Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources June 18 20021 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 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 June 18, 2002 The meeting was called to order at 11:00 a.m. by Committee Member Dan McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood None Sharon Roy Also Present: L. Ward Nelson Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Barbara Brenner San Crawford COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF COUNCILMEMBER ROY REPLACING COUNCILMEMBER MCSHANE AS CHAIR OF NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE (AB2002 -023) McShane stated he is chairing two committees, and requested that the Natural Resource Committee choose another chair. He nominated Councilmember Roy to serve as chair. Roy stated she would be happy to serve as chair. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS DISCUSSION WITH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR HAL HART REGARDING PLANNING ISSUES (AB2002 -184) Doug Goldthorp, Senior Land Use Specialist, gave his background as a geologist. There are four parts to his presentation on the natural resources aspect of the Planning and Development Services Department: critical areas and growth management, surface mining, land disturbance, and shorelines. Natural Resources Committee, 6/18/2002, 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. There are five Growth Management Act (GMA) substantive mandates, and five mandates regarding environmentally critical areas and natural resource lands. He gave background on the development history of the Critical Areas Ordinance. Administration of Critical Areas. Critical Areas is a technical review process that reviews other permit types, and does not generate its own permit. There are two critical areas staff. In 2001, they reviewed nearly 3,000 permits for building, clearing, fill and grade, short plats, and shorelines. Review requires interaction between regulation and science. That makes it interesting. The responsibility that goes along with that is important. When the rules are circumvented, there is liability associated with it. They are experiencing an overload of critical areas work. Many cases are incomplete. The review process for critical areas involves six steps. • An application is filed, • The map is checked to determine if the proposed location is in a crucial a rea, • Critical areas office review, • Critical areas field review, • Critical areas delineation, and • Critical areas mitigation. Surface Mining, Part II of another mandated requirement of the GMA is surface mining, which is defined in the County Code. The State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regulates surface mining reclamation, but not the land use. It has been regulated in the County since the 1970's. The protection of the resource is mandated by the GMA. The County established mineral resource land (MRL) overlay districts in November 1992. They are scattered throughout the county to provide access to the resource. All active and inactive surface mines are required to file a report with fees. The final MRL overlay zoning was adopted in 1997. Surface mining use can continue as a non - conforming use, a permitted administrative approval use, a conditional use, or a prohibited use. It depends on when the use began and the underlying land use zone. Any significant changes in the activity require an administrative approval use permit. When challenged, a nonconforming use must satisfy three tests: continuation, expansion, and the rate of extraction. All administrative approval use permits are required to do a groundwater assessment by a qualified hydrogeologist. Crushing or asphalt concrete batch plants require a conditional use in the MRL zone. A recent inventory by DNR estimated that Whatcom County has a 15 to 20 year supply of resource remaining. The County has begun reassessing the resource, and there is a planning process happening right now. The Surface Mining Advisory Committee (SMAC) has been assessing the need for regulatory changes, as required by the Comprehensive Plan. He included in his handout samples of the handouts given to the public regarding surface mining rules and regulations, a sample determination, and the standard form mailed annually to the surface mining operators for their annual registration and fee. Natural Resources Committee, 6/18/2002, 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 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. McShane asked if the staff depends on a reclaimed mining operation to provide proof that reclamation has been accomplished. Goldthorp stated that is correct. The County doesn't decide whether a pit is or isn't reclaimed, unless it is required under an old conditional use permit. Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is a certain amount of acreage for which the County is responsible regarding reclamation. Goldthorp stated she is thinking of the three -acre threshold. The DNR has a threshold for their reclamation permit. Another criteria is the slope steepness. That would be handled in the conditional use permit. McShane stated there has been one change that one is only allowed one three -acre permit. Land Disturbance. The County first adopted clearing regulations in 1990. He was the first administrator of the clearing regulations, so he set up the review process and forms. Land disturbance is comprised of clearing and filling and grading. Clearing is administered by Whatcom County Code Title 20. The filling and grading permit is administered through Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). It is complex to administer. Roy asked if someone building on a large lot would have to get two different permits from two different places, or if it's just that the laws are in two different places. Goldthorp stated the laws are in two different places. The person would go to the same place. Clearing and filling and grading in special districts, such as the Lake Whatcom watershed, require special consideration. He read the definitions of "clearing" and "clearing activity." In Title 20, fill and grade activities are considered a clearing activity. Brenner asked if every zone has a threshold. This way, it looks like there are permits required for everything, everywhere. Goldthorp stated there is a clearing threshold everywhere. It is 5,000 square feet in all zones except commercial forestry. Pete Sim, Natural Resource Specialist II, stated it is different for different zones. In the Lake Whatcom watershed, the threshold is 5,000 square feet across the board. When they get into urban zones, there is a one -acre threshold. In the rural designation, the threshold before needing a permit is two acres, unless they are working within critical areas buffers. If someone is working in a critical areas buffers, staff will make a determination on whether or not there will be any impacts of the clearing. Natural Resources Committee, 6/18/2002, 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. Brenner stated the Council is planning to remove the phrase "resulting in exposed soils" from the definition of "clearing." If they take out that part, anything that anyone does will be considered clearing. McShane stated that issue is a re- definition within the Lake Whatcom watershed. It's not related to this. Shorelines. Goldthorp stated this topic was discussed previously by Jeff Chalfant and Barry Wenger. There is an interaction between critical areas and other natural resource regulations for shorelines. That interaction is very complex sometimes and very challenging. McShane stated Whatcom County is very fortunate to have Doug Goldthorp. Very often, people find out that they shouldn't build in an area. Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that in this year's budget, he is bringing forward to the administration an internal reorganization so they can handle the overload of work. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. WHATCOM COUNTY PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM PROPOSAL (A132002 -216) Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated staff needs feedback in several areas. The Conservation District is available to provide an overview of the process it would go through if it enacts a per parcel assessment program, which may be another source to provide dollars for administration of this type of program. One option is that the Conservation District could take a lead role in running the program. The issue is money, and how they would pay for it. Through the County Council, they can initiate a per parcel fee for services. The committee requested an explanation of that process. George Boggs, Conservation District Manager, stated a special assessment is available for the Conservation District to engage in resource activities and programs. The Conservation District is a subdivision of the State of Washington. Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 89.08 authorizes the Conservation District. Its mandate is to conserve the state's soil, air, and water resources. The District's boundary is the same as that of the county. There is a local board of five commissioners, three are elected and the Conservation Commission appoints two. They engage in local planning, produce an annual plan, and a produce strategic five -year plan. The preservation of a sustainable and viable farming community is the Conservation District's foremost concern. They've taken proceeds from an Natural Resources Committee, 6/18/2002, Page 4 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. 1 implementation grant to hire Henry Bierlink to work with the Council on appointing 2 the Agricultural Advisory Committee. The District hired Sharon Digby to support 3 the Agricultural Advisory Committee and the Purchase of Development Rights 4 Committee. 5 6 The State Auditor audits the district every other year. The assessment 7 authority comes from RCW89.08.400. It allows special assessments for natural 8 resource conservation activities and programs. The district supervisors may 9 request the County Council to impose the special assessment. The County Council 10 must determine whether or not the assessment is in the public's interest. Also, the 11 benefit provided to those individual parcels must be commensurate with the 12 amount of assessment that is exacted. Lands are classified according to benefits 13 confirmed. Where there is no benefit, there should be no assessment. The 14 maximum annual assessment rate could be levied per acre or at a flat parcel rate of 15 $5 per parcel plus up to $.10 per acre. The assessment applies to both public and 16 private lands. Forestlands are limited at 1/101h of the per acre charge that may be 17 assessed on other properties. The length of the assessment can be from one year 18 to ten years. 19 20 A reason for an assessment is that Whatcom County has persistent local 21 resource concerns. They are losing farmland. The purchase of development rights 22 is a mechanism to preserve farmland. If they preserve farmland, then they will 23 have attendant water quality benefits and will preserve a major economic force in 24 the community. There are critical area protection and groundwater protection 25 issues. They are also wrestling with the issue of Lake Whatcom. This assessment 26 could be available to assist that effort. The Conservation District does not have any 27 program or outreach to the City of Bellingham. It would be consistent that the 28 district would contract with those agencies that do have ongoing programs. Salmon 29 recovery is a major initiative in this community. They anticipate shrinking 30 revenues. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) is pulling two jobs 31 from the Lynden Field Office. The Conservation District's funds are going to be 32 reduced as well. 33 34 Another reason to consider an assessment is that the community has 35 successful programs and partnerships that already exist and that could do more 36 given appropriate resources. Some of those programs include the dairy nutrient 37 management program, the conservation reserve enhancement program, the 38 watershed pilot initiatives, the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA), 39 and the Marine Resources Committee (MRC). 40 41 There is a demonstrated need of resource problems in the community. There 42 are effective on- the - ground activities and programs. The assessment is locally 43 driven by the County Council to ensure that the benefit is commensurate with the 44 burden and to develop a budget. The use of these funds would be something that 45 the community would be involved in. 46 Natural Resources Committee, 6/18/2002, 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. The Conservation District would be accountable. It has a good record of using taxpayer funds to deliver programs successfully, and to account for every dollar it spends. Brenner asked for an explanation of the assessment. Boggs stated there is a per parcel cap of $5. In addition, they can assess up to $.10 per acre per parcel. Brenner asked if the Lake Whatcom fund is the Conservation Futures money. Boggs stated a fund has been set aside to help with the recovery of Lake Whatcom. Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated an interlocal agreement was established between the County, City of Bellingham, and Water District 10. It comes up with $175,000 for activities related to Lake Whatcom. Nelson asked if Mr. Boggs anticipates expanding the roles and responsibilities of the Conservation District. Boggs stated no. They fill their niche very well. There are partnerships out there doing the work. They also have limited resources. This assessment would address all resource concerns. It would be critical to have an appropriate committee of stakeholders to prepare the budget and advise the Council on that budget. Roy stated staff needs direction today. Olason stated page 23 of the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program includes the Conservation District option number two. He wants to follow up on the previous meeting. There are four or five decisions to make. This is a proposal from a committee that was established by the Council to develop a PDR proposal. This is not a final program. There is a series of methods to implement a PDR program. First, there is an issue of program eligibility. He submitted an updated map that shows the zoning in the target areas. They chose to target certain areas. Second, they chose to partner to reserve as much money for the program as possible. Third, they proposed that they do a couple of rounds of this and then evaluate how it goes. It may take that period of time for the Conservation District to get their assessment established, so they can take over the lead role. A fourth issue is regarding the first right of refusal. It is a method to maintain affordability. A fifth decision is which department will administer the program. The proposal is for the Planning and Development Services Department to administer the first two rounds. Natural Resources Committee, 6/18/2002, Page 6 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. 1 Brenner asked if the Conservation District would administer the program if 2 the County decides to partner with the district. Olason stated there would be a 3 time lag between when the Council decides to do this, and when the Conservation 4 District will be ready to take over. It could be as much as a year. 5 6 Boggs stated that if the assessment is enacted to support this activity, it 7 would take a year for the district to take over the administration. 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 Brenner stated one of the things this is based on is a speculative appraisal, based on what the zoning may allow. She is not comfortable using funding to give speculative value to people to give them more of an incentive to sell. Otherwise, they will run out of money before they get to where they want to be. A last concern is program eligibility. Prioritize the targeted areas, but don't use them exclusively. There may be other areas not in the targeted areas that they want to include. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Roy stated that if they want to get started on this, the Planning Department is willing to do the first two rounds until the Conservation District can get its financial support. She asked if the Conservation District could do it without the special assessment. Boggs stated they have received a grant for a halftime employee to work on this issue and the Agricultural Advisory Committee's work. That is the amount of resources that the district is willing to commit to this. Fleetwood asked if there would be some flexibility in program eligibility. Olason stated they thought it would be reasonable to focus on target areas for the first two rounds, and then reevaluate. It's difficult to have measurable criteria for something that is totally exclusive. The overall goal is to maintain adherence to the target areas, and see how many parcels in targeted areas would apply. Fleetwood asked how difficult it would be for the Planning Department to administer the program for the first year, and then switch to the Conservation District after that. Olason stated that if the Planning Department does this, it would require another halftime person. Staff would have more work to do to get the procedures developed. During the first year, the Planning Department budget would require $38,500, assuming the work to set up standard language and procedures. The second year would be less costly. If the procedure is smooth enough, it could be handed off with a procedural packet that someone could follow. (Clerk's Note: McShane left the meeting at 1:50 a.m.) Caskey- Schreiber asked the Council to consider hiring a grant writer to apply for some of the federal funds available through the Farm Act if the Planning Department can't fulfill this function. This year, there was $50 million available. They had to apply by July 15. Lands must have been subject to a pending offer from an eligible entity for the purpose of protecting topsoil by limiting conversion of Natural Resources Committee, 6/18/2002, 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. that land to non - agricultural uses. Because they weren't able to launch this program, they lost an opportunity to pursue this funding. Olason stated there isn't an existing program. The Farm Act wants to see evidence of an existing program. Next year, they can augment Conservation Futures funds with a fairly good chunk of that money. Boggs stated the legislature charged the Conservation Commission with going out and obtaining funds. The funds from the Farm Bill are available and can be pursued at a statewide level, and then pursued locally. Brenner stated the County already has a grant writer who should be able to do that. Olason submitted the new map of targeted areas. There was a comment that there should be some flexibility with the targeted areas, and not rely on the target area map. There are 10,000 acres identified on the map. They would like to be able to purchase 30 percent or more of that acreage. The Planning Department has to do the appraisal work to find the per acre cost it can get. The appraisal may come out higher than the County wants to pay. The total dollar amount could easily be $5 million to $8 million. It is a big investment. It would strain the Conservation Futures fund. The goal is to do the first two rounds to see what happens, and then reevaluate the program. Roy asked if they are ready to proceed with approval from the Council. Olason stated they need to finish the ordinance to be adopted, and produce standard easement language for the Council to also approve. Olason stated the two questions are whether the County moves forward and whether the County will partner with the Land Trust. Nelson asked why they did not look at in -kind or like -kind exchanges for payment alternatives. Olason stated he didn't know the legal ramifications. He would research it, because the issue didn't come up. Fleetwood asked if the language in the proposal is not broad enough to include that option. Nelson stated it is not included at all. If it is not included, it may not be considered. Olason stated he would look into it. Brenner stated there are areas that meet the criteria, but are not targeted areas. She asked how it would hurt anything to consider areas that are not targeted. Olason stated the committee argued about and negotiated the targeted areas. Regarding the issue of a like -kind exchange, it is addressed on page 20 of the proposal. Natural Resources Committee, 6/18/2002, 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. Brenner stated Skagit County does not use a speculative appraisal process. Whatcom County doesn't have the cash to do that. They can do that through transfers of development rights. Olason stated he misspoke about that two weeks ago. The value is not speculative value; it's market value. Nelson stated they are only buying the development rights, not the farm. That is what they should focus on when they do an assessment. Olason agreed. Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like to work with the areas on the map for two rounds, and see what they can do in the future. The PDR Committee put a lot of time and effort into this decision, based on many factors. Fleetwood stated the PDR Committee put forward a very intelligent proposal. It can be tweaked at a later time when an ordinance is produced. He asked if the committee considered the issue of first right of refusal. Olason stated it did. They discussed the need for having some method to maintain affordability. Fleetwood moved to approve the recommendation of the PDR Committee to the full Council. Motion carried 2 -0 with McShane absent. Olason asked if the direction from the motion was to submit this to the full Council without any changes. That would go forward to the full Council. The full Council would evaluate it and approve the pursuit of the ordinance and implementation activities, which would go forward for a public hearing. The committee concurred. Olason stated staff would put it on the agenda for the next meeting, as it was approved today. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee, 6/18/2002, Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 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, WASHINGTON Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Sharon Roy, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 6/18/2002, Page 10