Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning January 23 1997WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee January 23, 1997 The meeting was called to order at 9 a.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue. Also Present: Marlene Dawson Kathy Sutter Absent: None REVIEW OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUBAREAS: CHERRY POINT/FERNDALE (AB96 -051) Staff Also Present: Ward Nelson, Council member Barbara Brenner, Council member Tom Brown, Council member Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney =s Office Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development Services Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County Legal Counsel Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney's Office, stated the issue is how the County and cities can best work together to assure a fair and orderly manner of dealing with annexation. Interlocal agreements should address this issue. He stated he informed the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) the issues the County is concerned with are issues properly addressed in the interlocal agreements. The question is how to be consistent with plans. Robert Tull, attorney, 1616 Cornwall, enumerated issues of growth: housing, transportation, etc. He said that when there is a tendency to tell the cities to decide their own services (utilities, etc.) within their urban growth areas (UGA), a possible result would be a moratorium on land use being established. He stressed the importance of interlocal agreements. Gibson noted the primary concern is not industrial or commercial which, from the cities' standpoint, would represent a strong revenue base, but UR4 zoning, which allows higher densities. The cities might examine this issue in light of a favorable rate base regarding increased water and sewer but may not wish to extend other services; e.g., law enforcement. The County, then, having the increased density, bears the cost of urban services as it relates to law enforcement. This is something the County needs to move more quickly to annexation. Sutter stated her concern was that the County is left with revenue negative areas while cities absorb revenue positive areas. Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County legal counsel, stated that in the context of the Comp Planning Minutes, 1/23/97, Page 1 Plan from a policy point of view, the County is dealing with County UGAs inside the city urban growth boundaries. He stated the recommendation would be that the urban short-term boundaries be a device which provide an incentive for both sides to conclude the interlocals to deal with various issues. In answer to a question from Dawson, Mackie spoke about various interlocal annexation agreements throughout the state. Starkenburg noted the County's goal is to provide as much certainty as possible at this point in time. The County has already been an area of uncertainty. Mackie stated that inside UGAs, annexation outside short-term boundaries should not take place until proponents can demonstrate that urban levels can be met. Tull asked if UGAs are supposed to accommodate growth and the UGAs include areas outside cities and the plan represents assumptions about various issues in the incorporated parts of that UGA, what happens if the County =s entire plan is thwarted if the cities refuse to extend or annex. Mackie stated that through a 20 -year period, very few municipalities have a Capital Facilities Plan. Short-term boundaries accommodate growth in the first five to six years plus another five to six years, depending on the Capital Facilities Plan. Cities are presumptively the providers of urban services unless the County decides to provide services at an urban level. Mackie suggested the County draw short-term boundaries so the cities cannot annex beyond the County =s boundaries. Tull then asked what would happen if the cities would not densify and supply without annexation and would not act. Mackie responded that one of the advantages of the County is to fine tune items like short-term boundaries and annexation policies. Tasks need to be developed at different levels. Starkenburg stated that when the County reviewed the interlocal, information was insufficient. Currently utilities rule, and that is not proper. There must be more pieces to this issue. Brown inquired about any agreements on the sales tax issue. In 1991 or 1992, the County -Wide Planning Policies (CWPP) contained a statement regarding loss of essential services such as Treasurer, Auditor, etc. Sales tax is a very important source of revenue. The County will lose sales tax if this goes forward as is. There is unwillingness from the cities to share that aspect. As areas are annexed into cities, that funding will be lost. He asked if there have been any interlocal agreements to address the sales tax issues. Mackie responded that the County still receives revenues from the property tax base, which increase from development. Dawson asked if before property is annexed there were any areas that set percentages of industrial /commercial versus residential areas that have been annexed. Mackie stated he could Planning Minutes, 1/23/97, Page 2 not specifically recall. Gibson noted that one area of issue is Cherry Point. Industrial land needs and the unique character of the area will be addressed by the public. Starkenburg stated today =s topics will discuss Ferndale first for one hour then Cherry Point. Regarding annexations, the committee will need help getting in form to present all this information to Council. Mackie noted he and Sjostrom are working on criteria regarding ag and ag protection, of which there are four basic categories. Some of the choices being recommended will be identified with pros and cons of each. He will try to provide guidance to committee with an outline. The same applies to the section on minerals in terms of how to deal with existing ones and how to request for new ones, along with dealing with potential conflict. Villages and small communities should be rural or urban centers, and they will present a choice with a preferred choice. There is the question of how to deal with exceptional areas such as Birch Bay and Cherry Point. Gibson described the Ferndale /Cherry Point areas with the farming and ag lands between the two. Starkenburg inquired how much should be in the Comp Plan regarding ag /mineral and asked the level of detail needed. Mackie stated there is a strong bias for existing mineral ownerships. Regarding ag, there are three choices: no mineral extraction in critical ag areas; no open unlimited mining; and balance resources available at a reasonable distance. Certainly policy criteria is needed. Big policy choices belong in the Comp Plan; execution belongs in development standards. Choose the option that provides certain criteria. Starkenburg opened the public hearing regarding the Ferndale /Cherry Point area. He made an exception, as there was one leftover piece regarding the city of Nooksack. David Davidson, Nooksack Planning Consultant, stated Nooksack desires a piece of land which was removed from the UGA and placed into the five -year review area. He noted this area (108 acres) has been designated industrial. Further, Nooksack does not have any acreage zoned for industry that does not have some type of development constraint. This industrial designated area is out of the flood plain. He noted there are three different soil types. This particular parcel (map #4, on file) is currently zoned ag and would remove land from the ag base. However, soil type 51 is considered non -prime farmland. Part of the area has never been farmed. Finally, when the Planning Commission removed this area to the five -year review category, Nooksack traffic planning stated if the 108 acres of residential are developed, this will create traffic tie -ups. The city wants a connector between Breckenridge Road and South Pass Road. He suggested putting this piece back in to form industrial land and create the linkage. He noted that if a road were developed linking Breckenridge Road to South Pass Road, there would be money to provide services and the road connector. In answer to a query regarding the GMHB, he replied the Nooksack UGA was not invalidated. Mackie stated that the fact that something was not invalidated at a prior level of Planning Minutes, 1/23/97, Page 3 review does not mean it is beyond review in the Comp Plan. Gibson then stated it had been found to be out of compliance but not invalidated. All cities' UGAs were found to be out of compliance. Starkenburg noted what Council needs only to know is if the land is serviceable regarding utilities and transportation, etc. Written format would be sufficient. Peter Boetzkes, North Vancouver, B.C., president of Nova Developments and Kinetic Technologies and landowner of the area in question, spoke to the services, stating a curb grant was applied for (the grant had been approved) but withdrawn because of the requirement for annexation within two months. The ability to service was there. His company had planned a high -tech industrial park. Davidson then entered a wellhead map into the record. He noted there was much gravel area that was not near a wellhead. Starkenburg then directed the topic to the city of Ferndale. Rick Simon, Planning Director, city of Ferndale, summarized how the city arrived at its UGA boundaries. Initially, a land use inventory was done, identifying all vacant parcels within the existing city of Ferndale. Also examined was the existing zoning. The amount of land needed for public purposes such as right -of -ways, parks, and other open spaces was then calculated. From that was determined the land available for development. The assumption was that land would then be developed at its maximum density under existing zoning. That calculation yielded a total of 3,032 dwelling units (approximately 8 dwelling units per acre) within existing Ferndale. Similar calculation took place for outside the city limits. The result of that was the proposed UGA that was submitted to the County. The city first examined the increasing density and the infill development, which was identified in its Comp Plan. He cited various statistics regarding density, stating that in 1995 there were 1.7 dwelling units per residentially zoned acre within the city; in 2015, the density is estimated to increase to 3.93 dwelling units per residentially zoned acre. Regarding commercial and industrial land uses, the city relied on information received from the Bellingham Regional Economic Development Council (EDC). For the commercial areas, an analysis of existing vacant commercial lands was done. It was then discovered there was no need to expand that inventory. However, the growth boundary was expanded to include the Grandview interchange area to include those County areas currently zoned LII. Starkenburg inquired if Ferndale included the Slater Road in its industrial area. Simon replied in the affirmative. The Grandview area was included based on projections, existing land use patterns, its proximity to the I -5 corridor, Cherry Point, and the existing water and sewer facilities. The 50% market factor was used for the analysis of all residential land base. The GMHB =s comments stated this market factor may not be justified on a County -wide basis, but he thought it was appropriate for Ferndale because that area has been projected to have the highest percentage increase in population in the County; the proximity to Bellingham and Cherry Point is conducive to growth; the goals of the growth management act is to prevent sprawl. One policy within the plan is to not extend utility services beyond existing Planning Minutes, 1/23/97, Page 4 city limits. Existing policies require new development to pay for all new growth. The city =s current development regulations for road improvements are based on a concept of vehicle miles of travel. He also spoke to the correspondence from November 12, 1996 regarding the Grandview interchange area and suggested 160 acres be added to that area. The EDC suggested expanding the amount of industrial land in the UGA. In answer to a question regarding available services to this acreage, he stated that no services are available at this time; however, the city =s Capital Facilities Plan identifies how they can be provided. Another question was whether the County was creating islands of residential areas within industrial areas and how the impact on surrounding residents could be addressed. Simon thought islands were possibly being created to some degree; however, the city was trying to look at what is realistic for creating industrial zoning. The LI zone requires buffering between residential zones and the LI uses. Sutter pointed out that this plan puts houses near jobs. Brenner asked if property owners outside these areas were involved, and Simon responded the representatives of the property owners who were involved in the public process would be included in those boundaries. The adjoining owners were not heard. Brenner asked if property owners were notified to see if they wanted their land included in the industrial section. Simon stated not specifically. He said the notices that were made were the legal notice hearing ads and in the newspaper. Starkenburg requested Simon notify adjacent property owners to see if they want their property included. Sutter pointed out the difference between residential next to commercial and residential next to industrial, stating that next to industrial is better mitigated. Simon described the Ferndale City UGA. He would like the Mountain View area included in the UGA and the Vista Drive area included as a five -year study area. This desire comes from the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The existing zoning of Mountain View is UR, and Vista Drive is R5A. The Vista Drive area is characterized by rolling hills with some wetlands in the valleys. The Mountain View area is dryer. The westerly portion of Mountain View has ag uses. Knapp commented that in the Vista Drive area, peninsulas were being created. This helps square off boundaries so they become more logical. Simon stated the reason why that area was excluded is because it is mostly wet, in the floodplain and not suited for urban development. Knapp said the County can give up wetland areas for park purposes to square off boundaries. There must be enough potential for urban growth. Nelson noted that density is a major concern when planning growth management for cities and stated the land supply identified in the UGA must be justified. He further stated the cites should take in areas which would provide the greatest (or potential) densities in the future. Mackie stated that is an accurate statement. Nelson continued by stating that if Council keeps this statement in perspective of what cities are thinking when their UGAs are proposed, then that should be the direction cities would be examining. What land is needed for growth, and what land is best suited for that development? Mackie stated there needs to be a reason for bringing in the wetlands, stating there are many issues involved in the whole picture. Planning Minutes, 1/23/97, Page 5 Simon moved to Figure 3, noting the area was not included in UGA boundaries. He clarified this was already annexed. Regarding Figure 4, 90 acres are suitable for industrial and commercial development. There are approximately 20 acres close to I -5 which would be designated commercial; the remainder as industrial. The County identified this as a five -year review area. Ferndale would like it to be included in the UGA. This area is adjacent to city services and has water and sewer at Slater Road. Brenner expressed concern that it elongates that UGA even more and asked if there were a need to have space between the two UGAs. Starkenburg noted Ferndale is currently serving this area. This is why Bellingham did not want to include it in its UGA. Nelson stated a creek provides a natural buffer between the two UGA boundaries of Ferndale and Bellingham. Gibson reported language from current CWPP states jurisdictions do not join (basically, strip cities). Mackie--s understanding was that there is no significant agricultural and resource activity in this area. Mackie noted the area is already committed to development. Better to continue this area than create a new extended area. Simon stated Ferndale =s modifications would add approximately 1,050 acres. Sutter asked how much of the proposed UGAs would be considered ag land presently. Simon replied that currently none is ag zoned. Mackie spoke to the 50% market factor. He asked Simon if inside city and in the UGA roads, future schools and sites were deducted and other public uses consumptive of property including churches and parks were identified. Simon responded in the affirmative. Mackie then inquired about critical areas and buffers, stating that once this land is deducted, the other land is developed fully. He also asked about floodplains inside the city. Simon responded in the affirmative as to floodplains inside the city and stated the city assumed a lesser density, one -half the maximum density for properties within the floodplain. Mackie had several questions to ask Simon. In answer, Simon responded by saying there are new residential areas within areas where the highway or railroad could create high dba noise (this area might not meet maximum density). Also, in areas not developed at maximum density, the city assumed these areas would re- develop at maximum density. He also stated that at eight units per acre, the maximum density is eight units per acre. Simon will meet with Mackie and staff to answer further questions. Brenner asked the reason for flipping Vista and Mountain View. Simon responded the reason for the southern piece is the Capital Facilities Plan. A pump station would be needed. Julie Pottermarx, 5948 Longden Road, Ferndale, representing North Bellingham Community Association, was concerned about the process by which Ferndale made changes to the UGA. Residents have not been notified of the changes proposed by Simon. The GMA mandates citizen input. Planning Minutes, 1/23/97, Page 6 Sutter interrupted by stating that the map indicates the area is currently a five -year study area and asked what the problem was, as there has been much public input regarding this area. Pottermarx stated the area of concern is to the east, which is not shown on the map. Simon responded that Ferndale has not altered the area of the UGA east boundaries in the past year. Some areas were already zoned urban which were included in the growth boundary but have not expanded that. The entire 20 -year growth boundary extends north and west, not east. Dawson asked the kind of notification citizens should receive. Pottermarx read from the first draft of the Comp Plan, which stated that citizens shall be afforded opportunities to become involved by public hearings, surveys, meetings, public workshops, advisory committees, etc. Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated this is the purpose of the extensive hearing process that is going on now. He noted the Planning Commission had hearings on the five -year review areas. Many public hearings have been held on the CWPP. This process now satisfies those requirements. Pottermarx stated the public has not been included and is still waiting for an opportunity to make the wishes known of the residents of the North Bellingham community. She stated North Bellingham wishes to be excluded from the Ferndale UGA and would like to be considered a suburban enclave. The North Bellingham area is not an urban area. Mackie asked for the boundaries of the North Bellingham area. Knapp responded by referring to Map UGA -4, the cross - hatched area lying easterly of I -5. Pottermarx stated the line of contention is the one between Ferndale City limits and East Axton Road. The city is attempting to include wetlands at this area. Knapp stated the County is proceeding to consider that for a suburban enclave. Mackie asked what the typical pattern of lot size was. Pottermarx responded that currently it is inconsistent. Zoning is currently one unit per acre. Knapp stated it has characteristics of suburban enclaves. Mackie then inquired if Ferndale has an objective to develop this area any further. Simon responded in the negative. Brenner stated that this area is currently built out to 70 %. Mackie asked if the fire district, water, and roads were adequate to supply this suburban enclave should there be more build out. Simon concurred that the current build out is 70 %. Staff concurred on the build out. Sutter noted that because the County is getting complaints for lack of public participation, she stated the Council cannot be faulted if the public does not show up to make their concerns known. There was discussion on the participation of the public. Pottermarx stated the city of Ferndale has not notified the public. Simon responded that the city of Ferndale listened to the public when they reviewed the City Comp Plan. They did not make any special effort to notify residents in North Bellingham area because they are not in Ferndale --s planning area. Numerous meetings, newspaper articles, and community forums were held. Gail Pattenaude, 5809 Aldrich Road, wanted the North Bellingham area to remain distinct and special and not be included in Ferndale. She understood that when the GMA was proposed, the County was 70 % -80% in compliance. She likened the Planning Commissioners as having a plan for government ownership of private property. The individual is losing rights and is not being served by the GMA. She advocated the County taking care of its own affairs. Planning Minutes, 1/23/97, Page 7 Bob Tull gave background information on involvements regarding Ferndale's planning. He emphasized the importance of having a tax base to support schools. As populations grow, there must be more than what Cherry Point can provide. Ferndale needs commercial and industrial land. Topography is a great asset but produces lines that could be described as natural boundaries and is irregular. There will never be squared boundaries because of the river and topography. There are few areas available for flatlands available for industrial /commercial. Even though he believes Ferndale has done a good job in being responsive to public input and has tried to rationally step through the process of determining commercial /industrial land supply, Ferndale has not set aside enough commercial /industrial land, although it has set aside all it can. Mackie asked Tull if Grandview is being brought in because it is a large parcel and if the city or County did consider taking steps to preserve larger parcels. Tull responded that people who have been designated Ferndale UGA want to be industrial and do not intend to parcel out except for actual users. Starkenburg directed the topic to the Cherry Point area. Greg Easton, 1221 -2nd Avenue, Suite 310, Seattle, was retained by Cherry Point property owners to do a study of supply and demand for industrial land in that area, as well as County -wide. He provided an overview. His County -wide analysis included a comparison of supply of industrial land with baseline demand, which included continuation of typical current demand. The state has identified target markets for this area, which includes manufacturing and trade firms. Cherry Point has characteristics suitable to meet those needs of the target markets. Specific characteristics include port and rail access, proximity to Canada, and parcel size. These characteristics support the economic development and plan for the area, and he noted this is a special area to accommodate several types of users. Given the advantages of this area, those demands are sufficient to consume the available acres within the 20 -year horizon. He compared the baseline demand projections and special regional demands, comparing them with available land supply. The conclusions were: industrial -zoned land matches the demand for special regional needs; other land in the County is less industrial -zoned land available to meet the needs projected; and the sum of the baseline and regional demands exceeds the total available land. An additional 4,700 acres is needed, based on the typical users, which does not include demand projected for sites such as Cherry Point. His report will be submitted into the record early next week. Starkenburg stated that if it takes 4,700 additional acres to meet the typical demand, then the regional uniqueness could push the number of demand even higher. Easton confirmed this statement. Easton also confirmed his statement that Cherry Point is one of four possible parcels Planning Minutes, 1/23/97, Page 8 statewide of 1,000 acres or more for industrial sites, not all available for development. The Port of Tacoma is the only other area having port capabilities (other than Cherry Point). Nelson requested Easton--s credentials. He also inquired how the County compares with other western Washington counties. In terms of how Whatcom County as a whole compares in terms of employees per acre, the presence of the large users in the Cherry Point area in aggregate reduces the number of employees per acre in general. The availability of served zoned industrial property is important. There is much industrial land, but a small amount is actually served. Mackie stated he assumed the County does not have similar facilities as the Port of Bellingham. Easton replied Cherry Point has an extensive backup land and is unique. Mackie then asked Easton if he would recommend the size considered the minimum parcel for master planning. Easton recommended 200 acres for a base plan. In answer to a question regarding adequate industrial lands currently at Cherry Point, Easton stated the current amount of land matches an estimate of what could be attractive. Tom Anderson, Manager, PUD #1, 1705 Trigg Road, Ferndale, gave background information regarding the formation of the district. It is a County -wide utility district with water and electric authority. He discussed water, electricity, and sewer and gave stats for each area. Besides industrial grade water, the district supplies potable water to the Cherry Point area. In addition, the district is currently doing groundwater investigation for additional potable water supplies in the Cherry Point area. It is committed to supplying industrial and potable supplies as requested to Cherry Point. There are three potential supply sources in the Cherry Point area including Puget Power, PUD #1, and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). There is substantial electrical capacity available in the Cherry Point area. The district does not currently have sewer authority, which would require a vote of the people in Whatcom County. Existing customers currently provide their own sewer. New owners may contract out with Birch Bay. In answer to a question regarding potable water, Anderson replied there are three means of supplying potable water: drill wells from groundwater; treat the district =s own industrial water; and through interties with other people. Fire suppression is available for the other two property owners contracting with the district (Trillium and Chevron); the question is the availability of consumptive water. Mackie inquired as to the ability to reuse and recycle process water, as well as the encouragement of internal plant recycling. Anderson replied recycling has been discussed but so far not encouraged, although the district is willing to do so. He noted state water policies do not encourage water conservation. Customers have been reluctant to "use or lose" water. Nelson wanted to know how the district =s proposed alterations to water usage tie in with the County =s non - conforming water coordinated system plan. Anderson stated that in the planning process, the PUD identified Grandview and Cherry Point as service areas, which continues to be reflected in the existing coordinated system. Regarding capacity, Nelson asked Anderson to identify what is available regarding water resource usage. In the lower reaches of the Nooksack, most everything is being used. Planning Minutes, 1/23/97, Page 9 (Clerks Note: Committee broke for lunch at 12:25 p.m.) Starkenburg reconvened the meeting at 1:23 p.m., discussing the topic of transportation. Sjostrom noted that Gordon Rogers, Council of Governments (COG), will be providing written testimony on transportation and rail in Cherry Point. There is a study on that subject from Planning and Development Services. There are all- weather roads, and structure is good for these services. Bob Carmichael, 1700 D Street, representing Joe Scheckter, stated his client intends to proceed with his development. He has all major County permits required for this development; only Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Corps of Engineers approval is needed. This is one of two potential sites for a pier. The Cherry Point proposal conditions include road improvements. The property has rail spur access. Starkenburg inquired if there are any plans by which a pier dock could be shared. Carmichael replied there are currently no plans to do that. There has been correspondence over the past year regarding negotiations with the Corps and the DNR. There is also the need for input from the Lummi Indian Nation. Other questions included the number of acres of lease tidelands; the proposed pier dock location; a shoreline substantial permit, which is still active; water supply; and distribution routes. Donovan Kehrer, 748 Marine Drive, wanted to verify his November 21, 1996 letter is in the record with the November 12 letter from ARCO. He stated the UGA complies with the goals of the GMA. Bob Tull, representing Gateway Pacific Terminal, gave background information on the Cherry Point development. The Comp Plan should deal with deep water, as Cherry Point was determined to be the most appropriate place regarding reaching the speed of deep water without disturbing the shore environment. Land supply methodology is difficult for commercial and industrial uses. Throughout the County, the cities are not supplying sufficient quantities of commercial and industrial land to satisfy the mandates of the GMA. There should be a County policy to foster landowners and developers to make their property more valuable by doing the paperwork and settling land development issues. Places in the County that have been attracting small industrial have their property Aready to go =. Questions followed with Mackie asking the minimum parcel size regarding deep water access with back up land and facilities with a transportation length. Tull stated a 1,000 acre site gives room for a loop train track for loading and unloading of cargo and will accommodate users around a rail facility. Mackie pointed out a Cherry Point management unit requires another look as a result of potential off -shore environmental concerns. Tull responded that state and federal regulations will Akick in=. Regulations are stated to protect the shore corridor. The current Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project addresses ship movement, emergency spill response, Planning Minutes, 1/23/97, Page 10 habitat, etc. Existing regulatory programs (local, state, and federal) result in an extremely painstaking process which can only take place on a certain scale. Dawson inquired how long before the Corps would give approval. Tull stated that hopefully the local processes will conclude this spring, which will allow negotiation regarding issues with state and federal people by this fall. Sutter pointed out Whatcom County should be aware of problems associated with limited diversity regarding economic health. A wide variety and diversity of industry and business is needed. Cherry Point and heavy industry is an important part to diversify the economic base in the County. Many of the County =s industries have been going out of business or been restricted. Tull noted Whatcom County has one of the lowest rate of labor migration in the state, which means the County does not get employment from other areas. The County should be tough on development of critical issues and Aready to go= on others. He stated the proposed Cherry Point facility will be usable for an excess of 60 years. Ship size has reached the size where depth is an issue. Users for uplands will be continuing for hopefully the next 20 years. Ships are being built too large to make it through the Panama Canal that will be using the Cherry Point port. Current and past Cherry Point owners realize the importance of maintaining adequate parcel sizes, recognizing that once this land is developed, it cannot be re- developed. Large users prefer to be self - contained regarding sewer and other utilities. Starkenburg then asked about the buffering needs between Cherry Point and Ferndale. Mackie inquired if an ag protection zone would be a compatible neighbor for clustering if the clustering open space model were used for preserving larger tracks of ag land while still trying to preserve both ag and industry together. Tull stated there is a question about the areas closest to Cherry Point whether or not clustering would increase the separation. Ag uses in the area could be overstated in importance. Most of the Cherry Point area does not have the type of soils to support large scale farming. Ag uses in the area are easy to overestimate. There would be more habitat restoration with the hobby farms than with substantial agriculture. Sutter asked about the Gateway rail connection to Canada through Sumas. Tull responded that in the long term, it will be positive to increase opportunities for cargo in and out, as well as the opportunity to take pressure off the existing mainline. This would be a significant asset. The Comp Plan under the GMA must consider how Whatcom County will respond to state and federal mandates regarding surface transportation efficiency. Sutter stated soil types in the ag area are not well drained. Mackie asked why the eastern boundary was chosen as the boundary for Cherry Point. Tull responded that the south portion of the industrial area is Tosco, whose active facility extends to the road. The same is true for Intalco. In the north, Lake Terrell defines the eastern boundary. Kickerville is either ARCO ownership or another owner. Bob Carmichael stated the ARCO boundaries extend to Kickerville Road and borders the Burlington Northern line. Planning Minutes, 1/23/97, Page 11 ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at approximately 2:30 p.m. Elizabeth Bennett, Transcriptionist ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Alvin Starkenburg, Council Member Planning Minutes, 1/23/97, Page 12