Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources July 25 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee July 25, 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: Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Barbara Brenner COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 20.15 — MUSHROOM SUBSTRATE PRODUCTION FACILITIES SITING REQUIREMENTS AND CHAPTER 20.40 — AGRICULTURE DISTRICT AND CHAPTER 20.68 — HEAVY IMPACT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (AB2006 -302) Weimer asked for a review of the Planning Commission's recommended changes. Kraig Olason, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the change is mostly about off -site shipment. He read the changes from the Council packet. The biggest discussion was about the use being on- or off -farm. They tried to make regulation that was limiting, yet acknowledged the practice. They tried to ensure the regulation wasn't an opening to allow off -site shipping. Weimer stated the wording the Planning Commission used to allow for off -site exchanges is a little different from what is in the proposed ordinance. The wording in the ordinance is clearer. He asked how they would do notification. Olason stated they would probably send out a notice to people in the area. A group of people will express a desire to be told. Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated it would be nice to have a definition of what that notification is. Olason stated one approach is to do a legal public notice in the newspaper. He anticipates they would do more than that, such as notifying parties of record. Brenner stated that only putting a legal notice in the newspaper won't be adequate. McShane stated the Director of Public Health would come up with some sort of procedure. He's seen that type of language in the solid waste rules. Olason stated they could add that specific language to the Health Ordinance, since it is administrative. There could be a notification process associated with permit requirements. Ask the Health Department about that notification. McShane asked if this is a substantial change. Frakes stated it is not. McShane stated staff can come up with language, based on this conversation. Natural Resources Committee, 7/25/2006, Page 1 Greg Barlean, Hopewell Neighborhood Association, stated shipping a full load offsite is a conditional use, which it has been in the past. The zoning ordinance in place now prohibits it to be exported off agricultural land. Now, they are taking away the prohibition, and they are also taking away the conditional use permit (CUP) requirement. It was the one thing he wanted from the beginning. If anyone produces mushroom substrate for offsite export, they should get a conditional use permit. Regarding Ostrom, they would be allowed to ship offsite without a CLIP. It's the last regulatory tool the County has. This industry can be a real problem. He doesn't want to see another problem situation. The amendments will weaken the County to the point of being indefensible. Think carefully about removing the CUP requirement for offsite shipment. McShane asked if Mr. Barlean is uncomfortable with the limitations. Barlean stated he is. They are loopholes. Brenner stated she agrees with Mr. Barlean's concern. She would support him if the language weren't clear about testing purposes. That is not commercial activity. The CLIP has been required for commercial activity. This is just for testing, not commercial activity. They have to give notification to and get approval from the Health Department. Without that language, she would agree with Mr. Barlean, but sample testing activity is not commercial activity. McShane moved to recommend approval of the ordinance to the full Council, with the potential for new language that clarifies the notification process. Brenner asked if Mr. Barlean would be more comfortable if the wording were changed to put an absolute cap on it, above which one would have to get administrative approval from a director. Barlean stated he would, depending on the cap. Brenner suggested 1,600 cubic yards per year. An amount above that would require administrative approval. Barlean stated that would be better, but it's not capped. Limiting exchanges for quality control is legitimate. It's a conditional cap. He would be uncomfortable endorsing it. Don't allow administrative approval for anything beyond the 1,600 cubic yard limit. Motion carried unanimously. 1. RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE RANKING AND AUTHORIZING THE WHATCOM COUNTY PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ADMINISTRATOR TO PROCEED WITH THE ACQUISITION PROCESS FOR ROUND 4, 2005 APPLICATIONS (AB2006 -296) Kraig Olason, Planning and Development Services Department, stated they grappled with the issue of money and how to address these very expensive properties. They received a grant offer from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). They are pursuing a grant with the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) Parks Board for a couple of other properties. The question is how to continue to afford this program. Forecast how much they want to spend and where they want to spend it. The rapid increase in price is overwhelming. He indicated the location of the properties and target areas on a map. A couple of years ago, the Council had a conversation with staff about matching grant funds. The Council wanted a match. Some properties that didn't comply with NRCS funds were dropped. A question is whether they can use matching funds from NRCS and Natural Resources Committee, 7/25/2006, Page 2 1 submit to the State for reimbursement later. The State won't indicate until next spring 2 whether it will provide reimbursement. 3 4 Brenner asked if they won't fund it because it's not within the target areas. Olason 5 stated the IAC grant is a new grant running on the biennium. It's a lengthy process. The 6 budget proposal will have to go before the legislature, and money isn't allocated until the 7 beginning of the budget cycle next July. The NRCS is trying to get them to spend the 8 money faster and faster. The money they have available now needs to get spent this year. 9 The stuff left over from last year is a two -year commitment, so they need to spend it by the 10 end of this year. They must move on that funding to ensure they can use it. When he went 11 to IAC for the first presentation, their comment was that the County can't match with NRCS 12 money this round. They think they may be able to match it next round. He asked if they 13 could spend the money now and would they be able to get reimbursed. They take the risk 14 that they may not get reimbursed. 15 16 McShane stated the IAC money would be available on the Dickson and Joneli 17 property. Olason stated it would be. The combination would be more attractive to the 18 program. They are in the same area and farmed by the same lessor. The Joneli property 19 will not ever comply with NRCS funding because the owner wants to retain one development 20 right. With the new State funds available, Joneli may be interested in the State program. 21 The owner has six development rights, and only wants to keep one. 22 23 Caskey- Schreiber stated this is an opportune time for the program. Bond the 24 conservation futures fund. None of these properties will go down in value or price. Send a 25 message to the farming community that they are willing to find matching dollars. Providing 26 services to development in that rural area will be more straining to County government. 27 Get this program going as strongly as possible, yet with flexibility. The conservation futures 28 fund is supposed to be used throughout the county. Take the risk. 29 30 McShane asked if this is something they should consider or not in the context of this 31 ranking. There may be implications the Council should talk about. Olason stated there are 32 some estimates, based on whether they can issue bonds. 33 34 Brad Bennett, Finance Division Manager, stated debt capacity is an issue. This 35 government has very little debt. The real limiting factor is how much they can afford to pay 36 back. The statutory requirements are huge. 37 38 Olason stated the County's bond person says interest is about four percent, with one 39 percent for management fees. She said she would put basic numbers together. He has 40 information on some numbers. For every $1 million, payment over 15 years is about 41 $96,300 per year. For every $1 million on a ten year note, the payment is $130,000. For 42 every $1 million over 20 years, the payment is about $80,000. Determine how much they 43 want to allocate and for how long. 44 45 Fleetwood stated they bring in $700,000 per year to the conservation futures fund. 46 If they tie up half of that for ten years, they can generate $3.5 million today. In exchange 47 for $3.5 million today, they would tie up half of the conservation futures funds for ten years. 48 He asked if that is correct. Bennett stated that is correct. The ten -year program would be 49 about $2.7 million. 50 51 Fleetwood asked if the estimate for acquisition is $6 million. Olason stated it is, and 52 rising. 53 54 Brenner stated she likes the idea. The Maberry property has high value soils. The 55 Ebe property doesn't seem to be more than just viable. She asked why the applications Natural Resources Committee, 7/25/2006, Page 3 1 were done in this order, with Ebe's being ranked higher than )oneli's and Dickson's, when 2 they have better soil. Olason stated the soils are lighter when in the west Custer area. 3 There is light sand or peat. In this case, this was recently cleared. 4 5 The ranking sheet is on Council packet page 15. They look at all those items. They 6 tried to differentiate the soils with more points. They must assess the level of risk these 7 properties have to convert. When looking at prime soils, there are many levels of prime 8 soils. The distinction of soils isn't as critical as that they are actively farmed and in an area 9 that is farmed. The total composite score explains why one application ranks above another 10 application. 11 12 The Bajema application ranked highest because of it's location, potential to develop, 13 and number of rights. They rank without considering the dollar value. There are many 14 ways to look at what they are protecting. With the cluster ordinance, they are saving 75 15 percent of the land without spending any money. To save that last 25 percent, they have to 16 spend money. They don't have the impact of those densities on infrastructure and 17 agricultural uses out there. Part of the County's problem is that it gets hung with the full 18 price of a conversion it is preventing. They are looking strictly at what they are saving for 19 agriculture. One benefit is the savings on services and they don't get the conflict. Most 20 farmers rent half their land. That half is tenuous. A question is whether the farmers could 21 buy the land if it were stripped of development rights. One problem is that the theory about 22 open space and quality of life. If people can afford it, they will buy it. It displaces a lot of 23 agriculture. This program gets to that to some degree. 24 25 Brenner stated the first few properties are zoned agriculture. The Ebe property is 26 zoned rural, one unit per five acres (R5A). Have better cluster and design requirements. 27 28 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 29 30 Brenner continued to state that there is only so much property they can get with 31 $3.5 million. When they do this, balance with where they can do a better cluster design. 32 Olason stated two of the properties in the rank are retaining no development rights. That 33 could be another ranking criterion. 34 35 Caskey- Schreiber stated clustering and farming is a poor mix. Clustering to protect 36 some shoreline sensitive land or watershed land is a good idea. It doesn't work for farming. 37 It provides a false urban sense of neighborhood surrounded by rural activities. The two 38 always clash. People in cluster developments think they have city rights because the cluster 39 feels like a city. 40 41 In addition to the bond, the County could receive a lot of matching dollars. Every 42 dollar spent sends a message to the community about how serious the County is about the 43 program. She asked if this is the right time to commit to the program and bond. 44 45 Fleetwood stated that in an ideal world, he would like to not need clustering, but he 46 prefers clustering done well to spotty RSA development. He wishes there was not that kind 47 of development. The question of bonding is big. He asked if they can rank things and move 48 forward, and decide on bonding later. 49 50 McShane stated they should consider bonding in the future. It could play a role in 51 how the applications are ranked. There are many other things besides bonding, not related 52 to the funding sources they currently have. Each one of these applications is different. 53 There is different risk associated with each. The conservation futures fund will be the most 54 flexible source of funds, but if they do that, have a set of tools that go with that. It's a big 55 commitment that could have implications to other programs. There is an opportunity to use Natural Resources Committee, 7/25/2006, Page 4 the funds as incentives and leverage with sunsetting development rights or lot line adjustments. Olason stated the general problem in those adjacent areas is that they are predominantly one house on 40 acres. It will be difficult to get additional easements on those other properties because there is nothing to buy. The only way to do it is buy the land, put the easement on it, and resell it. There are few opportunities up and down that street. That is a problem with targeting. Fleetwood stated he wants to move applications number six and seven to three and four. McShane asked of ]oneli and Dickson think they would commit to being the highest rank for the IAC. Olason stated the Dickson's have estate issues. ]oneli is more patient. If the Dickson property isn't available, the question is whether the IAC will still be interested in ]oneli property. One option is if Dickson's are willing to put an easement on the remainder. Therefore, they would have a protected property adjacent, so it would still meet the same objective of having a larger block of protected land. If the remaining property that is off the cluster and that would be built out on the Dickson property, and it was the recipient of the conservation easement, they would almost be what they're after. The majority of the Dickson farm and ]oneli farm would be under easement, through different ways, and would still have permanent protection. However, typically the whole property sells. Then they are dealing with a new owner who may not have any interest in the program. McShane stated that if Dickson were ranked higher, they can use NRCS money. ]oneli may be more patient and attractive to the IAC grant. Olason stated they may be, if the IAC is interested in a stand -alone property. McShane stated applications number one and two are both a short-term and long- term threat. There may be other ways to deal with them other than this way. The conservation futures fund could play a role. There may be another path to solve that problem. Application number three is a short-term risk. Number four is a long -term risk. Think about this application in some way, but use transfer of development rights (TDR's) or conservation futures funds. The property is now in berry production, with a substantial investment from the farmer, who he doesn't think will sell anytime soon. That owner will be more patient in the long run. Numbers six and seven have a short-term risk. They have the greatest risk of flipping. It may not be the right time for number eight. Olason stated the value in number eight is in one of the properties being 15 acres with a view. McShane asked if it is so bad if those two developments rights are developed. Brenner stated Whatcom County was built around clusters of houses and open areas. Small acreage zoning will be very important. Small acreage farming won't be a bad fit in some cases. They can't do it all with conservation futures funds. The Joneli and Dickson properties are important. Prime agricultural soils are very important. Take a stronger stand on people moving into agricultural land and complaining about agricultural uses. The County needs to protect the farmers instead of the farmer's having to fight off people who complain. The biggest protection needs to go with the sites that are most likely to change, in the short-term, especially when they have prime agricultural soil. The other types of soils have limitations. Caskey- Schreiber asked the balance in the Conservation Futures fund. Olason stated the conservation futures fund has $2 million. Natural Resources Committee, 7/25/2006, Page 5 1 Caskey- Schreiber asked if they would need $4 million more. If they got a match for 2 one third of the cost, they would only need to bond $2 million. Olason stated there will be 3 some fallout on the list. There won't be that many applications that will go through. If they 4 bond today, the match is only good today. They won't have a match for the upcoming 5 years. That is a concern. Look at a broader program to strategize what they buy outright 6 and then use other techniques. 7 8 Caskey- Schreiber stated bond for a portion to meet this opportunity. There may not 9 be an opportunity to buy these properties in the future because the temptation to sell is too 10 much. If this Council doesn't bond, she also supports going after the cheaper opportunities 11 that will have the best success. To save what they have, go after what will be converted as 12 quickly as possible. If they bond for $2 million, they can qualify for a lot of fund. 13 14 Fleetwood stated the Council seems open to bonding. He asked if they can do the 15 ranking today, and decide later about bonding. He moved to put ]oneli and Dickson in 16 ranking positions three and four. 17 18 McShane stated he wants ]oneli and Dickson in positions one and two. 19 20 Fleetwood stated he is happy with that, as long as it doesn't jeopardize Bajema. 21 22 McShane stated each application presents a different problem. Bajema is one that 23 presents a problem for which another solution, not buying the development rights, can be 24 used. There will be struggles with evaluating the value of the properties. The cost of doing 25 developments may make the property less attractive. Down the road, the properties will be 26 more at risk. Go through changes to the agriculture zoning, lot clustering, and lot line 27 adjustments before going down this path with Bajema. Dickson is ready to go. There are 28 only three rights, so the cost wouldn't be that great. Do what they can with the properties 29 at greatest risk now. 30 31 Fleetwood stated that relies on some big things. Bajemas are becoming motivated 32 to sell. Olason stated ranking and instructing could be combined. The number one 33 application can still be ranked number one, but with a different approach, such as having 34 discussions to see what the owners are willing to do. It's probably not as critical as it was a 35 few months ago. It will certainly happen. Put a caveat on application number one with the 36 request that staff look at other options. 37 38 Fleetwood asked Mr. Olason's opinion on the ranking. Olason stated it is a matter of 39 deciding how much they want to spend. Dickson and ]oneli are less expensive and more 40 doable. They have to move quickly on the Dickson application. They may not get it. Even 41 if Dickson and ]oneli are ranked one and two, it may be worth pursuing that property in 42 whatever form they can get protection on the remainder. It would add to the easement 43 base, even if there is an extra house or two out there. It is a nice piece of property. For 44 the Bajema property, they have to decide how to get protections in the neighborhood. It 45 would be helpful for staff to come back with additional detail on adjacent properties. 46 47 Weimer stated it seems that they've agreed on the top four, but not their order. He 48 prefers to make Dickson higher priority than ]oneli. 49 50 Fleetwood accepted as a friendly amendment, to make Dickson a higher priority 51 than ]oneli. He amended his motion so that Dickson is number one, ]oneli number two, 52 Bajema west number three, then Bajema East as number four. The rest of the applications 53 continue on down in the order they are now. 54 Natural Resources Committee, 7/25/2006, Page 6 1 Weimer asked if the Bajema's can come back to the Council with different scenarios 2 on how to do it. 3 4 Fleetwood stated they can. 5 6 Weimer asked if there is another approach to the Dickson property. The County 7 could buy it outright, then sell it. Olason stated that has never been done, but the 8 administration can talk about it. He will meet with the family in a few weeks. 9 10 McShane restated the motion to rank Dickson is number one, Joneli number two, 11 Bajema west number three, then Bajema East as number four. The rest of the applications 12 continue on down in the order they are now. 13 14 Caskey- Schreiber stated have an interlocal agreement that gives them density 15 bonuses for contributing to purchase of development rights. (PDR) and TDR efforts. They 16 can use these development rights in the bank system. There is opportunity to get people to 17 pay for these rights. 18 19 Brenner stated the top_ four seem equal for different .reasons. Don't wait too long on 20 Bajema property. She asked the length of the process. 21 22 McShane amended the motion to include in the motion is that there will be other 23 approaches besides the outright purchase of the Bajema properties. They will move forward 24 with some sort of approach with Bajema that may different from a straight purchase. 25 Olason stated they have never done options, but he will look into it. It would indicate the 26 County's interest. 27 28 Motion carried unanimously. 29 30 31 OTHER BUSINESS 32 33 There was no other business. 34 35 36 ADJOURN 37 38 a meet' adjourned at 11:00 a.m. 39 - . 40 41 42 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 43 44 45 ATrE,$�- 46 ��• ��,• �ATCO* 47 48 • 49 _ = 50 51 Data Broom Y.is; �ncil clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON f Natural Resources Committee, 7/25/2006, Page 7