HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning November 26 1996WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
November 26, 1996
The meeting was called to order at 11:05 a.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in
the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present: Absent:
Marlene Dawson None
Kathy Sutter
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY
1. REPORT FROM OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE REGARDING COUNTY -WIDE
PLANNING POLICIES (AB96 -401) (COMMENTS FROM LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS ARE ENCOURAGED) (11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.)
Staff Also Present:
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services
Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development Services
Carl Batchelor, Planning Services
Tom Brown, Council member
Spokesmen:
Patricia Decker, representing Bellingham
Holly Gadrock, Department of Community Trade & Economic Development
Pat Sizemore, General Manager, Birch Bay Water and Sewer District
Anthony Mortillaro, representing Blaine
Terry Silverman, representing Blaine
Rick Simon, representing Ferndale
Darell Ashe, representing Ferndale
David Davidson, representing Sumas and Everson
Starkenburg noted the purpose of today's meeting is to review the County -wide policies.
The Oversight Committee met and gave Council specific language for discussion. Clarity on the
water issue on Section L -2 needs also to be discussed, as well as clarity on the Economic chapter.
An omission has occurred on the Resource section. Council may discuss other items needing
clarification.
The intent is to review this matter in general. Staff may need to respond with possible
suggested language changes after today's meeting. The spokesmen may wish to respond to
Council after meeting with their cities, etc. A public hearing will be held December 10.
Planning Minutes, 11/26/96, Page 1
I Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development Services, stated the purpose of revising
2 this document was to work with the cities cooperatively to reach an agreement on how to deal
3 with the population allocation. The fact that the population was specified in these policies was
4 causing her department some difficulty due to the Office of Financial Management's amendment
5 regarding the County population. The document before Council is the recommendation of
6 Planning and Development Services and the Oversight Committee.
7
8 Starkenburg stated an area of weakness is economic development and employment
9 (page 7, document on file). Discussion followed regarding whether staff should include
10 "economic vitality is essential" in this document. Sutter wondered whether this language should
11 be included in the Comp Plan or in the Jobs Based Economy Resolution. She further noted that
12 some of her suggestions relate to the expansion of existing industry. Also needing to be
13 addressed, she felt, were: the need for infrastructure; support of existing businesses; and the
14 economic development element.
15
16 Starkenburg requested assistance from legal counsel regarding input. Dan Gibson,
17 Prosecutor's Office, stated it is appropriate to integrate those concerns which are suitable.
18
19 David Davidson, representing Sumas and Everson, stated the small cities want the
20 minimum number of chapters necessary. Neither state law nor the Washington Association of
21 Counties (W.A.C.) requires an economic development chapter. If a shell is placed, it would be
22 imposing a burden to do an extra chapter they do not wish to do. Everson, Sumas and Nooksack
23 City Councils do not support the Jobs Based Economy Resolution as it is written.
24
25 Patricia Decker, City of Bellingham, stated they want to do an economic development
26 element but have not yet been able to do so because they are busy responding to the City and
27 County Council's direction to complete the Urban Fringe Plan in order to complete the Urban
28 Growth Area. Making the language more permissive helps them get it into their work program.
29 They have also not adopted the Jobs Based Economy Resolution, and she thought this is a
30 decision of the individual councils.
31
32 Terry Silverman, City of Blaine, expressed her concurrence with Davidson and Decker
33 regarding the language for policy #G -2 (page 7). Her city does have an economic development
34 element, but the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires it as an optional element. Also, the
35 city has not adopted the Jobs Based Economy Resolution.
36
37 As the County -wide Planning Policies are to be adopted by each of the cities, Amy
38 Mangum, City of Lynden, requested Committee make its changes so the cities feel in partnership
39 with the County rather than the County being authoritative.
40
41 Starkenburg stated he was hearing nothing to discourage the language change to ensure
42 indication of an economic vitality is essential.
43
Planning Minutes, 11/26/96, Page 2
I Decker concurred with Sutter's comment regarding expansion of existing industry/firms.
2 She thought the intention was not to focus on new development as distinct from expansion of
3 existing industry/firms. If the document reads this way, the Oversight Committee and Bellingham
4 in particular would be supportive of language that discusses existing firms.
5
6 Next discussed was the section on the urban growth areas (page 2). Gibson commented
7 regarding language changes. He suggested it may be helpful, if additional clarification is needed,
8 to hear first the changes shown and then discuss additional changes. Gibson stated he knows
9 Bellingham is anticipating making some suggestions to sharpen the distinctions drawn here.
10 Generally, consensus has been achieved on this between the County and the cities.
11
12 Starkenburg asked if there was anything that should be discussed in particular today
13 regarding this section. Decker responded by stating that this is a new section, which she thought
14 was helpful to the County in identifying areas not necessarily needing to be called "urban growth
15 areas ". The strategy used in the past was that anything not rural had to be in an urban growth
16 area (UGA). She believed there is a problem with the term "rural self - sufficient settlements ".
17 Bellingham's opinion is that most of the places listed under this term are not self - sufficient. This
18 term is misleading and may cause people to think that something will happen later on, which may
19 not need to happen.
20
21 She also stated that, in general, there needs to be a better distinction under the UGA
22 section between city UGAs and non -city UGAs. Bellingham has pulled out of the UGA
23 discussions in those areas it thinks are rural settlement areas. The implication is that those areas
24 are no longer needing to be separate UGAs: It is not, however, clear to her which areas are being
25 talked about as being non -city UGAs (other than Cherry Point). She asked where Sudden Valley
26 or Birch Bay fit.
27
28 Decker further stated that it would be helpful if the policies applying to city UGAs and
29 those applying to non -city UGAs could be grouped. If discussion takes place regarding
30 contiguous areas to non -city UGAs, questions could arise regarding compliance because of
31 concerns of expansion and sprawl.
32
33 Finally, Decker thought the approach to the population figures by the County (page 7) is
34 "between a rock and a hard place" for the cities. Bellingham based its Comp Plan on the 50
35 percent market factor that was built into former policy C7 (page 3). Now the city must justify
36 that 50 percent market factor. -
37
38 Gibson stated the one change regarding removing the market factor is something that
39 became apparent in the recent September 12 Growth Management Hearings Board's decision.
40 There was the assumption that the County -wide Planning Policy was a given that could be relied
41 upon; the Board said it must be used but not relied on.
42
43
Planning Minutes, 11/26/96, Page 3
I Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services, stated the concern regarding
2 different market factors in different areas in the County was raised by Sandy Mackie. If one
3 market factor is locked into, it may be difficult to then go to another market factor in other
4 County areas.
6 Silverman noted that because of the uniqueness of each community, it is appropriate not to
7 have a set market factor. This gives each city the flexibility to handle growth management within
8 its own parameters. She also supported Decker's comments regarding the appropriateness of
9 Policy C6, the establishment of UGA for non -city UGAs.
10
11 Davidson commented on Policy C 12 (page 4), which sets a framework. He believed the
12 first part of this paragraph belongs in the front of this section while the back half should be left to
13 stand on its own. Further, Policy B2 (page 2), the word "not" should be deleted because of the
14 way it reads. Finally, on Policy C 13 (page 4), he warned committee to think about that first
15 sentence in terms of the Comp Plan, which has goals and policies relating to the County's beliefs
16 regarding densities in various cities. He encouraged committee adopt the policy as it is written.
17
18 Sjostrom agreed with Davidson on Policy B2, which does take away from the clarity of
19 that policy.
20
21 Gibson advised Committee to lay on the table the issue of Birch Bay Water and Sewer so
22 that a jurisdiction with any interest may speak. Anthony Mortillaro, City of Blaine, stated Blaine
23 is opposed to the language regarding this issue and is concerned about any effect it would have
24 upon the city. That same area is needed for the City of Blaine to facilitate and finance its
25 wastewater project. Additionally, that area is part of the city's long -term plan in order to
26 continue to ensure the availability of its water resources. The city feels the state law already
27 addresses the annexation of city /district areas and to add additional language in the policy that
28 might be contrary to that provided by state law is a concern of the city.
29
30 Pat Sizemore, Birch Bay Water and Sewer District, stated that the difficulty with the
31 District is that it is not in the language as a special purpose district to be involved with growth
32 management. The City of Blaine is the District's only source of water at this time, thus making
33 this issue difficult to negotiate. The District hopes Council will go forward with some specific
34 plans the District could be involved with in order to protect the interest of the City of Blaine and
35 Birch Bay. The District is attempting to obtain a new source of water. As a result of this effort,
36 the District changed its policy on water service and will now meet the needs of the County's
37 zoning. The District can now negotiate with the City and the County. He encouraged the County
38 to be involved in the negotiation process in order to reach an agreement.
39
40 Starkenburg asked Committee if this issue needs to be addressed in the County -wide
41 Planning Policies or elsewhere. Sutter replied by asking if this would have an effect on anyone
42 else in the County or if it would be specific to the Birch Bay District. Decker replied she is
43 concerned about other special districts surrounding Bellingham- -fire and water districts - -and this
Planning Minutes, 11/26/96, Page 4
I stated language is potentially a large problem regarding Bellingham's ability to provide services in
2 those areas requested to be included in the urban growth areas. Language dealing with special
3 districts is currently in the County -wide Planning Policies and interlocal agreements are being
4 worked on. Decker prefers the language be specific to Birch Bay.
5
6 Gibson responded by stating this is a real issue and asked where it would be best
7 addressed. He felt that might be through other means than the County -wide Planning Policies.
8 Starkenburg asked where it would be addressed, and Gibson said in interlocal agreements in terms
9 of a binding agreement. There is a general framework to address this within the County -wide
10 Planning Policies, which call for negotiation and cooperation between the cities and the special
11 purpose districts in a way which maintains the integrity of the special purpose district.
12 Committee felt it was appropriate to approach the issue in this manner. Starkenburg felt the two
13 entities should begin finding common ground and the issues that could be included. in the
14 interlocal agreement to cushion some of the. impacts. Mangum stated she wanted to go on record
15 as opposed to the language in the interlocal agreement.
16
17 Sutter had suggestions for changes regarding the following:
18
19 Policy B 1: Suggested mineral resource extraction should be included in this sentence; also,
20 at the end of the sentence, add "natural resource -based industries"; include in the second sentence
21 "historical patterns of development" before "and needs of different areas ".
22
23 Policy B2: Suggested "The county shall discourage urban level development outside
24 Urban Growth Areas. Areas currently characterized by urban development shall be designated as
25 unincorporated Urban Growth Areas."
26
27 Policy B3 and B4: Suggested combining into one, replacing "availability of needed
28 services" with "ability to provide needed services ".
29
30 She had other suggested changes, and Starkenburg stated it would have been more
31 appropriate to respond to the Oversight Committee. He felt it unfair to the cities at this time.
32 Perhaps these suggestions could be formatted to see if there are any concerns to the cities. As far
33 as the issues, he requested Committee deal with the larger ones today. Sutter said she would
34 distribute her suggested changes to the various cities. Starkenburg noted these would be
35 categorized as word changes and clarifications.
36
37 Sutter questioned Policy C3 regarding "jurisdiction ". Gibson responded to her question
38 regarding someone other than a jurisdiction providing urban services.
39
40 Regarding Sutter's comments concerning Policy B 1 and resource -based industries,
41 Davidson pointed out that Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation areas, critical aquifer recharge
42 areas, wetlands and geological hazard areas are not specifically mentioned in the County -wide
43 Planning Policies.
Planning Minutes, 11/26/96, Page 5
I The next discussion took place regarding Resource Lands. There is presently no section
2 on this although there should have been. Starkenburg suggested this section be added. Language
3 has been proposed. Cities will be receiving that information.
4
5 Sutter asked how the cities felt about having to designate natural resource lands of long -
6 term commercial significance in their area. Davidson replied his cities have simply specified in the
7 Plan that there are not any of those areas within their urban growth area. Sutter wondered if the
8 County could be responsible for doing this. Starkenburg stated the cities are required to do this,
9 at least the mineral section. No other comments were offered.
10
11 The next topic was water quality and quantity, L2. Starkenburg noted his intent was to
12 clarify that this section is referring to potable water. He stated the language has been changed
13 through time, even though the intent has always been potable water. Sue Blake, County Water
14 Resource Manager, has written possible language changes regarding clarification of potable
15 water. Since the cities did not have a copy of the possible changes, Starkenburg noted that the
16 basic issue is to ensure an understanding that L2 is dealing with potable water and not all waters.
17
18 Sue Blake stated that she, based on Council direction through Elizabeth Sjostrom,
19 reviewed background information on this issue. She believed the latest version of this section did
20 go beyond just potable water to include surface water supplies. She did state, however, that this
21 section began with just potable water. She read her proposed language changes.
22
23 Davidson commented that his cities are not prepared today to respond to these language
24 changes, will review the language and proposed changes, and will respond to committee. He also
25 referred to RCW 36.70A.210(3)- -which states what must be in a County -wide Planning Policy- -
26 which does not include resource lands.
27
28 Tom Brown, Council member, questioned the "shall' issue regarding tribal government
29 cooperation and asked what authority Council has to mandate tribal and city governments to do
30 something. Sutter replied the cities must agree to the County -wide Planning Policies. He also
31 requested a definition for "potential'. Gibson responded by stating that apart from these policies,
32 Council cannot mandate. If the tribe or the cities wish to bind themselves through resolution to
33 the policies that are being adopted, they would then be subjecting themselves to the language.
34 A brief discussion followed regarding substituting "should" for "shall"; this matter will be
35 presented to staff to deal with.
36
37 Additional items for discussion by Brown included: Policy I5 (page 9): He felt strongly
38 Council should be consolidating major utility usage to single corridors only, which is more cost
39 efficient and environmentally sound. He stated that every action has a counteraction, thus
40 producing conflict. His suggestion was to delete "when not in conflict with goals ".
41
42
43
Planning Minutes, 11/26/96, Page 6
Another of his concerns was Policy L2 (page 9): He was concerned with the word
"potential", which is a "drastic word" to him. Perhaps another word would give more
discretionary use to our natural resources instead of the limitation with "potential ".
Sutter questioned the inclusion of "and critical areas" in the definition of "natural resource
lands" (page 11).
Sjostrom noted that after all proposed changes are reviewed by the cities, the Oversight
Committee should also review the document. This needs to be done before the public hearing on
December 10. Copies of correspondence given to Council will be given to each jurisdiction for
their review.
(Clerk's Note: This portion of the meeting was adjourned.)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE,
TITLE 20 AND TITLE 21 (AB96 -395) (1:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.)
Staff Also Present:
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services
Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development Services
Tom Brown, Council member
Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development Services, gave a brief introduction, noting
that Donovan Kehrer, Consultant, was present to answer any questions.
Starkenburg noted much information is in the packet which represents much work that
was done.
Sutter pointed out several scrivener errors (a list was given to staff. She expressed
concern over how comprehensive the lists are of permitted, accessory and conditional uses.
Kehrer responded by stating that nothing in this set of amendments would alter any of what the
ordinance currently states is conditionally or not permitted. He further stated that Sutter's
question is beyond the scope of this matter, which is whether the uses in the various zones are
appropriate for or are sufficiently encompassing for those zones. He requested Sutter give her
substantive questions to Planning Services.
Sutter mentioned a suggested language change on packet page 67, Section 20.82.020.022,
"...Buildings and structures 100 square feet in floor area or smaller including pump..." and Section
..............................
20.82.030, "...and other above ground structures trri 100 square feet in area orlarger,
treatment... ".
Planning Minutes, 11/26/96, Page 7
..........................
I Another suggested change is on packet page 81, 20.40.158: "...employing from f
2 three to six pe, soi ... ". This language will be substituted for the language on packet page 58,
....................
....................
3 Section 20.40.158: "...employing from three Vii• to -six persons outside... ".
4
5 Tom Brown, Council member, listed his areas of concern, which included packet page 54,
6 Section B.1., regarding storage of one unoccupied recreational vehicle. Michael Knapp, Planning
7 and Development Services Director, replied that the parcel size typically is the most strategic part
8 of how to decide the number of vehicles. Another concern was on packet page 55, Section D.1.,
9 residential rural permitted uses, regarding no small cottage -type industry permitted. Kehrer
10 replied that this only affects one of the permitted uses, which changes the wording to make this
11 section's language identical to the language elsewhere in the ordinance. On packet page 67,
12 Section 20.80.805(5), his concern was about people in 4H violating the law. Kehrer replied by
13 stating only certain zone districts are affected by this section. Gibson commented. Committee
14 will look at this further.
M
16 Starkenburg moved to recommend approval of the above suggested language changes.
17
18 Motion carried unanimously.
19
20 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY
21
22 3. REVIEW OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
23 ECONOMIC/RESOURCE LANDS ELEMENTS (AB96 -051C AND D)
24
25 Staff Also Present:
26 Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services
27 Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development Services
28 Carl Batchelor, Planning and Development Services
29 Ward Nelson, County Council
30 Dan Gibson, Council's counsel
31 Sue Blake, Planning and Development Services
32
33 Starkenburg gave background information. He stated things need to be pulled together
34 because of the timeframe. Starkenburg requested the issues be identified and staff be given
35 direction. Staff will format any suggested language change.
36
37 Ward Nelson, Council member, called a point of order by stating he did not see the
38 Introduction Section on the list. Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development Services, replied
39 by stating that this was not on the original list but is on the list for December 17.
40
41 (Clerk's Note: A one - minute break was taken)
42
43
Planning Minutes, 11/26/96, Page 8
I The Economic chapter was discussed first, which is a key piece to the Comp Plan.
2 Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, shared information regarding work
3 already done on this chapter. He noted the strengths included the reference to the family wage
4 jobs; however, the focus on partnering between all the entities is missing. Policies regarding
5 marketing ourselves are insufficient.
6
7 Nelson asked if Knapp were requesting the County to develop policies regarding
8 marketing, to which Knapp replied in the affirmative, stating it should be a joint venture between
9 the public and private sectors.
10
11 Starkenburg asked about rail issues. Knapp replied this is part of the infrastructure and
12 -needs to be strengthened. Sjostrom stated she spoke with Gordon Rogers, Council of
13 Governments, who will be providing Committee with further information on December 3.
14
15 In answer to a question from Dawson regarding advertising, Knapp noted much can be
16 done if there are policies supportive of a joint venturing of marketing.
17
18 Starkenburg reviewed the issues put forth thus far: partnershipping; marketing strategy;
19 the rail issue; the need for an industrial base in the eastern part of the County; and the need to
20 support the major industries that are already in the County.
21
22 Sutter requested the Jobs Based Economy Resolution be incorporated into some of the
23 economic policies. Starkenburg directed staff to look into this request.
24
25 Nelson felt the fact that this County is 80% below the state average on medium income
26 needs to be incorporated into this document.
27
28 The next section discussed was goals and policies. Starkenburg suggested changing
.......................
.......................
29 language on page 7 -3, Goal 7A -1: "in conjttnetran 1 with the cities,... ".
30
31 Starkenburg stated that Committee expects staff to integrate the above issues put forth
32 plus the Jobs Based Economy Resolution with or add to the existing policies. He directed
33 Committee to deal with the response today as to what is before it.
34
35 Nelson was concerned with the language in Goal 7A -2, page 7 -3: "...will nurture living -
36 wage jobs... ". He suggested changing "living" to "family -wage jobs at the state median level or
37 above ".
38
' �'i;:i:i.`•f' :: '::i:v; : %':: >:;i; >::::ii:
39 "...which will nurture ' ine. : -wa a jobs 1 tale" Md.ie�:�l �r � v� and
lrvtrig y g J .. .... . ... ..
40 facilitate the retention of... ".
41
42 Sutter suggested "provide" instead of "nurture ".
43
Planning Minutes, 11/26/96, Page 9
Nelson also suggested a new goal, Goal 7A -8, page 7 -4:
Brown called attention to Policy 7A -4, which contains the phrase "living -wage jobs" and
noted that should also be changed, as well as where noted elsewhere, to reflect consistency.
Starkenburg directed Knapp to rework Policy 7A -5, page 7 -4, in respect to
parnershipping.
Starkenburg suggested a language change on Policy 7B -3, page 7 -4: pl ' Rie-
institutez Team Whatcom ".
.....................
......................
Starkenburg suggested a language change on Policy 7C -2, page 7 -5: Provide 'i ? ' e
eir all- weather access roads... ". Knapp suggested "encourage" would be a better choice of
wording. Gibson noted that the concern is adequate transportation infrastructure. Knapp noted
Sjostrom suggested earlier: "Encourage the provision of adequate transportation
infrastructure... ".
Sutter stated several policies need to be in place regarding rail.
Starkenburg mentioned Policy 7C -4, page 7 -5, noting it might say "encourage" at the
beginning of that sentence.
change:
Goal 7D -1, page 7 -6, was next discussed. Starkenburg suggested the following language
"Work with state and federal agencies to coordinate and streamline environmental
review,'::::-- vernment assuming the isibility.
MIT IMal.
He stated that anything in the goal policies will be reflected in the action plan. The
Council has a role to play, but he inquired if it were the lead. Sutter asked if Council only wanted
to take responsibility for its own environmental review. Starkenburg stated the issue would be
with the state and various agencies, Council not being the major agency. Everyone agreed.
Knapp pointed out additional language was needed on Policy 7D -7, page 7 -6:
................. .................. ...............................
Streamline the permit process and U"WO ' develop supportive customer a t1i ? e
.......... ...::: ::::.........:::. ................
....:::...:.:................
> m ess attitud towards permitting
Nelson suggested: "Streamline and coordinate the permit process to develop a supportive
customer service attitude toward permitting." Gibson and Knapp commented regarding customer
service and keeping the policy positive.
Planning Minutes, 11/26/96, Page 10
I Sutter was concerned about Policy 7D -2, page 7 -6, regarding in -depth environmental
2 analysis for comprehensive and subarea plans. Knapp stated the purpose of that is to do the work
3 up -front in the overall Comp Plan so the amount of work the private sector must do is reduced.
4 Knapp reassured her new technology is not precluded. He said staff would look at improving
5 wording for this policy.
6
7 Gibson commented regarding Policy 7D -8, page 7 -6, stating this may be less appropriate
8 as a policy and more appropriate as an action item. Knapp encouraged it to be an action item.
9
10 Sutter wanted to expand on Policy 7D -9, page 7 -6. Knapp replied in the affirmative.
11
12 Starkenburg moved to Policy 7E -1, page 7 -77 and requested input on this language,
13 specifically the bullets. Discussion followed. Starkenburg directed staff to work on this item as
14 to how this should be handled.
15
16 Starkenburg expressed hesitancy with the word "solving" in Policy 7E -2, page 7 -6.
17 Knapp suggested possibly "opportunities ".
18
19 Sutter questioned "recognize" in Policy 7E -3, page 7 -7; "utilize" and "acknowledge" were
20 suggested. She also questioned Policy 7E -4, page 7 -7, regarding the necessity of the first half of
21 the first sentence. Nelson had a suggested language change to that policy: "Consider this area as
22 one region economically by continuing to provide assistance to local business in their expansion
23 efforts and, at the same time, encouraging our companies to explore and develop markets in
24 Canada while promoting opportunity for Canadian companies to relocate or' set up a second plant
25 in Whatcom County." Discussion followed. The consensus was that perhaps it would fit better in
26 Policy 7F or even both E and F.
27
28 On page 7 -8, Sutter commented on Policy 7F -1 regarding the word "recognize ". Staff
29 will work on this.
30
31 Starkenburg commented on Policy 7F -3, page 7 -8, regarding the deletion of this policy.
32 He requested input. Nelson was opposed. Starkenburg was concerned with the County's role in
33 this policy and asked if it were appropriate. Discussion followed.
34
35 Dawson suggested the designation of corridors under Policy 7G -5, page 7 -9. Gibson
36 responded by stating this is addressed more fully in the Transportation and Utilities chapters.
37
38 Knapp read changed language for Policy 7G -2, page 7 -8: "Review environmental
39 protection plans for Whatcom County to ensure incorporation of economic development
40 objectives."
41
42 Brown noted that in the goal section, 7G, page 7 -8, "enhance" can be costly to the
43 County.
Planning Minutes, 11/26/96, Page 11
I Brown stated he is concerned about the County's ability to fund the Natural Heritage Plan
2 (Policy 7G -3, page 7 -9). Knapp pointed out this is an adopted plan. The suggestion was made to
3 delete the first half of that sentence:
4
5 "
6 provide support to Whatcom County's tourist industry and maintain and enhance
7 local quality of life."
8
9 Starkenburg suggested "encourage" instead of "work toward" on Policy 7G -4, page 7 -9.
10
11 Knapp reverted to Policy 7G -3, page 7 -9, regarding "enhance ", noting it can be a revenue
12 generator. Discussion followed.
13
14 Sutter suggested substituting "supporting" for "encouraging" on Policy 7G -4, page 7 -9,
15 first bullet.
16
17 Nelson was concerned with the language in Policy 7H -4, page 7 -10, regarding "sound
18 environmental practices ". He suggested changing the wording to "consistent with environmental
19 best management practices ". Brown suggested cutting that sentence off after "manner".
20
21 On Policy 7J -1, page 7 -10, Dawson noted "family living -wage jobs" needs to be changed
22 for consistency.
23
24 Nelson was uncomfortable with the negative language in Goal U regarding
25 "unemployment and underemployment" and felt it should be stated in positive language by using
26 "employment ". Knapp noted the option would be to focus on increasing employment.
27 Starkenburg directed staff to work on this item.
28
29 Nelson suggested including "and designated growth areas" in Policy 7K -6, page 7 -11:
30
........................................ ...............................
........................................ ...............................
31 Support industrial development efforts for the citiestdattit?r
::...... :::.::....:.
32 in the eastern part of the county."
33
34 Starkenburg noted picking up the same language on Policy 7K -4 or 7K -6, page 7 -11.
35
36 Brown pointed out that the eastern part of the County is not "the Foothills ", etc., as
37 indicated in Policy 7K -4, page 7 -11. He also expressed concern for Mt. Baker and Meridian
38 School Districts regarding a policy for them. Knapp stated it is being worked on.
39
.......................... ...............................
..........................................
40 Nelson su gg ested adding language to Policy 7K -8 , page 7 -11: " .x .. .........s .. ...a.? .. .."..
"
41 Discussion followed. Gibson thought it might be helpful to change "manufacturing" to "industrial
42 uses ". Starkenburg suggested "consider" instead of "make ".
43
Planning Minutes, 11/26/96, Page 12
I I Moving to action plans (page 7 -12), Starkenburg noted he does not know what "Team
2 Whatcom" is and requested language or a similar entity. Knapp was directed to work on this
3 language.
4
5 Nelson was concerned with #3, page 7 -12 and suggested adding: "in conjunction with the
6 other County jurisdictions" at the end of the sentence. Nelson noted a scrivener error, same page,
7 under #4, fourth bullet ( "trade offs ").
8
9 Gibson commented regarding the previous bullet (#4, third bullet), which refers to the
10 "October 1994 economic summit ". He asked if Committee wished that language deleted or
11 wished to make it more generic to refer to any additional recommendations which may surface as
12 the result of joint action, e.g. Committee assented to the latter.
13
14 Sutter pointed out the economic development strategy should be updated ( #3, page 7 -12).
15
16 On page 7 -13, change the wording to ensure consistency in the language regarding #6 and
17 #7 ("provide" and "working with ").
18
19 Nelson suggested adding strategy for providing sewer and water.
20
21 Knapp suggested using positive language regarding #9 and #11, pages 7 -13 and 7 -14.
22
23 Committee then moved to the introduction of chapter eight, Resource Lands. Sutter
24 noted that on page 8 -2, #8, mining is not listed. Gibson pointed out that caution is in order, as
25 Goal 8 of the Growth Management Act (GMA) is addressed. He thought the state law might
26 have been quoted in this section, so this would not be something Council would be able to
27 change.
28
29 Sutter suggested language changes on page 8 -3 under purpose: change "preserve" to
30 "maintain an adequate ". She also inquired what criteria is used to determine the agricultural base.
31 Discussion followed. Gibson addressed that question, stating that the ag zoning was established
32 through the subarea planning process during the 1980's. He asked Committee to bear in mind that
33 approximately 85,000- 90,000 acres is zoned R5 and R10, of which a significant portion of this
34 remains as larger parcels used for agriculture. The key question is to what extent is a vital ag
35 economy dependent upon those parcels which those zoned smaller rural parcels remain in larger
36 agricultural configuration and use. What is sustaining our current ag infrastructure? He noted
37 that ag is dynamic and shifts over time. Discussion followed. Topics included: soils; economics;
38 water; different types of ag uses; reduction in farm acreage; and dairy buyouts. Starkenburg noted
39 Sutter's question will not be answered specifically because of this changing situation; it must be
40 examined in general terms.
41
42 Nelson asked staff if the agricultural map (Map 23) was based on soils or land usage for
43 agricultural purposes. Carl Batchelor, Planning, responded by stating the area as indicated on this
Planning Minutes, 11/26/96, Page 13
I map are all classes of prime. No local variations and farming practices are taken into
2 consideration when all prime soils are included. This is a state -wide classification system that is
3 too generalized for local use.
4
5 Sue Blake, Planning and Development Services, commented regarding water rights being
6 used for ag purposes.
7
8 Issues, goals and policies were next discussed (page 8 -5). Sutter suggested the wording
9 be rearranged on (Policy 8A -1): "Develop a long -range strategy for conservation of productive
10 agricultural lands and agricultural resource lands... ".
11
12 Starkenburg would like to delete language on Policy 8A -2, page 8 -5:
13
14 "...range of incentives and cooperation between landowners and public agencie&'
15 such as the utilization of the cur i ent use tax assessment p, ovisions. "
16
17 There was discussion. The decision was to leave it for now.
18
19 On Policy 8A -4, page 8 -5, Starkenburg suggested "non- resource" instead of "non-
20 agricultural ".
21
22 Sutter was not clear on Policy 8A -5, page 8 -5, regarding prioritizing agricultural activity.
23 Gibson responded that any type of agricultural activity has a priority over anything else. Sutter
24 said the section is not clear.
25
26 Nelson questioned Policy 8A -8, page 8 -5, asking how protection of water resources
27 quality and enhancement of agricultural viability work together. Gibson responded by stating it
28 may be boiler plate. Regarding agricultural viability, the subject is water quantity. Water quality,
29 in terms of agricultural input, is probably not as much of an issue; as an output, it clearly becomes
30 a greater issue. Nelson requested staff to work the language on this section for clarity.
31
32 Sutter wanted to go beyond the "basic guideline" on Policy 8A -7, page 8 -5, to include the
33 other elements necessary- -e.g., water development constraints - -for land to be assessed viable
34 agricultural. Starkenburg noted another option would be to examine the basic guideline as a
35 reference only. Nelson suggested a possible solution would be in the action items. Sutter
36 countered she does not want it to be a policy that the soil is the basis of designating ag land.
37 She reiterated she would like to see the other elements used to determine ag land designation
38 specified in 8A -7. Gibson stated that one possibility would be stating that-this section is a
39 reference. Sutter said she would work on language.
40
41 Starkenburg inquired if Policy 8A -9, page 8 -6, should be moved to an action item;
42 committee agreed. Sutter requested a definition for "incentive agricultural areas ".
43
Planning Minutes, 11/26/96, Page 14
I (Clerk's Note: A brief break was taken.)
2
3 Brown stated he has not seen a goal or policy regarding stepping forward to ensure water
4 rights for the agriculture industry. He felt no one really knows where the County stands with
5 water rights issues and that a policy statement is needed. Sjostrom suggested adding language to
6 Policy 8A -8, page 8 -5. Gibson stated that according to state law, soils is the starting point in
7 terms of designations.
8
9 Starkenburg suggested deleting Policy 8B -7, page 8 -6, and putting it together with
10 Policy 8D -1, page 8 -8. The committee agreed.
11
12 Starkenburg noted that Goal 8C posed some problems and felt the preference was to
13 rewrite the entire section. He asked if this section could be incorporated. Nelson felt that
14 perhaps language should be developed incorporating utilization of groups working effectively
15 with the ag community to assist with preserving interests in the economic base of the ag
16 community. Gibson stated the goal makes an important point in that much of agriculture is
17 cultural. The question is what is the County's role as County government in relation to this.
18 Sutter wondered what is being accomplished by this goal. Starkenburg stated that what the
19 industry needs is some way the County works to establish zoning to facilitate the transfer of
20 properties between individuals. He stated the issue was the role of the County. Jeff Griffin,
21 Planning and Development Services, noted the County was also involved in the Open Space/Farm
22 and Ag, which is a big incentive. Committee commented on its concern regarding this section.
23 Starkenburg noted staff can rewrite it; committee will deal with this at a later time.
24
25 Sutter was concerned with language consistency regarding "non- compatible uses"
26 changed to "non- resource uses" and inquired if the intent is the same (Policy 8D -1, page 8 -8).
27 Jeff Griffin pointed out that the policies under Goal 8D discuss other resources, so caution must
28 be used if language is requested to be changed. Starkenburg requested Carl Batchelor, Planning,
29 to work on this language.
30
31 Nelson requested clarification on Policy 8D -6, page 8 -8, regarding encouraging
32 agricultural activity in mixed farm/rural residential areas even though there may be a conflict.
33 Batchelor referenced a right -to -farm law. Gibson noted the intent was to encourage ag activity.
34 Starkenburg requested committee think on this policy. No action was taken.
35
36 Starkenburg requested adding Policy 8D -9, page 8 -8, stating: "Encourage low intensity
37 recreational activities which sustain and are not incompatible with ag uses ". The committee was
38 in agreement.
39
40 Under Forest Resource Lands, Introduction (page 8 -9), Brown suggested adding "and
41 utilization" to the third paragraph under "Process ":
42
43
Planning Minutes, 11/26/96, Page 15
"...These goals and policies reflect a broad consensus of the community for the
...... ...............................
conservation yj ;i of the forest resources of Whatcom County."
The committee agreed.
Nelson inquired if all information given regarding forest lands was necessary, as it is quite
lengthy.
On page 8 -12 under Forest Land Base, Starkenburg suggested deleting "shrinking" and
adding "fluctuating ".
"The forest land base in Washington State and in Whatcom County has been
...........................
steadily slwinldng ?i1 over time."
Gibson commented regarding this fact. The committee agreed.
Sutter suggested language consistent with the Growth Management Act (Policy 8E -3,
page 8 -12):
..........................
...........................
"Rural Forestry Zone: Lands t�sefulfar r t€ growing trees for commercial...."
Discussion followed regarding the suggested language change. Starkenburg requested staff take
this under consideration regarding the appropriateness of the suggested language change in
relation to the diversity.
Brown suggested federal forests be included in Policy 8E -1, page 8 -12. Sjostrom replied
she would take this into consideration.
Brown was concerned about the rural forestry zone, 8E -3, page 8- 12 -13, regarding
harvesting timber to construct roads: "...accessed by private roads built to Whatcom County
development standards or public roads, with low... ". Griffin commented regarding the history of
this section. Nelson suggested perhaps clarification of language is needed. Starkenburg required
staff clarify the language.
Nelson asked Starkenburg if he wanted the example left in on Policy 8E -5, page 8 -13.
Dawson was looking for a policy regarding no residents in a commercial zone, but there
could be one in the forestry zone. Sjostrom stated that would be covered under zoning. Gibson
stated it is also approached in 8G under land use conflicts. Starkenburg noted this issue will need
to be discussed under the commercial zone. Information was provided Council members earlier
from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
Sutter requested staff rewrite the first sentence on Policy 8E -7, page 8 -13.
Planning Minutes, 11/26/96, Page 16
Starkenburg suggested language_ consistency on Policy 8E -7, page 8 -13, the second bullet:
.....................
.....................
"...permanently remove a significant portion of a parcel from productive forest'
.:::::..........::....
use; ".
Brown questioned the need for a new policy, 8E -8, page 8 -13, to encourage the federal
forest and state DNR to promote harvest practices to maximize these renewable resources to
promote economic benefits to Whatcom County.
Sutter suggested adding "federal" to the first line of Policy 8F -1, page 8 -14.
Gibson pointed out that Policy 8F -4, page 8 -14, assumes the continuation of the current
arrangement with DNR.
Brown suggested an action item be provided in conjunction with his harvest practices
concerns to perform an analysis regarding the cost effectiveness of hiring a private management
firm for Whatcom Forest Board lands.
Sutter pointed out language inconsistency regarding "non- compatible uses ". Staff was
requested to take this under advisement.
The next section discussed was Mineral Resources, which was chaired by Sutter. Nelson
asked Mr. Gibson if there was a reason Starkenburg needed to be excused from this discussion.
Gibson noted he had discussed this privately with Starkenburg, stating there are no "bright lines ".
The intent is to avoid conflict. Starkenburg noted from his perspective that by law he is not
obligated to sit out the discussion; the problem is that not everyone understands the entire
ramifications of this issue. The real conflict would be if he had some ownership. Brown
commented, stating this may "hurt" some of them in the future because the Land Use chapter has
as much potential as this section. Dawson was also worried about the precedent.
Sutter noted this section generated the most paper for review, as well as community
interest. She was most concerned about the criteria used to designate.
She suggested language addition on page 8 -18, second paragraph:
......................
......................
"Environmental issues associated with surface mining include patal groundwater
contamination and...."
Also, on Policy 8H -3, page 8 -18, she suggested deleting "the need for ":
"Minimize the duplication of authority...."
Planning Minutes, 11/26/96, Page 17
I Gibson commented on this from a legal standpoint, stating that DNR regulates surface mining, but
2 it is not the sole source of authority on regulation. The County also regulates. The challenge is
3 to ensure both entities are consistent and do not overlap jurisdictions.
4
5 Nelson questioned the words "avoid significant ", Policy 8J -1, page 8 -19. Gibson stated it
6 was a notice requirement. Sutter suggested perhaps this was an action item. Sjostrom stated
7 these standards will be developed based on this policy. She suggested language stating:
8 "...develop and ensure development standards to mitigate significant... ".
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Nelson discussed Policy 8J -3, page 8 -19, regarding "impacting water quality". Gibson
commented.
Brown
8J -6. nape 8 -19, to
He agreed to set
aside this proposal, as this was already covered.
Sjostrom requested clarification on 8J -3 and 8J -1 regarding the language.
19 Sutter was concerned regarding Policy 8L -2, page 8 -20, about adding "previous" in front
20 of "productive capabilities ". There was discussion. Sjostrom stated that would be more
21 restrictive. Gibson noted the productivity would vary from one site to another.
22
23 Gibson pointed out that batch plants have not been addressed within Policy 8L -3,
24 page 8 -21. Whether batch plants should be included in this section is the issue. There are
25 considerations regarding the appropriateness of placing batch plants, which is currently
26 Conditional Use. Gibson responded to a query by Brown regarding location of batch plants by
27 stating that ultimately that will be addressed through the action plan and regulations. It was
28 agreed to designate this topic Conditional Use.
29
30 Nelson pointed out Policy 8M -3, page 8 -21, should also be designated Conditional Use
31 for consistency.
32
33 Sutter inquired if rock crushing were a Conditional Use in forestry zoned. Gibson
34 responded in the affirmative but further stated that the current language allows flexibility.
35
36 Sutter noted that on Policy 8N -3, page 8 -22, the second sentence needs clarification and
37 asked if there were an action item to develop this "scientifically determined budget" and a
38 "monitoring plan ". Gibson noted the sentence has a specific meaning to those working in this
39 area. Griffin addressed this wording. Sjostrom also commented. Discussion followed. Gibson
40 pointed out that in terms of determining what the County's mineral resource needs are, if the river
41 is to be considered to be a component of meeting that need, there should be some determination
42 of what the sustainable yield is from the river. Discussion followed regarding using the second
43 sentence as an action item; sustainable yield from the river; and river extraction material.
Planning Minutes, 11/26/96, Page 18
I Sutter thought there was a limitation on "economically feasible" language (Policy 8N -7,
2 page 23, and requested deletion of that phrase.
4 "Encourage the use of...control Mien econornicatty feasil , provided...."
6 Sutter and Gibson discussed the sentence on page 8 -24: "Generally, natural resource lands
7 should be located in rural areas beyond the boundaries of urban growth areas." Gibson stated that
8 long -term commercially viable ag and commercial mineral extraction is not in the Plan for cities.
9
10 Nelson questioned Griffin regarding the determination of the availability of the quantity of
11 mineral resources in the interim permitted sites. Griffin explained. Gibson commented, stating
12 that it is recognized that there is guesswork in dealing with this area. Nelson also inquired about
13 mineral quality, to which Griffin responded.
14
15 Gibson pointed out that Sue Blake, County Water Resource Manager, was present to
16 address issues regarding wellhead protection.
17
18 Brown suggested changing the entire language in Policy 8P, page 26, to "designate a
19 minimum of 50 -year commercially significant construction aggregate supply, including sand,
20 gravel and crushed stone in order to reduce land use conflicts and to avoid future aggregate
21 shortages ". For Policy 8P -1, he suggested substituting: "Designate a minimum 50 -year supply of
22 commercially significant construction aggregate supply". For Policy 8P -3, he suggested
23 substituting: "Ensure that designations of urban growth boundaries are consistent with mineral
24 designations considering existing and planned uses for the designated areas in adjacent
25 properties ". Nelson suggested deleting the last sentence in 8P -3; Griffin stated he had data to
26 substantiate this sentence.
27
28 Sutter inquired if Policy 8P -2 were the policy that creates the problem of competing
29 interests. Gibson responded in the affirmative. The placement of MRL (mineral resource lands)
30 zones, Gibson continued, in proximity to where the aggregate will be used is addressed in the
31 Washington Administrative Code (W.A.C.). Griffin responded by stating he thinks the parameters
32 are workable.
33
34 Gibson noted that one item not addressed was conservation in terms of a wise use of the
35 various types of existing aggregate. There is clearly an interest the community has in ensuring
36 that the existing aggregate is being used in a wise manner.
37
38 Brown continued with his suggestion for Policy 8P -4, page 8 -26, to substitute: "Ensure
39 that extraction of the designated aggregate supply is allowed and that adequate environmental
40 review is completed ". He recommended a new policy, 8P -5, stating: "Establish designation
41 criteria to be utilized as a tool in determining the appropriate location of MRL designations. Said
42 criteria should not be given precedence over the need for quality resources nor as an exclusive test
43
Planning Minutes, 11 /26/96, Page 19
but rather as an analytical tool ". He also proposed a new Goal 8P: "Designate a minimum 50-
year supply of metallic and industrial minerals to reduce land use conflicts and to avoid future
shortages ".
Nelson referred to his earlier question of Griffin regarding sand and gravel mix. Griffin
referred committee to a map in the Comp Plan. Nelson thought what is needed is a goal and
objective in preserving quality.
Brown suggested added language between 4 and 5 on page 8 -26 under "mineral
resources ": "In addition to the above criteria, new mining uses must meet the following criteria
for designation status:..." (and continue on).
Sutter asked for a definition of "developed residential zones ", top of page 8 -27, as to the
amount developed. It was agreed clarification was needed. Brown suggested that #6 be deleted.
Sutter pointed out #8 seems to be a problem regarding designated wellhead protection
areas. Sue Blake, County Water Resource Planner, explained these areas.
Sutter questioned #13, page 8 -27, stating this is sometimes appropriate and thought the
statement is limiting some opportunities. Griffin pointed out this applies only to areas designated
agriculture. Sutter replied that is not how it reads; if that what this statement means, it must be
rewritten for clarity. Gibson stated this statement is about MRL designations.
Brown suggested deleting #14, page 8 -27, and substitute: "Designated agricultural areas
must demonstrate a lack of viability for commercially viable farming purposes or the ability to
restore to productive agricultural uses ". Sutter suggested perhaps adding "or" between #13 and
#14.
Nelson commented that on developing the cultural theme on ag, language regarding the
creation of an advisory committee may need to be incorporated.
On page 8 -30 under Forest Resource Lands, Sutter suggested on #1 substitution of
language:
............... ...............................
.............. ...............................
"fin <'e the Rural Forestry ... ".
She requested language inserted about value -added industries.
Nelson commented the Lake Whatcom Watershed's Lake Whatcom Forestry Forum's
purpose is to address concerns about forestry practices within the sensitive areas as well as with
homeowners around the Lake. He did not see anything specifically addressing this matter.
Sjostrom suggested combining #6 and #7 on page 8 -32 on Mineral Resources,
Planning Minutes, 11/26/96, Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Starkenburg requested staff examine mapping errors, etc.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:25 p.m.
,l
L�
Eli eth Bennett, Recording Sec r ry
ATTEST:
A a'4 c )
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Alvin Starkenburg, Counc Me ber
Planning Minutes, 11/26/96, Page 21