer, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted and read
from her presentation (on file) on the purchase of development rights (PDR) program
status. She indicated the locations of the purchased properties on a map. The property is
in the rural, one unit per ten acres (R10A) zone southwest of Everson. It serves as a buffer
to the adjacent agricultural zone. This property is agriculturally significant, as recognized
by the Agricultural Advisory Committee. It has been identified in the Rural lands Study.
She continued the presentation on the Dickson Farm Property. A local dairy farmer
currently rents the property from the Dickson's. A possible conservation easement on the
property may enable the farmer to purchase the land and keep using it for his dairy
operation. She continued the presentation on the total purchase price. They are still
waiting to see if the property will be funded from the Farmland Protection Program Grant.
It is ranked last out of all the project applications. They'd like to move forward with the
purchase now, since it's an estate property, and the funds from the grant would not be
available until the late summer. If there is an opportunity to purchase the property now,
they'd like to move forward. She completed the presentation with photos of the site.
Fleetwood stated the intersection of Hemmi Road and Boon Road is his favorite
intersection in the county. It has glorious views.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there is wildlife in the areas. This whole quadrant his been
historically farmed for a long time. It is very significant. It's a perfect example of the PDR
program.
Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
McShane stated that beyond the protection of farmland, this fits well with the
Conservation Futures fund purpose. A lot of this area is about aesthetics. A lot of people
drive the area for fun. It's appropriate to compensate the landowners.
Fleetwood stated that in 1997, when they created the Comprehensive Plan, they
made the agricultural designation too small and the rural designation too big. They created
an expectation for which the County is now spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. If
the County had created the agricultural designation appropriately, they wouldn't have to
spend this money now.
Motion carried unanimously.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 6
1
2 Olason stated the thanks for this going through goes to the family. This property
3 would have been divided up by the family, but the family wanted it to remain whole.
4
5 {Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
6
7 Olason stated that working in this PDR program has given him an opportunity to talk
8 to people and find out their needs and expectations. The families don't necessarily have
9 retirement plans, and need to take care of their families. If the County is able to buy at
10 least some of the lots, the County would end up with a lot more and put out a lot less. The
11 owner would have an expectation that is helpful to them. Figure out how to do this over
12 time. There has to be trust.
13
14 McShane stated timing is critical in development. It puts pressure on people that
15 isn't necessary. It's not pretty when people begin development when they're not ready.
16
17 Caskey- Schreiber stated she is glad that Mr. Olason went into uncharted territory
18 with this PDR program. Everything they do will make the program more viable in the
19 future. Other farmers have been watching this to see if this 40 acre participation parcel will
20 work. The average farm in Whatcom County is 40 acres or less. Hearing this success story
21 will create more participation. She wishes they have enough funds for all applicants. Don't
22 hesitate to spend what they have. It will only get more expensive.
23
24
25 OTHER BUSINESS
26
27 Weimer stated that with Dr. Roll leaving the Public Works Department, it may be an
28 opportunity to consolidate natural resources and water issues. This is great disgruntlement
29 over how the water issues were split between the Planning Department and Public Works
30 Department at the end of the water resource inventory area (WRIA) process. The cynical
31 people participating in WRIA think it was done to make sure that WRIA didn't proceed at all
32 once the plan was approved. To some degree, that's exactly what's happened so far. With
33 Dr. Roll leaving the Public Works Department, it may be a time to have a look or ask the
34 administration to talk to them. He never got a legitimate discussion about why those water
35 programs were split between two different departments. Before they fill that position, he'd
36 like to hear from the administration why it did that, what the plan is for re- filling Dr. Roll's
37 position, and how that impacts water. The Council has the initiative to do that. The County
38 Charter gives the Council the right to reorganize departments. There is some dysfunction in
39 the way water programs are being handled in the County. He will approach the
40 administration and ask them to talk to this committee at its next meeting, if the other
41 committee members are interested.
42
43 The committee concurred.
44
45 McShane stated the Council should take time every so often to think about the
46 structure of County government. That's part of the Council's charge. They may want to
47 contemplate how to proceed with this issue.
48
49 Weimer stated he wants to hear from the administration about what they're thinking
50 about. Everyone has a lot of respect for Dr. Roll, so people were willing to let it go as long
51 as he was in the position. Now, with that opening, it may be time to look at it. He is
52 thinking of the possibility of rearranging the County departments. There needs to be a
53 Department of Natural Resources. Within the Planning Department, the emphasis is on
Natural Resources Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 7
I filling permits. Within the Public Works Department, the emphasis is on engineering.
2 Enforcement and implementation of a lot of the natural resource programs seem to be
3 neglected. Have that discussion before there is a new person in the position.
4
5 Fleetwood asked if someone like Dr. Roll would become a department head in the
6 future.
7
8 Weimer stated it's possible. Another possibility is to create a more distinct division
9 within a department, with a sole focus. Now, there are water programs split between
10 different departments. It doesn't appear that they talk well with each other.
11
12 McShane stated another issue is gravel mining. The Public Works Department has a
13 great deal of interest in that subject. The two departments need to talk more.
14
15
16 ADJOURN
17
18 The meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m.
19
20
21L
22 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
23
24
25 ATTF3�;��(
26 �• ••••. ���.
27
28 ' �••
29 -
30
31 Dana is Blanc' Clerk
.�
4 .
- .,f�tt�fli1111 ►��,,
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
n McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 8