HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources March 15 20051
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
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
March 15, 2005
Committee Member 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 Sharon Roy
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE'S RANKING OF APPLICATIONS AND
AUTHORIZATION TO CONTINUE WITH PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS ACQUISITIONS FOR ROUND 3, 2004 (AB2005 -130)
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated the application round was complete in
2004. They're going after 2005 monies. The ranking must be approved before the
application deadline for the U.S. Department of Agriculture funds. This year they're
applying for farms listed on Council packet pages four and five.
Last month, the County completed purchase of the Gorsinger Farm. He
included information (on file) on the status of round two applications. This year,
applications total about 240 acres. Matching funds are a little less than the last
round. The federal government authorized $1.3 million for Washington State. He'll
apply for those funds.
The farms must still be assessed for value, which is a tricky process. The
farms are ranked against the County criteria and with committee review. The
values are based on assumptions, not appraisals. Doing appraisals ahead of time
would add another year to the process, but he will consider doing appraisals first.
In one case, the appraisal came in much lower than they thought. In a perfect
world, they would make applications based on appraised value, and the owners
would accept the appraised value. At this point, they will continue to estimate a
value that is more than adequate to apply to federal funds.
Whether or not the County receives any money is subject to the competition.
The same group of counties will apply this year that applied last year.
The Council must approve the ranking. He indicated the locations of the
farms on a map. The number one ranked farm is in Custer. It is a raspberry farm.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/15/2005, Page 1
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
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
The farm is in a target area. There is a lot of parcelization around the farm. The
committee thought the high value raspberry soil makes the ability for a viable farm
quite high.
At some point, they will have to revalue the ranking criteria. The criteria
rank the density higher than the soil. A lesser quality soil with a lot of development
right density would rate higher than a better quality soil. In this case, they
adjusted the factors to provide additional point value for the quality soil. In
addition, the farm is a viable commercial operation.
The second ranked farm is adjacent to two farms they just bought. It also
has several five -acre lots on it, which bumped the price way up. This property
compliments the farm area that is one of the 40's out of a 120 -acre dairy. The
owners intend to keep the property in a dairy farm. Other dairy operations are
nearby. This property is up off the Laurel Road. It has prime soils that are used for
pasture, which is important to maintain for the dairy industry.
The third farm is east of Noon Road and north of Hemmi Road. It is in a
rural, one unit per ten acre (R10A) zone. The property is not in a target area.
Because the property is located in the R10A zone, they had to leave a ten -acre
parcel for the existing house. They would have preferred to leave only a few acres,
but didn't have that option because of the zone.
The last two properties are tied to the Paul purchase. They are having some
problems with the valuation of the Paul property. These two properties are part of
the overall farming operation. There are good quality soils on the property. The
irrigation pond has been used in the past to water the fields.
Fleetwood moved to recommend approval of the resolution. He asked if
staff is disappointed that the applications are not in the target areas. Olason stated
that is becoming consistent with previous years' applications. Many of the target
areas are in the agricultural zone, with not many development rights. There are
some five -acre lots that they would consider. The escalating values are such that
people are not willing to give them up.
McShane stated he is optimistic there is active farming beyond the areas
designated agriculture, and it may not be too late to reverse trends. Olason stated
some farms may not stay as dairies, but they may become dairy support
businesses. Ten -acre zoning has a different character.
Fleetwood stated people have expressed concerns about the viability of the
purchase of development rights (PDR) program, the amount of money they're
spending versus the small amount of land they're preserving, and the rate the land
is being converted from agriculture. He asked if this is a project the County should
continue. Olason stated eventually they will have to get more money into the
program, or recognize the program's purpose to buy only very unique properties.
The program takes a significant amount of money. The subdivision process is
Natural Resources Committee, 3/15/2005, Page 2
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
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
changing. Once one starts doing a long -plat, there are limitations on things like
wells and septic tanks. There are limitations regarding the long -plat process. Over
time, the PDR program could harvest some of the properties where getting the
extra density may not be that viable for the developer. It may not be all or
nothing. They could purchase development rights that don't have a home, and get
rid of them.
Viable programs to buy development rights throughout the country are state
funded with millions of dollars. Bonding is another option to consider regarding the
purchase of property for open space or agriculture. They can't rely on the USDA
program to get any money. The committee is struggling with how to proceed with
the program and how the community is embracing the program. There is interest
in the group, but no one else is interested in running the program. The program
could be structured to build a list of applicants, with a clear understanding of the
values the applicants will accept, before moving forward with any of the
applications. Right now, they go through a lot of the process that may turn out to
be futile if the landowners doesn't accept the appraised value. Now that he's
managed this program for three years, he feels it may be better to step back and
make the applications based on appraisals. In addition, a question is whether they
still have a deal if the County doesn't receive the federal match money. Think
about how much money the County wants to dedicate so people know what the
County is willing to do in a given year. Right now, the process takes a long time
and there is a lot of uncertainty. A lot of people may be reluctant because they
may not want to commit 18 months of time to the process, especially if they are in
a hurry to sell.
Fleetwood stated he wants the PDR program to be viable. If there is a trend
where the benefit doesn't justify the cost, then the question is whether dedicating
future conservation futures funds to other public open spaces and amenities is
worthwhile. At some point, he wants to review and assess the program. If it's not,
give some consideration to spending the money elsewhere. Olason stated that's a
good question. This is year three. They've had good luck with federal match, but
it's still not much money. Whatcom County pays a lot of money, much more than
Skagit County, for example. Whatcom County's farms are smaller with fewer
development rights. An reluctant alternative may be to buy and resell farmland. It
would cost staff time, but not as much cash. There would always be the risk of
getting stuck with the farm, or of outbidding a farmer for the farm. When trying to
get conservation easements on the agricultural land base, that may be the only way
to go. The County would have to commit to being a landlord and managing the
program. The County would have some revolving money that way.
The idea of the target areas was to bolster the edges of agricultural areas.
Some of the applications don't bolster those edges.
Fleetwood asked if everyone who applies gets ranked. Olason stated they do
not, if the property is not close to anything else or doesn't have much potential for
Natural Resources Committee, 3/15/2005, Page 3
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
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
commercial agriculture use. He declined two applications this year that did not
meet the intention of the program.
Fleetwood asked for a summary of what happens after the Council approves
this ranking. Olason stated he submits the list to the federal government. The
federal government re -ranks the list against all the other applications in the state.
The people who scored the highest are offered funds. The federal government
assumes the county will spend as much of that grant as possible on the farms on
the local list.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENTS FOR 2005 (AB2005 -084)
Docket #2005 -0: Agriculture to R2A, Van Dyk Road
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, indicated the location on a map. The site has
been used for agriculture. To the north and east are agricultural uses. To the
south are homes and wooded areas. To the west are homes and agriculture. The
zones to the north and west is agriculture. The zone to the south and east is rural,
one unit per two acres. The entire site has agricultural protection overlay (APO)
soils. All three parcels in the proposal have an agricultural open space tax
classification. The area is within an aquifer recharge area. There are no wetlands.
Crawford asked if the zone at the top of the bluff is rural residential two units
per acre (RR2), and agriculture below the bluff. Aamot stated that is the issue in
the application. The applicant believes the boundary should be along the ridgeline.
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated it's really not a bluff. It's a three to
eight percent slope. It's not that steep.
Crawford stated the land drops down to the north. He asked if it is the ridge
on the map. Olason stated it is a big sand pile.
McShane stated there is probably some soil transition of some type where
the acidity probably changes and, where it's low enough, it's wet all the time.
Aamot stated the properties are not within a 100 -year flood plain, but there
is flood plain immediately to the north. There are no major pipelines. The
properties are partially in a wellhead protection area. There is a small water
association with three connections.
The Council must consider whether the site is in or modifies an urban growth
area (UGA). It does not. The second factor for consideration is whether the
amendment removes designated resource lands and, if so, the cumulative affect of
the amendment. This amendment loses designated agricultural land. According to
Natural Resources Committee, 3/15/2005, Page 4
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
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
the agricultural census data, Whatcom County has lost, on average, over one
square mile of farmland per year from 1964 and 2002. Therefore, there is a long
term trend of a loss of agricultural land. The third factor for consideration is
whether the County already set a future date to evaluate the area. The County has
not.
Olason stated the Agricultural Advisory Committee recommendation was sent
in a letter received during the last Natural Resources Committee meeting (on file).
The advisory committee recommends that the Council not docket this application.
Part of the complaint is the attempt to make a physical boundary dictate where the
zoning line goes, which chops up several parcels. However, the rationale for not
docketing the amendment is that the amendment adds to a limited area of more
intense rural development (LAMIRD). It's a bigger problem than the one property.
The amendment removes agricultural land and adds additional density to an
agricultural area. The area should be looked at in relation to the rest of the hilltop
area. It is a LAMIRD that has not been formally provided with a LAMIRD style
boundary. County policies talk about the requirements of following the LAMIRD
rules when expanding a boundary, which is what this does. Expanding a LAMIRD
boundary on a parcel basis may not be a good idea. Therefore, the advisory
committee recommended it not be docketed and that it be included in the County's
overall review.
Aamot stated the locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the
rural zone says that the RR2 zone must be limited to previously zoned areas or infill
only.
Fleetwood stated LAMIRD designation must be the logical outer boundary of
current built environment. This goes beyond that.
Olason stated part of the problem is that it's not very large. A small strip
bumps up against a totally different kind of soil, which makes farming a challenge.
Fleetwood stated a letter from the applicant says that this corrects a mistake
when the original line was established.
Crawford read a portion of the letter (on file). Olason stated that when they
look at the map, it starts across Hannegan Road and comes up at an odd angle that
may not make a lot of sense now. With the mapping information at the time, that
may be where they thought the ridge was. Maybe they wanted to connect up at
the next road. In any event, the issue is adding density to a LAMIRD. Ask if it is
wise to do this piecemeal, and would it potentially be appealed.
Darlyn DelBoca, Ferndale, stated Whatcom County is at an emergency
management level of losing agricultural resource lands. Loss of even one acre is
crucial. Don't docket this item.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/15/2005, Page 5
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
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Crawford asked if the area being discussed is farmed. Olason stated there
are multiple owners. He believes it is being mowed or landscaped.
Crawford stated send this forward to the Planning Commission. It's
something that can be looked at. He's interested in finding out where the Planning
Commission is at on the issue. He can see what the concern would be. Before the
Planning Commission recommendation comes forward, councilmembers should
drive out to look at the land. This is a reasonable request based on the obvious
angle and intent of the original zoning at the time.
Fleetwood asked if the advisory committee recommendation was unanimous.
Olason stated the committee is consensus based.
Fleetwood asked if the land is capable of being farmed, despite the ridge.
Olason stated it is. They might want to think about the policy of physical lines
versus parcel lines. This creates a difficulty for three or four property owners.
Ideally, they could do a boundary line adjustment back to a larger parcel. In
reality, they must consider that the change creates additional density.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Olason continued to state that the committee thought it would be better to
deal with the area more holistically than to work out this one particular boundary
issue.
Fleetwood moved to recommend to the full Council that this item be
docketed, but is not in favor of the motion.
McShane stated there is a variety of reasons to not docket the application,
but primarily the reason is that it is inconsistent with LAMIRD policy.
Motion failed unanimously.
Docket #2005 -P: Agriculture to MRL, Pole Road
Aamot indicated the location of the subject site on a map. To the east are
gravel operations. There are also agricultural operations to the east. To the south,
west, and north is agricultural operations. Fountain Lake is to the northwest. The
subject site is zoned agriculture. All adjacent properties are also zoned agriculture.
There is a variety of zoning districts at Hinotes Corner to the southwest. The
majority of the site has prime farmland soils. The County Council recently passed
an ordinance that prohibits mineral resource lands (MRL's) in agricultural areas with
prime farmland soils. The site is in an aquifer recharge area. There are no major
pipelines through the site. There are no wellhead protection areas on the site.
Several mineral studies show aggregate at the site.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/15/2005, 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
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
One consideration is that the application does not modify an urban growth
area (UGA). The second consideration is that the application re- designates land
from agriculture to MRL, which is a long -term trend in the county, as stated in the
previous docket item. The third consideration is that the County will consider the
mineral resource element again in 2011.
Olason stated the Agricultural Advisory Committee recommendation is the
same as last year on this application. This should not be docketed.
Fleetwood asked if this came forward a year ago from Mr. Stanford. Aamot
stated it did.
James Stanford, 1841 Front Street, Suite B, land use consultant, stated in
the 2002 edition of Comprehensive Plan, the designation was agriculture MRL. His
interpretation of that statute was not to change this agricultural land into an MRL
designation. He realizes the property is valuable. They can maintain the property
as viable farmland. The owner will extract mineral resource and restore the
farmland.
Last year, the Council did not forward the application because it didn't
believe land could be restored to its current use. Two of the councilmembers who
voted against it last year said they would rather truck mineral aggregate into the
county, and previous reclamation projects have failed miserably and only produce
scrub corn and low product yield. If reclamation projects in the past have not been
successful, it may have been due to a lack of expertise or commitment.
If the next review of mineral resource lands is 2011, it exceeds by one year
the supply estimate for resource, according to Geo- Engineers. In the 2003 study,
Geo- Engineers said there is a ten year supply, with a 60 -40 ratio of sand to prime
agriculture.
Once the Guide Meridian road construction project goes online, a tremendous
amount of that gravel will be used by Wilder Construction, who will bid for and get
the contract, and the existing quantity of available resource will lessen further.
Price and availability to the little guy will be squeezed. One provider was selling
construction sand last summer. That provider increased the price and decided who
would get that material when it became the sole provider. When the moratorium
on agricultural MRL designation went through, the price of construction sand in
Whatcom County jumped $2 per cubic yard. If Whatcom County starts importing
gravel, the gravel producer raises the cost to cover transportation costs. The cost
will only get worse.
This land can be reclaimed. Marty Maberry is a co- applicant, and has
experience converting ground to berry producing land. Mr. Maberry believes, as
the end user of the property, he can restore this property to berry - producing land.
Give them the opportunity. They are willing to bear the burden of proof through a
Natural Resources Committee, 3/15/2005, Page 7
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
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
conditional use permit. The Agricultural Preservation Committee can work with
them.
If the atmosphere of the County is to not look at this one application because
of what it might do for all future applications, then there is no reason for people to
fill out project applications in the first place. Docket the application. They will mine
the property incrementally, with Craig Erdman's and Marty Maberry's supervision.
Geo- Engineers will hire an expert in soils reclamation to work with them on this
project.
Fleetwood asked if they can guarantee reclamation. Stanford stated he can't
because he doesn't have the expertise. They have hired people who have that
experience. The larger construction companies can pay these costs. The little guys
who aren't building subdivisions and road improvement projects are building
smaller projects. They need access to gravel at a competitive price. He asked why
they would not want to reclaim this property and do everything they can to reclaim
the property successfully. Successful reclamation ensures continued mining of
other similar land.
Crawford stated one of the applicants is Marty Maberry, a member of one of
the largest agriculture producing families in the county. He asked Mr. Maberry's
connection with this project because, at the same time, the Agricultural Advisory
Committee recommends saving farmland. He asked if Mr. Maberry understanding
of agriculture infers his understanding of the relationship of gravel to agriculture.
Stanford stated recently family health concerns prevented Mr. Maberry from
working with the Agriculture Preservation Committee. Mr. Maberry purchased part
of the property, and plans to purchase the rest of the property. Mr. Maberry is
concerned about the future of berry growing in Whatcom County. Mr. Maberry
understands the international competition from China and that this project site is
unique.
The site is unique because gravel pits are all around it. The land has been
mined in the past. There was never one State Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) write up of Mr. Hardy. The Hearing Examiner couldn't find any adverse
impact of past permits. This is the best place and the best combination of folks for
this project to be a successful pilot project. They've already spent $50,000 as a
commitment to this project.
Dave Ernst, 7208 Lankhaar Road, Lynden, stated neighbors raised concerns
about the application. After he moved to his home in the agricultural zone, he
found out his new neighbor wanted to mine the prime farm soil rather than farm it.
His neighbor is asking to further depreciate the agriculture resource lands. Hired
experts are making arguments about how good mining is for food production, and
how mining three acres at a time will keep the cost of sand and construction costs
from increasing.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/15/2005, Page 8
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
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Mr. Stanford cites the erroneously conclusion of the original Hearing
Examiner, who said he would not be disturbed from the original mine because his
house was 1,500 feet away. That was wrong. For 15 years, he listened to and
watched from his house Mr. Hardy's non -farm activities. In the last years of Mr.
Hardy's mine, he stockpiled mounds of dirt, which attracted dirt bikes and target
shooters, which made weekends unbearable.
Surface mining in agricultural lands is prejudicial to society's well -being and
is unpleasant to live next to. County staff and the Agricultural Advisory Committee
made compelling arguments against the proposal. They said that to expand an
MRL, one must be adjacent to an existing MRL, not just to an existing mine. This
site is not adjacent to an existing MRL or an existing mine. The now - closed mine
was in operation when the original MRL's were designated. This mine was not so
designated, suggesting that it was not considered as a significant source of
aggregate in Whatcom County. There is no evidence that this source is so valuable
that it should override the known value as an agricultural resource. Either the cost
of gravel will increase or the cost of food will increase. The Council has already
opted to tip the balance toward the agriculture supply. Stay the course. Don't
allow MRL's on agricultural resource lands.
Darlyn DelBoca, Ferndale, stated don't take this land out of agricultural
production or fail to facilitate its agricultural use. They know that the price of food
will increase. They rely more and more on external sources. Nationally, the
agricultural deficit is greater than ever. Allowing this to happen drives up the cost
of food. Mineral resources are outside the agricultural zone that they should be
using. If they are more expensive, that's okay because it will curb sprawl. If they
continue to facilitate sprawl by allowing the cost of construction materials to remain
low, they aren't preserving the food resource.
Mr. Mayberry is a speculator at heart, and has been purchasing properties
around the county with uses other than agriculture in mind. If China comes on
board with heavy production, Mr. Maberry can opt out of farming because he has
five -acre parcels everywhere or he can mine this land. He doesn't care what the
subsequent food production capability will be. By then, he won't be around to farm
this in raspberries, given the amount of acreage involved. She asked why Mr.
Maberry would destroy prime raspberry producing soils that are at their best now.
Don't take the chance they won't succeed.
Peter Willing, Bellingham, asked how the reclamation would be carried out, if
the project will be exempt from DNR jurisdiction, and if 50 acres are needed for an
experiment on whether they can successfully reclaim prime farmland.
Crawford stated move this to the Planning Commission for review. The
statement that the Mayberry family doesn't care about farming is absurd.
McShane stated this application came in before the Council adopted the
Comprehensive Plan amendment that says it won't meet the Comprehensive Plan
Natural Resources Committee, 3/15/2005, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
criteria. At the time the application was submitted, one could say it met the
criteria, at least on the agriculture issue. Aamot stated legal counsel says there is
no vesting for Comprehensive Plan applications. The new ordinance would apply.
Fleetwood asked if this application should be denied as a matter of policy, in
light of the MRL policy. Aamot stated the majority of the site with prime soils could
not be approved according to criterion 12. There is a small portion that does not
contain prime farmland soils and could be initiated, in theory.
Fleetwood stated he's struggling with that clear policy and the idea of
reclamation. He is skeptical about reclamation, given their experience with
reclamation. However, he is partly interested to find out if reclamation could work.
He asked if reclamation could work, and if the County can require that it be done
timely. In light of the new policy, it seems he is barred from considering it. Aamot
stated approval would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment to set up that
process. The criterion in the Comprehensive Plan is straightforward.
Olason stated there are agriculture protection overlay soils throughout the
county. The question is whether the County should mine APO soils and not
requiring reclamation at a minimum. They are otherwise protected. If this is a test
case that the mining industry would like to pursue, there are opportunities to do
that with other applications. There is nothing different about APO soils in rural
zoning than in agricultural zoning. Reclamation would be something they could
carry out with the same characteristics, without violating this policy. If that
experiment is really the test, there are other options.
McShane stated he is interested in doing this experiment, possibly on rural
lands. To move an experiment like this forward, there must be a Comprehensive
Plan amendment that specifically defines how a reclamation MRL would be done.
The policy now is straightforward. Whether or not he is interested, the County
would open the door for these people to spend a lot of money, and in the end the
applications will be turned down. As commendable as the application is, he is
against it for that reason. Maybe people in the industry would prefer to put forward
a proposal to change the language that the Council can live with. He moved to
recommend to the full Council that this item be docketed, but is not in favor of the
motion.
Motion failed unanimously.
Docket #2005 -R: Resource Lands Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments
Olason stated the advisory committee was impressed with effort and level of
detail in the document. The committee had some reservations on a number of
issues. In general, because this requires a great deal of work, the committee
prefers to see staff time spent on other regulatory items. The most recent update
of the Comprehensive Plan included an update to Chapter 8. There is always an
ability to rework policy, but the purpose of the policy is to implement policies
Natural Resources Committee, 3/15/2005, Page 10
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
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
through regulation and action. The committee would rather see the staff resources
spent on implementation.
Darlyn DelBoca, Ferndale, presented information (on file). She proposes that
portions be modified. As a result of working on one of the subarea plans, she
realized the vital statistics needed per capita for food security in this county. It's
crucial that they be able to feed the county's own population if importation becomes
impossible. It becomes a homeland security issue. She proposes some new
definitions to start with. When working with the changes, look at the amended
definitions. In the introduction and purpose of the Resource Chapter, she tried to
put a new spin on the language. Whoever wrote that language previously was not
writing as an advocate for agriculture resource land preservation. A strong
statement of intent needs to be made regarding that.
She tried to make some of the language compatible with the Growth
Management Act (GMA). Counties are allowed police powers, but she tried to shy
away from that and deal with property rights. Support her suggestions. This is the
generation and citizenry that has to deal with this. If they can spend $500,000 on
a piece of land for a parking lot, they can do this.
McShane stated he had asked if it was possible to docket for two years, given
the limited staff resources. This item will take a long time to process. Olason
stated that when they docket something, the question is whether it is a docketed
item for the year or a work plan item. If this is something the Council thinks should
be reworked, the question is whether this document is ready for primetime or is a
lead -in to an action and activity that may require considerable work until it's ready
to become a proposal for review and adoption. A question is why they should
docket the proposal if it is a work item. Wait until the product is ready to be
docketed. It's a matter of direction to go forward and work on this item. These are
a series of ideas that haven't had a lot of public play, and would have to be worked
through the process. That would take time away from other projects.
McShane moved to recommend docketing to the full Council. It's time to
start moving forward. He is uncomfortable that this can be done this year. There
is an overwhelming political sense that they are supposed to do something for
farmland. It's been pretty slow, possibly because of a lack of resources.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
McShane continued to state he will give a lot of thought to what Mr. Olason
said and that process. He requested follow up on how the Council should proceed.
He would like to discuss the public process in the coming week.
Fleetwood stated he agreed with Councilmember McShane. The language in
the amendment doesn't make specific proposals for change. Olason stated there
are changes throughout the application. There are many different ideas and
editorialized commentaries that staff would have to work through. The question is
Natural Resources Committee, 3/15/2005, Page 11
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
whether the proposal is a starting point they will work on, or is an end point that is
ready to go forward.
Fleetwood stated he pulled his application due to the lack of staff time
available. He asked if this applicant paid an application fee. Olason stated it was
submitted as a voluntary requested amendment that doesn't have a fee. However,
it has to fit within the time staff has.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
McShane stated there is a draft environmental impact statement for
Northwest Pipelines. He wrote comments to share with Mr. Olason. It's important
that the County weigh in on the issue.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Dan McShane, Committee Member
Natural Resources Committee, 3/15/2005, Page 12