Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources May 23 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee May 23, 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: Carl Weimer Also Present: Barbara Brenner COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Absent: Seth Fleetwood 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SCOPING OF A WORK PLAN FOR AGRICULTURE AND RESOURCE LAND ISSUES (AB2006 -203) McShane read a letter he received regarding the agricultural protection overlay zoning (on file). It is typical of many letters he's received. There is a lot of conflict in the agriculture area if the Council leaves the zoning the way it is. This area has been used for agriculture for over 100 years. The letter is from someone with a relatively newer house. He's sympathetic to the neighbors with their contaminated wells. However, they are in a rural area and depend on wells, which sometimes doesn't mesh well with agriculture. Many problems have been associated with the conflict between agricultural use and people's ideas of rural lifestyle. He summarized the result of the last Council work session on this issue a week ago. Weimer stated that the last meeting was a very good meeting. The Council is not suggesting that other things on the list are not important. The Council must prioritize according to staff levels. Troy Holbrook, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted a handout of a presentation (on file). This is a recap of the meeting last week. The Council started with a list of possible projects to address agriculture and resource issues. The Council prioritized three items. He read from the presentation on the three items. They can possibly explore different techniques and programs to address those three issues. There is an existing program in place. The Agricultural Advisory Committee has developed a work program. There is also the Comprehensive Plan docket and zoning docket. He continued to read the presentation on scoping. Staff used the three top priorities of the Council to determine the detailed programs that would implement those priorities. In addition to the top three priorities, there were two other sub - priorities that are education and economic development. He hoped economics and education would be natural components of the programs. He read the presentation on the tools that can be developed. Natural Resources Committee, 5/23/2006, Page 1 (Clerk's Note: The Council took a five - minute break.) Holbrook summarized his presentation before the break. He continued to read the presentation on tools that can be developed, purchase of development rights (PDR). The current purchase of development rights program has limitations. It targets certain areas and has limited funding. The use of the federal funds is limited. They have to buy all the development rights on the parcel. He read the presentation on the transfer of development rights (TDR) program. It is focused on the Lake Whatcom watershed. Now, the TDR program has a .5 or less full -time equivalent (FTE) employee. If they combine the PDR and TDR programs, they could increase that position to a .75 FTE. He continued to read the presentation on zoning changes. McShane stated there are a variety of options for re- designating areas and making zoning changes to areas defined as sending areas. If they make those changes and associated zoning, a compensation package may apply. Holbrook stated they are looking at ways to get additional value out of the property. PDR, TDR, and zoning changes could be combined into one program. Brenner asked if they are not getting adequate values of the development rights from a TDR. Holbrook stated the current TDR program is focused on Lake Whatcom watershed, where there have been downzones and additional development regulations imposed. That is an incentive for people to certify their development rights and sell them. That incentive isn't in the agricultural areas now. Owners still want to get their full values from the buildable value, agricultural value, or both. If they merge TDR's, PDR's, and zoning, they will have to create an entirely new program. They may develop some kind of bank, bond, or mitigation. It would take quite a bit of resources to set up that kind of program. Brenner asked if a good, workable PDR program assumes that the TDR trades at an equal value. Holbrook stated it does. A PDR program is set up to give full value to the property owners. A TDR program is set up for whatever price can be negotiated, not the assessed value of the property. They could set up a program that merges the PDR and TDR programs. He read the presentation on cluster development. Currently, staff is working on a clustering ordinance targeted to the agricultural protection overlay (APO) designations. It can easily be expanded to rural areas. Clustering coincides with design criteria. It will take specially trained staff to look at how design criteria and clustering match. Look at how they can best locate the reserve tracts and where to cluster the development at the same time. Brenner asked if a person would be able to subdivide at their zoning, but there'd be a deed restriction to prevent any future subdivision until urban services are available. Holbrook stated that's correct. If there are many short-plats with reserve tracts, it precludes future urban densities. A minimum acreage of 20 acres should be set aside to not preclude future urban development. That is a Comprehensive Plan docket item that will come before the Council. He continued to read the presentation on a cluster development design ordinance. There are two types of clustering. One is to preserve habitat and agriculture. Natural Resources Committee, 5/23/2006, Page 2 McShane stated the purpose of the clusters are different, depending on their location. Holbrook stated design regulations would be incorporated with clustering. They can retain the rural landscape and still have development in the rural areas. Several staff would have to be trained in how to cluster and design one of these types of subdivisions. He read the list of other tools that can be developed. Brenner asked what a lot exemption is. McShane stated that if people want to subdivide, they don't need to go through a plat process if they are creating 20 -acre lots. Brenner stated the lots in rural forestry zones aren't 20 acres. Holbrook stated that if people have 40 acres, they can gift- exempt 20 acres. Anything with more density than that requires a short-plat. He continued to read the list of tools that can be developed. The County could require that two adjoining lots under the same ownership be joined. That is called lot aggregation and parcel consolidation. The majority of agricultural parcels now are under 40 acres. Levels of service could preserve rural character and discourage urban development. Conversions could also be for wetland mitigation, road mitigation, or park use. Brenner asked the difference between lot aggregation and parcel consolidation. Holbrook stated they are almost the same. It depends on whether there is a non- conforming lot and if zoning changes. Parcel consolidation is more about non - conforming lots. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Brenner stated lot consolidation is two lots in the same ownership, and the Council majority decides they can be joined. Holbrook stated it depends on the basis for allowing the lots to join. It depends on the size and whether one is nonconforming. Weimer asked about the need to increasing staff positions, whether there would be an explanation of potential increased funding from a PDR program, and what it could provide to protect agricultural land. Holbrook stated they need to flesh out the details and options. Consider merging the PDR and TDR programs into a development rights bank. It's complicated and must be very transparent. It depends on zoning changes. Weimer asked if the Council will receive a range of funding increases. Holbrook stated that as they go through scoping process, they can come up with a variety of options to explore and their associated estimates. McShane stated consider where to designate the resource lands. There was some thought of replacing the APO. The APO hasn't worked well for a variety of reasons. It dodges the problem. It may be a key decision that drives many other tools they want to develop. Some of these tools and how they're prioritized will depend on other decisions. Holbrook stated staff would do that analysis. They would look at rural lands, determine what is and isn't productive, review lot size development patterns, review APO soils, and review drainage characteristics. Then, they would make recommendations. That knowledge would inform other decisions.. Natural Resources Committee, 5/23/2006, Page 3 McShane stated the Council will need help making sure they understand the hierarchy of the decision - making process.. Dennis Rhodes, Planning and Development Services Department, continued the presentation on the scoping organizational chart. The Council indicated it wanted to be very involved in the process, and the Natural Resources Committee would be the steering committee. Staff followed Council's guidance on the link of communication between the committee and the Council. McShane stated the responsibility of this committee is to take the pressure off staff and pull the full Council in as frequently as possible. Brenner stated she didn't want the steering committee to be just the Natural Resources Committee. The full Council should be the steering committee. Rhodes stated they initially considered a technical advisory committee and citizens advisory committee. After meeting with Agricultural Preservation Committee and Agricultural Advisory Committee, the committee members indicated they wanted to be actively involved in the process. The constituency of both committees includes not only farming, but economic development and business. The committee members provided staff a list of people who should be involved in the discussion. It includes the County Planning Department staff, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Conservation District , Washington State University (WSU) Cooperative Extension, Agricultural Preservation Committee, Agricultural Advisory Committee, Board of Realtors, Building Industry Association (BIA), forestry organizations, and mineral resource organizations. Those are the technical representatives to consider and include in a technical advisory committee. The structure has yet to be determined. The administration is working on it. Where they are going with the agricultural program is interesting. When done, they will have a series of options to delineate different routes the County could take. Each would be more or less intense and would have a variety of price tags. They can mix and match the options. Staff can fine tune as they go along the process. Discussions was about having several farmer forums in the county, with input brought back to the Council. Have general public forums. They need input from people in the urban growth areas (UGA's) and cities. They have talked about including City staff and representatives from other communities, such as Lynden, which is very involved in agricultural issues. Weimer asked if the proposal is to have two different communities or one committee. Rhodes stated they haven't decided. He is not sure how many of the Agricultural Preservation Committee and Agricultural Advisory Committee members want to be involved. If they combine all into one task force, a large number of people will be involved. It will be cumbersome. One idea is to combine the Agricultural Preservation Committee and Agricultural Advisory Committee into one group, separate from a technical advisory committee. He hasn't talked to the two committees about that yet. It could be one or two members from each committee could be active. After he talks with them, he will identify whether they need one committee or two. Brenner stated she prefers that they decide who they are, and then stick with those people, rather than have people coming and going in the committee process. Those who decide to be involved should be it. Also, include people from all the UGA's. When transferring development rights, the rights must go somewhere. People feel impacted from up- zoning. The UGA's are where Natural Resources Committee, 5/23/2006, Page 4 1 they've stuck people who don't feel they're getting adequate representation. Reach out to 2 the people in all the UGA's, not just Lynden. 3 4 McShane stated the Council will discuss where it wants to go with this committee. 5 Rhodes stated staff is trying to be inclusive without being cumbersome. 6 7 Once they get input from the public forums, the technical advisory committee will 8 discover things to focus on more closely and bring other ideas forward to consider. There 9 will be discoveries through the public forum process. They will look at existing programs 10 and will take comment. The County will find that the programs may not be functioning as 11 well as they should, and staff will recommend possible fixes. The Council may see some 12 surprising input. The Agricultural Preservation Committee and Agricultural Advisory 13 Committee have ideas on how to improve the programs. According to the farmers, some of 14 the things are working okay, and some need to be fine - tuned. He is hearing that the TDR 15 program needs to be fixed. He is also hearing that the PDR program is working, but must 16 be fine - tuned. Staff will have more specific information as this unfolds. The farmer forums 17 will be instrumental in getting that information. 18 19 As a part of the process, they've talked about hiring a consultant to assist with 20 scoping. They want someone with breadth and depth of experience in agriculture on a 21 regional and national basis. These problems may be unique, but someone with experience 22 in other areas is important to facilitate and interact with the farming community. 23 24 Brenner stated the consultant should understand the banking process. Rhodes 25 stated banking is a key issue. Staff agrees that the consultant should have experience in 26 that area. 27 28 They have talked about a timeframe. Staff is tentatively talking about a four- or 29 five -month process. They are trying to have a deliverable to administration and the Council 30 by the end of September. The Council and administration can make a decision in 31 conjunction with the upcoming budget cycle. 32 33 McShane asked if they are talking about rolling out alternatives to the public, who 34 would provide input to the Council to make a decision. Rhodes stated he likens it to the 35 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process. Have alternatives to choose from. The 36 policy makers will review the options, make a selection, and move on. The priorities and 37 cost will drive the issue. They will make decisions based on those constraints. 38 39 Brenner asked if they will have the farmer's forums and public forums done by then. 40 The public should go through the Council or steering committee rather than to the 41 recommending bodies. 42 43 McShane stated the Natural Resources Committee could play a role and attend those 44 meetings to oversee the process and hear what people have to say. The committee would 45 simply take comments, but not engage the public or the advisory committees at that point. 46 Rhodes stated the consultant would facilitate these meetings. The level of participation 47 from the councilmembers is their decision. A facilitator's format for the meeting would be 48 helpful for Council and staff. 49 50 An estimate of long -term costs will be part of the deliverable. The cost of this 51 scoping process will include discussions with the Agricultural Preservation Committee, 52 Agricultural Advisory Committee, and cities to see what roles they want to play. 53 Natural Resources Committee, 5/23/2006, Page 5 Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated both presentations today are on tools and process. He hears that this is still a high priority for Council, and staff should bring forward a glossary of terms, ideas, and programs. Staff will make that available to the Council and general public through this process. Also, he hears that they need a process where the County and Council can make decisions as it listens to the community and new ideas occur. This is a process of discovery. Staff can incorporate those new ideas. Staff needs to refine the work program and bring it to the Council. Staff needs to provide many options for the process. The forums are important for scoping. The process timeline is ambitious. It may go to the end of the year. McShane stated the scoping process doesn't mean it won't come back to the public for another chance, once they narrow down the alternatives. It is up to the County Council to narrow down the options at certain points through the process. If there are too many options, the process will get bogged down. Hart stated the expectation of the next meeting is to have a detailed work program of the scoping process, including the resources required to do the scoping process. Weimer stated his main concern is for more clarity on how the advisory committees are set up. They want to be inclusive and make sure everyone has a say, but they don't want it to become too cumbersome. Since the goal is really how to move forward with protecting agriculture and rural areas, the technical advisory committees should be focused on what they can do legally and the tools while the second advisory committee should focus on agriculture and rural preservation. If those advisory committees find they need to talk to environmentalists, well- owners, or other interest groups, the members can call those representatives in to provide input. Don't make it so broad to go beyond agriculture and rural preservation. Hart stated he recommends that the Council have a discussion on the banking concept. Rhodes stated the Agricultural Preservation Committee and Agricultural Advisory Committee didn't look at this as being a farmer -based discussion, but a resource protection issue. The Agricultural Preservation Committee and Agricultural Advisory Committee members say it's important to include the building and realty industries in the discussions. That's where the conflict is. Engage both of those interests in the discussion. McShane stated the trick is determining between the technical advice and advocating for an agenda. Rhodes stated they are trying to be careful in formulating the groups and organization. Brenner stated most of the Agricultural Advisory Committee members would put themselves in the category of environmentalist. The environmental community is represented by the Agricultural Advisory Committee. They are going to have to work with people who do development, especially if they set up a bank. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated they are talking about a single, unified agricultural working group with 20 to 24 people. They are going to ask for Council support for facilitation and staff support to build consensus and create real work products. There may be some things the Council can do simultaneously on regulatory issues that come out of this process. The timing is optimistic. The administration will be working on scope of work for a consultant, timing of the entire process, and the work program. This is a strategic, priority- setting process for this important community. Natural Resources Committee, 5/23/2006, Page 6 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 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 McShane stated staff would figure out how the technical advisory committee would work. They went through a number of tools in the presentation. He asked if this committee should narrow the focus of the tools. Rhodes stated staff can narrow the focus and talk to the Agricultural Preservation Committee and Agricultural Advisory Committee before meeting with the Natural Resources Committee again. All the tools should be reviewed as part of the process. The technical people want to do the overall analysis. Focus efforts on things that will be most successful. The Agricultural Preservation Committee and Agricultural Advisory Committee are walking through all the agricultural lands to identify them and through the rural lands to see if any are better - suited for agricultural uses. Considerable work and effort has already been done in the area where they propose to go. McShane stated that knowing of that effort, he wonders if the committee may want to make a decision on which tools will work. The designation of the purpose of different lands for planning purposes is key. Don't just designate based on rural character and open space, where farming on a small scale may work, but is not critical. Designate areas as potential growth areas for the future, so clustering can be required, not so much for agriculture, but for future development. Rhodes stated the dairy industry provides milk for two million families per year. The size of the industry here is significant and has a large impact. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:04 a.m. i Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription MrTFTTr" WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL W TCOM COUlfY, WASHINGTON e Dan McShane, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 5/23/2006, Page 7