HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources February 14 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
February 14, 2006
Committee Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Carl Weimer
Also Present:
L. Ward Nelson
Sam Crawford
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE TO PURCHASE DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS ON THE ALAMWALA FARM PROPERTY (AB2006 -107)
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, submitted a handout of information on the property
(on file) and read the information. He indicated the location on a map. The property is all
in raspberries right now. This is the County's first raspberry purchase. The County has an
agreement with the owner for $1,065,000. The cost of development rights in the rural, one
unit per five acres (RSA) zone is expensive. The price was established through an appraisal
Zy process. The property has prime soils. Irrigation is on site. A portion of property has water
30 rights.
31
32 Crawford asked if the City of Ferndale commented. Olason stated he doesn't know
33 that they've been notified.
34
35 McShane moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Despite the cost,
36 people are really understanding farmland value and the impact to future incentives.
37
38 Olason stated the surrounding use includes extensive divisions. Yet, this property
39 remained an agricultural use. The Custer target area was one that had a great deal of
40 division in it, but it is important to keep agricultural use. There is limited acreage for soils
41 suitable for berries. They become extremely valuable.
42
43 McShane stated these soil types are key because of drainage. Olason stated the
44 back part of the property isn't as good soil for raspberries, but because of the slope, the
45 land has been able to drain it and make raspberry growing work.
46
47 Motion carried unanimously.
48
49
50 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY
51
52 1. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
53 AMENDMENTS FOR 2006 (AB2006 -082)
Natural Resources Committee, 2/14/2006, Page 1
Docket # 2006 -K: Sudden Valley Provisional UGA rescission
Fleetwood moved to hold in committee for two weeks.
McShane asked how soon they need to docket this item.
Troy Holbrook, Senior Planner, stated the County code deadline for docketing is
March 1. There are many other docket items that need to be put on the agenda.
Weimer stated he is in favor of the motion. He has been getting information from
Sudden Valley citizens. It's good to get that information.
Nelson stated he hasn't seen that much information from residents.
Weimer stated he is hearing that no one is really looking at incorporation out there.
He also has heard about the legalities of the right way to do this.
Nelson stated this request came before the Council from Sudden Valley.
Incorporation is nothing the Council would do. Now, this process is to not allow Sudden
Valley to incorporate.
McShane stated that if passed, the incorporation provision would go away a month
later anyway. A concern of some is that the Council can follow a different procedure, an
emergency Comprehensive Plan process, but he's not keen on doing that.
Crawford stated he made calls to people in Sudden Valley, and didn't find anyone
who was aware that the incorporation process was going to be actively done this year, and
thus the urban growth area (UGA) designation would expire. With all the things staff has to
do this year, don't docket this and let the UGA expire. No action or staff time would be
needed.
Fleetwood stated he prepared this application. He did it in December, after a
November meeting in Sudden Valley where there was talk about moving toward
incorporation. The opinion of the majority of the Council is to not like incorporation. This
was a precautionary measure for reducing the likelihood of incorporation. After filing the
application, he learned that the principles in Sudden Valley were not as actively planning
incorporation as he had believed. Now, there is less urgency to pursue it. He would like to
have a few more conversations over the next two weeks. They are not going to finish
docketing items today. Consider this in two weeks. He would like to table it. He recognizes
that the value of this action has value as an emergency. One interpretation of the law is
that it takes five votes, but there may be a requirement of four.
Motion to table carried 2 -I with McShane opposed.
Docket # 2006 -L: Rural to Agricultural Rezone I and Docket # 2006 -M: Rural to Agricultural
Rezone II
McShane stated that the committee would discuss this and the next item together.
Richard Baila, 1303 E. Maplewood Avenue, Bellingham, stated study who would be
affected by a downzone before possible implementation. Property owners rights are civil
Natural Resources Committee, 2/14/2006, Page 2
rights. Studying the downzone first would make it easier to defend a downzone in a legal
battle. The Council can use the criteria of the Property Fairness Initiative. He read from
RCW 64.40. The County revenue will be reduced by a downzone. The tax burden would be
shifted to other property owners. The County and cities need to get on the same page.
Dan Warner, 3854 Squalicurn Lake Road, Bellingham, submitted information (on
file). The Comprehensive Plan says rural areas should remain rural. That's a good vision.
When acting to preserve rural character, the Council is doing what the people want.
Courage is necessary to preserve what they all love about this place. If they don't save the
rural areas now, they will be gone forever.
Lincoln Rutter, 8373 Semiahmoo Drive, stated he is in favor of agricultural zoning.
Investigate examples to preserve agricultural land in Oregon. Whatcom County has one of
the largest dairy industries in the country. About 28 percent of the jobs in the county
revolve around the residential sector. Those in the building industry should realize that a
healthy agricultural economy enhances healthy residential housing industries.
Jack Petree, 2955 Sunset, Bellingham, stated the Council should consider what they
want Whatcom County to look like in 10 or 15 years and in 50 or 100 years. There will be
unintended consequences if the Council considers the effects over 50 to 100 years.
Agriculture at the turn of the last century was nothing like it is now. The parcels were very
small. A lot depends on what the Council is trying to preserve. They don't have the
information they need to decide what they want to preserve. Have a multi -year process to
determine the impacts of their actions. Docket something in the future that has a chance of
success. There are innovative techniques for preserving agricultural lands. In metropolitan
areas, small scale farming is successful in the future. Large blocks of land may be attractive
areas to develop for future councils. In the short term, there are more important things to
do this year. Figure out how to cause the cities to be so attractive to people that people
want to live there. That's most important.
Bill Geyer, 1008 - 16th Street, Bellingham, stated they've had many conversations
about the vision for Whatcom County. That vision was codified in several plans and zoning
ordinances. There was great protection for agricultural areas. There must be choices for
places people can live. In taking this step, they will be out of compliance with the Growth
Management Act and current policies and laws of Whatcom County. For 30 years, the
County has told residents the definition of rural lands. Today, the Council is saying to those
same people that they are no longer compliant with this Council's viewpoint. Many of those
people have chosen to live a rural lifestyle on five acres. Land use laws provide provisions
for people to have stable lives. Converting the rural lands to agricultural lands breaks a
long- standing covenant in this county.
There are three ways of creating a line between rural and urban areas. The first is to
recognize city limits. Look at city zoning that isn't urban. Bellingham has several of those
locations. Work with the cities to rezone those areas. A second is the urban growth
boundaries. Land zoned RSA is 36 times the size of a traditional urban lot that is 6,000
square feet. The Council can adopt those ordinances that keeps the boundary. The Council
can't say that five -acre rural landowners must make their land go to agricultural. There are
ways to minimize impacts of development.
If the Council dockets this item, it will go through all these issues. However,
consider whether the covenant of lifestyle choices should be taken away.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/14/2006, Page 3
McShane asked if Mr. Geyer has considered what 16 -lot clusters do to rural
character. He asked how that is compliant with a rural vision. Geyer stated that in general,
a 16 -lot subdivision is urban, according to the density that is there.
McShane stated current rules allow a 16 -lot subdivision in an R5A zone.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated everyone has a different opinion of what
rural is. He participated in the visioning process. The rural people were pushed out of that
process, and eventually quit participating. The urban people decided what is rural.
Look at the bigger picture of what is going on. Lands in the rural designations
should be agricultural, but changing it this way will make a lot of people unhappy.
Consolidate in a way to make people happy. The agricultural economy isn't good. Rural
people are concerned about the government getting in the way.
Lesa Starkenburg- Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, stated don't docket this item.
Instead, make it a work plan. When people feel like they can't participate, they may panic.
Avoid panic in this situation. They have had 30 or 40 years where rural lands have been
defined. A lot of agricultural use is in rural lands. Agriculture is not disappearing in the
rural lands. Don't make people panic and make decisions that harm agriculture. Let people
know this is a thought -out process that involves everyone in crafting creative approaches to
preserve value and agricultural activities. The County developed the agricultural protection
overlay (APO) in 1997. They don't need to abandon the whole program. Consider aspects
of the program that could be enhanced. Her farming clients are saying that they purchase
property and are interested in farming. If they can't know the certainty of that value will
continue, they will have to preserve their value. Don't encourage farming on platted land.
The farmers who purchased the rural lands need to have some ammunition for taking care
of issues with water rights and to preserve their value for bank financing. Recognize the
19 unintended consequences when people feel uncertain. Develop a work plan that people can
30 consider.
31
32 Unidentified speaker, stated his family is on land in this area. All of them plan to be
33 there for the rest of their lives. He would like to live out there eventually. Don't consider
34 this without considering the repercussions to homeowners in the area. Before making a
35 sweeping decision, consider the effects to those who live there. He respects the desire to
36 protect the agriculture. Look at it more specifically and work with the residents of the area.
37 Decide which portions of the land really need to be changed.
38
39 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
40
41 Terry Montonye, 408 Fieldston Road, submitted and read from his comments (on
42 file) and stated these items are sad examples of a limited view. Competition is the only way
43 a complete economic process can be achieved. There are too many things for the County
44 Council to deal with adequately. Restore the bay and streams, and salvage Bellingham's
45 middle class. Those are the top priorities. To do that, issue stiff penalties for polluters and
46 reduce government to increase competition.
47
48 Bill Henshaw, 2653 North Park Drive, Bellingham, stated the Growth Management
49 Act (GMA) has 13 goals, including economics and preservation of agricultural lands. The
50 Council is trying to micro - manage small aspects without looking at the entire GMA. Balance
-91 decisions based on the overall 13 goals. They can't get enough housing in the city of
52 Bellingham because there is not sufficient land in the urban growth boundary. It's cheaper
53 to buy in the county because they aren't looking at the over - arching benefits and costs
Natural Resources Committee, 2/14/2006, Page 4
associated with balancing those goals. Do not docket these items. They will devastate the
county economically.
Henry Bierlink, Whatcom Ag Preservation Committee, stated he agreed with Ms.
Starkenburg- Kroontje, but the Council needs to docket this item. They've been talking
around these issues for a long time. The only way to address it fully is to docket the item.
He hopes the conversations get realized this year to protect agriculture and the value that
farmers have in that land. That can be done only if they work on it, which means docketing
it now and making a commitment to get the job done this year. Find some money for more
county staff to work on this item.
Mark Brown, 2707 Grove Street, Bellingham, stated docket this item, but not this
year. lie's involved in the New Whatcom site on the waterfront. Something this vast
demands public input. Develop a work plan that involves public input.
Bob Tull, 749 Dupont Street, Bellingham, stated he agrees with previous speakers.
Have staff provide the Council with the first County Comprehensive Plan with the yellow
cover. It was done more than 20 years before the GMA was passed. He gave a history of
comprehensive planning in the county. Maintain the separations between urban, rural,
industrial, forest, and agricultural land. The APO was designed to pay more attention to
rural lands that are possible for farm production. Everyone is saying they need variety and
better tools, whether or not it is done through a docket or work plan. Put aside money to
work on the plan. Do a lot of detailed planning and fund public investment to make the
amenity package, including transportation, work. Work on rural and agricultural interface
with the cities. Put together a work plan that includes a public process on the tools. Let
everyone get up to speed, and then produce suggestions for the Council. Ask for staff to
provide the outline for a work plan. Decide when the Council wants the work plan done,
and fund it adequately. Figure out in the work plan the incentives that make sense. One
proposal is to identify candidate land for downzoning voluntarily in a State sponsored tax
reduction program. It's ironic that people who volunteer to put their land in this tax
classification are then policed by a downzone. Separate those policies.
Larry Helm, 260 E. 41s' Terrace, stated he has some of those five -acre parcels that
will be upzoned. He moved here because the R5A density is small family farming. If the
Council changes the zoning, he may have a big industrial agricultural complex next to him.
There are many angry people who don't understand what is going on. Don't docket these
items. Discuss with and educate the people.
Mary Anne Filippini, 5751 Mt. Baker Highway, Deming, stated this is a backdoor
land grab. The Council is taking away people's dreams to turn land into agricultural land.
Her family works in the building industry. Revenue will drop. Future property taxes won't
ever be paid. This is anti - growth, anti- business, anti - family, and anti -jobs. She doesn't see
what it will do other than keep people from moving here.
Roger Hawley, 355 West Wiser Lake Road, Ferndale, stated he is concerned about
consolidating these lots. If the Council consolidates five -acre lots into 40 acres, it won't
make the land suitable for agriculture. The agricultural land that is suitable is already being
used. It will take away the value of his property, which is used for bank leverage.
McShane stated the proposals have triggered a lot of input.
Fleetwood stated two weeks ago, staff said this could be done in the context of a
work plan. People said the benefits of a work plan are numerous, but they must consider a
Natural Resources Committee, 2/14/2006, Page 5
dollar value. It would give them time to do planning and hear from the public. He asked
why they can't do that in the context of a docketed comprehensive plan process, where
there would be ten months and public input. He asked the aspects of docketing versus a
work plan. Olason stated he doesn't know if this could get done in ten months. Some of
the issues will take some time to look into. It's important that the work be done to support
the findings either way. Also, it's a public process. Even the docketing process is confusing
to people. Today, they are just deciding if they want to look at it. Clarify more clearly what
the Council wants to consider. The work plan would have a more open approach.
Docketing creates a beginning point, but the question is what the work plan includes. They
also have to work out a budget for this proposal. It could take two months to get a
supplemental budget. It could take three months to get a consultant if they want to. Then
they have to schedule hearings after they do the work. Ten months won't happen without a
very narrow focus.
Fleetwood stated the Council would like a demonstrated commitment to beginning
this grand effort sooner rather than later. The context isn't as important. He asked the
amount of time staff needs, and how much direction staff needs from the Council to outline
a work plan. Olason stated he would prefer a discussion with administration. Staff can put
together a general work plan in two or three weeks. The issue is how in -depth the work
plan will be. This should be a big commitment. The staff can't invest this kind of time and
find the money on its own.
McShane stated the Council has passed some complex comprehensive plan items in
the past. He asked if it is feasible to go forward with docketing, and then carry this over a
year. Holbrook stated they have docketed several complex Comprehensive Plan
amendments because of the complexity and also because of public interest. It is possible to
do that. They are talking about two items today. There are several other items on the
proposed docket that address agriculture, rural, and resource land issues. Staff would like
cy the Council to consider those items in tandem. It would be appropriate to combine them in
30 a holistic work plan.
31
32 The staff is working on other issues now, including APO criteria, siting criteria,
33 design criteria, and boundary line adjustments. They can be combined with the master
34 work plan. Two weeks ago, he handed out the work plan for the next five years. If the
35 Council approves this proposal as a work plan item, something will have to give. It's
36 appropriate to find out the Council direction on the items it does want to consider, combine
37 them with existing commitments, and develop a work program.
38
39 Olason stated now, get a head count of who wants what to get a sense of what the
40 Council wants, and then develop a work plan.
41
42 Fleetwood stated the committee also talked about five or six items related to rural
43 lands and agriculture. They were going to consider putting them together in one proposal.
44 He asked if staff took any effort to do that. Olason stated it did not. The staff is buried.
45 When the Council decides which ones it wants to look at, then staff will add them to the pile
46 of things to work on.
47
48 Holbrook stated the staff can have a work program worked out by the first meeting
49 in March.
50
51 Fleetwood moved to hold the four items in committee in the context of staff
52 creating a work plan and considering the cost. If they are able to achieve that and go
53 forward, then he'd be content to withdraw his application, as long as there is a process to
Natural Resources Committee, 2/14/2006, Page 6
work on it. His objective is to look at a comprehensive program to deal with all these
issues, including transfers of development rights (TDR), compensation, clustering, and
downzone incentives. These are all components that would be considered in a work plan.
McShane stated he'd rather docket them together. It will color his opinions on the
other 28 comprehensive plan amendment proposals. It will give the Council, Planning
Department, and administration direction on where to commit resources. This is the most
important thing they can do. It's huge. He will withdraw the next item, 2006 -N, given that
it's not as important. He withdrew docket item 2006 -N. Comprehensive Plan action
plan item one has yet to have any effort put into directing the advisory committee to review
the Comprehensive Plan zoning designations for agricultural. That review should include
parcels with the agricultural designation, to determine if they should no longer be
designated agriculture. The APO is pretty broad. There are areas of the APO that could be
taken out. Those areas would remain rural instead of forcing cluster subdivisions, which
don't have a rural character. There has been loss of rural areas and farmland.
Weimer stated group together items docket items L, M, I, O, and P. Everyone is
saying they want to protect the County, but not this fast. Today, they are just trying to put
a process forward that will figure out what they want to do. He's not sure if he approves of
any of these items at this point. He wants to know more. The County needs to do
something because it is out of compliance with the law. They need to set a time to start. If
they don't have to finish this in ten months, that's fine. Make sure the public is involved in
this discussion. The County needs to start addressing this.
Fleetwood stated he is not opposed to docketing these items. Since they are not
going to do formal, concurrent docket approval for two weeks, see if staff can develop a
work plan in the meantime. That is his motion. It may be a better process for achieving
this.
ZV
30 Nelson stated this is a huge issue. He's been working on these issues since the late
31 1960's. Look at what's been done historically. Identify what they want to accomplish more
32 specifically. Consider the stories of those who will be impacted. If those people are
33 impacted, then make sure what the Council does is a benefit to them.
34 0
35 Weimer asked if staff can come up with a work plan in two weeks. Olason stated
36 that by writing a work plan, staff would assuming that the Council is moving forward with
37 the five docket items. However, he doesn't know yet if that's what the Council wants to do.
38 They also have to see if any of the other docket items are related to such a plan. Look at
39 the whole thing first, then come back with a version of what they absolutely want. He'd
40 rather know what the Council wants to do first.
41
42 Fleetwood asked if staff would benefit from hearing from the committee about the
43 work plan. If that's the case, he would withdraw his motion. Olason stated that is correct.
44 He needs to know what the Council wants to docket and have the staff address. There is a
45 difference between ten items and 25 items. Ancillary issues on this list could be rolled into
46 it.
47
48 Fleetwood withdrew his motion.
49
50 McShane moved to recommend docketing of L and M.
51
52 Motion carried unanimously.
53
Natural Resources Committee, 2/14/2006, Page 7
1
2 Docket # 2006 -N: Amend the Comprehensive Plan background information and policies
3 for Lake Whatcom
n
6 See the above items for discussion.
6
7
8 OTHER BUSINESS
9
10 There was no other business.
11
12
13 ADJOURN
14
15 The meeting adjourned at 11 :03 a.m.
16
17
18 1
19 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
20
21 ����t��lirrrrnr
22 ATTEST: ` C
24 tkA r
26 ` •
27
28 DamEBrovyT)gm1 Cleslc
o
� "&If r
� •
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY,, A HINGTON
� 1
ban McShane, C ittee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 2/14/2006, Page 8