Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources May 21 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 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 May 21, 2002 The meeting was called to order at 11:00 a.m. by Committee Chair 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 Sam Crawford COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (FOR ACTION AT A SPECIAL JOINT CITY /COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT AT 6:15 P.M.) 1. WHATCOM COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE COUNTY ENTER INTO A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM AND WHATCOM LAND TRUST TO ACQUIRE THE OLSEN ESTATE /TURNER - JAEGER PROPERTY USING CONSERVATION FUTURE FUNDS (AB2002 -203) Fleetwood asked why they should buy this property. Roger DeSpain, Parks and Recreation Director, stated this property is part of the watershed program. Because it's 369 acres and close to the Stimpson Reserve and the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) natural resource conservation area, it makes sense to put that many acres together for watershed protection. The general public would also have access. The partnership between the City and the County is a great move to show how important watershed protection is. The price is very good. Natural Resources Committee, 5/21/2002, 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 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. Fleetwood asked what the price is based on. DeSpain stated appraisals for land and timber value were done. The appraised value is $804,000 for the land and timber. McShane asked where the Turner - Jaeger property is located in relation to the Olsen property. DeSpain indicated the locations on a map. Fleetwood asked the importance of the three -acre property. DeSpain stated the creek goes through there. The seller is willing to participate in the sale. Fleetwood stated there is a committee that looks at priority areas according to certain criteria. Rand Jack, Whatcom Land Trust, stated this property is available now, and the opportunity to buy the property is there. One could say that the property is zoned for commercial and rural forestry, and is not a threat for development. However, it is surrounded on two sides by Sudden Valley. With the sewer extension, there will be mounting pressure to develop. If the property is not purchased now, the opportunity will not be there in the future. He asked a realtor about the value of a 20 -acre lot with a view of the lake, which is about $75,000 to $100,000. If they multiplied that out to the total acreage, the value exceeds the sale price. The sale price works out to approximately $2,200 per acre, which is as cheap as anyone will find in the county. Fleetwood asked if the fee simple ownership would be by the County. Jack stated the fee simple ownership would be owned jointly by the City and the County. There will be a management agreement between the City and the County. The City doesn't have a clear plan for managing the land they are acquiring. The City will be glad to have the County exercise as much management as possible. The main management issue is using the easement across the property that agencies want to use. Fleetwood asked if this would be a part of the County park system in the long term. Jack stated that is an allowed use. The County and the City will make that decision. That is a logical assumption. Fleetwood asked if the conservation easement includes provisions that allow that activity. Jack stated it also provides for commercial logging. It's appropriate for publicly -owned lands in the watershed. The City and County can say that logging is permissible in an appropriate way for long -term water quality reasons and for a return on the property. Logging doesn't have to be done. Natural Resources Committee, 5/21/2002, 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 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. Fleetwood asked what language would be used to say how logging would happen. Jack stated it is specified in the conservation easement agreement. Brenner stated it isn't fair to think that there will ever be a Council that will upzone in the watershed. That will only happen if the City or someone decides that there will be another source of water. It's not fair to say that there will be pressure. The pressure is to downzone, not upzone. The cost is approximately $500,000, and it will only prevent ten houses from going in. Having to wait 150 years to log those trees is not logging. It's just a little bit of cutting here and there. Not much revenue will come from something like that. It doesn't take 150 years to grow a canopy. If there weren't any timber restrictions, she might feel more positive. It will drain revenues instead of enhance revenue. She is not comfortable spending that kind of money to stop only ten houses. Nelson asked what the largest park is that is currently in operation with functional trails that the County maintains. DeSpain stated Hovander Homestead Park. The County owns 600 acres there. There are trails throughout the park. Nelson asked how the resources are to maintain trails and parks. DeSpain stated the resources are getting very tight. Nelson stated there would be a cost to maintaining trails. DeSpain stated one of the most cost - effective services they offer is the trails. Volunteers maintain the trails. The costs come from structures. Nelson asked if they have enough resources to cover costs for this application. DeSpain stated they do. They have set aside monies to make it happen. Jack stated no one is talking about building trails any time soon. It is a resource available for the future. The DNR has no easement rights on this property. There are cellular towers on Lookout Mountain, behind the property. The tower owners are asking for easements. It would be done on a businesslike basis, and would not be done on the basis of damage to the property over which the easement goes. It would be done on the basis of the value to DNR of having these easements. Over the long run, the easements to service the cell towers on top of Lookout Mountain would pay for the trails. Nelson asked the current zone on this property. Natural Resources Committee, 5/21/2002, 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 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. Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated a portion of it is zoned rural forestry and a portion is zoned long -term commercial forestry. Jack stated the appraiser stated 120 acres are zoned commercial forestry, and the rest is zoned rural forestry. Brenner stated 209 acres are rural forestry. That would allow ten lots. Nelson stated one issue is forest practices. He asked if the City Council deliberated the forest practices. Jack stated he hasn't been privy to their deliberations. Nelson asked how many forest management plans have this particular language for forest management. Jack stated forests are being managed by regimes similar to this. Foresters and conservationists reviewed this language. Nelson asked who did the actual assessment. Jack stated he would look that information up. Fleetwood asked if the County is bound by this particular conservation easement if it gives approval today. Jack stated that is a question of coordination with the City. The County and the City must agree to the same easement. He would not sign the option without agreeing on the easement. Roy asked about a hypothetical situation of Sudden Valley incorporating, and then annexing this property. One of the purposes of this purchase is to keep that from happening. She asked if Sudden Valley could annex this property if incorporated. Hart stated the County would have to grow the urban growth area into this area. That would be unlikely. McShane moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Brenner stated that if there were any chance of annexation, she would support the purchase. It's also up to the Growth Management Hearings Board, who would hear if Sudden Valley would try to incorporate. The Hearings Board wouldn't allow it. Ten houses is a small impact compared to what they have to deal with in the watershed. McShane stated language for the proposed timber plan in the conservation easement is similar to that used for large blocks of federal forestland currently. Natural Resources Committee, 5/21/2002, 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 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. Before the endangered species issues came up in the 1980's, they recognized that the forestry needed to be covered. This area has not been managed appropriately. It will take time to get this forest back to production using the same approach as the Forest Service and the DNR. This will be a good forest far into the future. The DNR does make a fair bit of money from cell tower easements. There are certainly concerns about upzoning and downzoning in the future. Having put forward a rather expansive downzone proposal, he is comfortable pushing the downzone along. There are some difficult areas he hasn't figured out yet for more urban settings. However, zoning will go only so far to protect the lake. It's only ten houses, but the problem with the lake has been incremental development. Lakes are impacted incrementally. Those houses will have negative consequences in the future. Adjoining properties owned by DNR for timber revenue would also be negatively impacted. Many of the jobs he does on timber revenue producing property are because the neighbors are unhappy. This would create a great buffer around the DNR land. Nelson stated these are tax dollars that people of the community set aside for preserving land in the community for future generations. The community wants the Council to be good stewards of the dollars and the lands. Many of these kinds of purchases have encountered resistance. This property has already been logged. The landscape planning process looks at DNR lands in the watershed, and those practices will be passed onto non -DNR lands. He is concerned about what the Council is telling people now. It is telling people that the County will buy land after it is logged. He has doubts about the purchase price. A landowner will choose to sell out rather than keep battling regulatory practices. The County will be hammered by people who want that type of conversion. There is a variety of Forest Service practices throughout the United States, including clear cuts. DNR practices have changed dramatically over the years as they understand more and more about the environment and natural effects of forest practices. They can preserve all the forests into old growth, which is what 150 years is, and they will have valuable timber. The current forest practices on DNR are for timber that is 40 to 70 years old. This is at the extreme end of the proposal for the landscape planning committee appointed by Harriet Spanel. The canopy cover is essential in Lake Whatcom. They would get that with the current forest practices, and they will definitely get that with the changes occurring to the DNR landscape plans for Lake Whatcom. He asked why they would go through the hassle of downzoning other areas when this property would be easiest to change the zoning. That would save them $500,000 to use for other areas. They need to start using these dollars in a comprehensive and strategically - planned fashion. It doesn't make sense to take a Natural Resources Committee, 5/21/2002, 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 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. hit and miss approach whenever a project comes forward that looks good. If they are going to take commercial forestry practices out of the watershed, they are substantially reducing revenue sources that are available to the County, schools, and other jurisdictions. Look at this only if the commercial practices will be maintained. Brenner stated a good canopy is achieved from growth that is 50 to 70 years old. She likes the selective logging option. That is the direction the State may be moving toward. People who move into a forestry zone must be willing to put up with forestry practices. The protection exists for timber owners. Timber owners don't have a problem with the rural forestry zoning. If this is approved, she hoped there would be more flexibility on the logging practices. Jack stated that every once in a while, opportunities come along. This opportunity serves the purpose of protecting water quality. If this proposal were to protect a hundred houses from being developed, it would cost more. Foresters don't consider 150 -year old trees to be old growth. Those trees will simply increase in value, because large trees are becoming more and more scarce. The decisions to cut trees are made by accountants, not foresters. There is no other piece of property like this in the watershed. It would be a resource under public control. Crawford stated the forestry management plan looks extremely restrictive. He asked if Councilmember Nelson would support the purchase with any kind of a revised forest plan. Nelson stated he might. He discussed that with Mr. Jack. There is a reluctance to change it. He talked to DNR about current forest practices. There are no mills that can cut 150 -year old trees because of their size. large. McShane stated there is one mill in Whatcom County that will take trees that (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) McShane continued to state that the easement doesn't preclude doing some commercial thinning. They will probably do that to achieve the succession they want. DNR is currently doing a timber harvest on Blanchard Mountain using that approach. Nelson stated that requires multiple entries, adds costs to the harvesting plan, and increases impacts to the watershed. Jack stated a number of logging companies specialize in logging without disturbing the soil. Natural Resources Committee, 5/21/2002, 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 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 referenced sections IV(2)(a) of the conservation easement. It would be easy to make a decision if the standards were spelled out. What a long- term, scientifically- and ecologically -based forest management plan is, is debatable, especially if the grantee has final say over it. He was not sure he understood the objective qualifications of that forest management plan. Jack stated the Land Trust does not have final say. They have the right to review the forest management plan and can object to it, and it will go through a mediation process. If people want to invest the resources to draw up a management plan, it is fairly expensive and time consuming. The option to purchase expires in June. There is not a problem with logging in the watershed. There is a problem with how logging is done in the watershed. It is appropriate for public agencies to set a standard as to how that should be done. DNR has a different mission than the County. DNR is going to push the logging to the limit, because that is its mission. The County is in the position to determine the right way to do logging in the watershed. They can prove its commercial viability. Trees that are 150 years old will be very valuable. Commercial thinning can and should go on beginning now. It is specifically provided for in the agreement. Crawford asked the amount of property tax revenue this property generates. Jack stated it is very small because of the timber classification. Crawford asked the significance of the June deadline. Jack stated they have an option to purchase the property until then. Crawford asked if there is a pressure from somewhere else. Jack stated that there are three heirs who want their money. They are very anxious. Crawford asked the role of the Land Trust. He asked what would happen if the option expired, and the City and County entered into their own option with another easement. Jack stated it would be considered a breach of good faith of the partnership that has operated in good faith for 15 years. The Land Trust has spent a huge amount of time putting this together. They've shepherded this thing through court. They've added substantial value to this project by the way it was put together. There is nothing legally from stopping the County from doing that. DeSpain stated the Land Trust and Parks Department have made these major acquisitions, providing for the maintenance and operation cost. Through this vehicle, they can provide for those costs. If the County and City entered into their own option, they cannot do maintenance. It's been a real partnership. Natural Resources Committee, 5/21/2002, 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 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 there is a mechanism financially about the thinning. He observed that thinning is past due on the property. DeSpain stated that is the next step. If they approve this, they will figure it out with the City. To determine the costs of a thinning, they would get a forestry contract to estimate costs and revenues. Market values will make a difference in determining the appropriate time for a thinning. Motion to recommend approval carried unanimously. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WCC 2.120 RELATING TO THE MEETING SCHEDULE OF THE SURFACE MINING ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2002 -197) McShane stated that the Surface Mining Advisory Committee would stop meeting until the gravel assessment is done, or if the County Council needs assistance on gravel mining issues. He moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. 1. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A MORATORIUM ON MARINE SALMON NET PENS AND SUPPORTING WILD SALMON FISHERIES (AB2002- 202) This item was held in committee for two weeks. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription Natural Resources Committee, 5/21/2002, Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dan McShane, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 5/21/2002, Page 9