RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1 WHATCOM COUNTY …

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

July 23, 2015 Regular Meeting

1

Call To Order: The meeting was called to order, by Whatcom County Planning 1 Commission Chair, Natalie McClendon, in the Whatcom County Council Chambers at 6:33 2 p.m. 3

4 Roll Call 5 Present: Natalie McClendon, Ben Elenbaas, Jerry Vekved, Gary Honcoop, Michael Knapp, 6 Kelvin Barton 7 Absent: Nicole Oliver, Mary Beth Teigrob, David Hunter 8 9 Staff Present: Mark Personius, Matt Aamot, Karin Beringer, Joshua Fleischmann, Denise 10 Smith 11 12 Department Update 13 14 Mark updated the commission on the following: 15

• Upcoming commission schedule. 16 • The county’s water case has been accepted for review by the Supreme Court. 17

18 Open Session for Public Comment 19 20 There was no public comment. 21 22 Commissioner Comments 23 24 There were no commissioner comments. 25 26 Approval of Minutes 27 28 June 11, 2015: Commissioner Knapp moved to approve as written. Commissioner Barton 29 seconded. The motion carried. 30 31 June 25, 2015: Commissioner Knapp moved to approve as written. Commissioner Barton 32 seconded. There were not enough members present to carry the vote. The minutes will be 33 reviewed at the next meeting. 34 35 Work Session 36 37 2016 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Update: UGA Proposals for Lynden, Everson, 38 Nooksack and Ferndale. Review the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the Growth 39 Management Act, which requires the County to periodically review and revise, if needed, 40 the Comprehensive Plan under RCW 36.70A.130(1) and urban growth areas under RCW 41 36.70A.130(3). 42 43 Lynden UGA 44 45 Amy Harksell presented the City of Lynden UGA Proposal. 46 47



2

They are building a community and managing growth in a way that allows them to catch 1 the three primary things in their vision statement. That is to maintain the community 2 spirit, the unique identity and the agricultural roots. 3 4 They have to manage the growth that is coming and it is often difficult to stop growth. 5 The population growth, by 2036, is expected to be just over 6,400 people. That is about a 6 1.9 percent growth rate. It is a smaller growth rate than they have experienced in the 7 past. They need to be very practical about expanding into their UGA because of the 8 agricultural lands surrounding them. The anticipated job growth is about 2,157 new jobs. 9 10 In the existing UGA they can accommodate about 5,385 people. They are planning for 11 about 6,403. This is a deficit of 1,018 people. In the proposed UGA there is a capacity for 12 6,472 and a growth allocation of 6,403. This is a surplus of about 69 people. 13 14 Regarding employment, the growth capacity in the existing UGA is 1,667 jobs. The 15 allocation is for 2,157 jobs. This is a deficit of 490 jobs. The growth capacity of the 16 proposed UGA is 1,667 and the allocation is 2,157. This deficit is an intentional action at 17 this point in time. Lynden’s employment density is quite a bit different than what you 18 might see in other jurisdictions because they are so heavily based in agricultural 19 industries. They will not seek to expand their UGA until they get more information on 20 what types of businesses will locate in the area. 21 22 A map was shown of the proposed changes to the UGA. Area 1 is converting the UGA 23 Reserve to UGA to accommodate projected growth, improve Double Ditch Road and help 24 establish Pepin Creek. The second area is adding city owned property used as a 25 stormwater detention facility to allow for future expansion. Third, is adding a small 26 remnant parcel to allow redevelopment of the city’s old water treatment plant. 27 28 There is always the ongoing water issue in Lynden. The Department of Ecology (DOE) 29 says Lynden does not have water rights and the city disagrees. There is a Memorandum of 30 Understanding with the DOE. They are working with the DOE on long term solutions. The 31 city is currently working on an innovative system called COW water. This is using water 32 from the Darigold processing plant. This water is treated and able to go back into the 33 river. Right now there is no credit given for that because that water goes into the river 34 below the city’s intake. They have sought legislative assistance for this. This legislation 35 has failed to date. They did however; get two million dollars to move the pipeline to put it 36 above the intake. This additional water will help serve the growth in the community. 37 38 Providing for growth is expensive. Over the past five to six years the city has invested 39 over 53 million dollars in infrastructure projects. A huge portion of that is 30 million 40 dollars for a new water treatment plant. In addition there will be a 14 million dollar 41 additional investment in infrastructure over the next 3 to 6 years. Approximately 42 $500,000 has been spent on water, sewer, stormwater and transportation plans. 43 44 Commissioner Elenbaas asked if they have a right-to-farm ordinance. 45 Ms. Harksell stated they have adopted an ordinance that is very similar to the county’s 46 ordinance. 47 48



3

The commission took comments from the public. 1 2 There were no public comments. 3 4 Everson UGA 5 6 Rollin Harper presented the City of Everson UGA Proposal. 7 8 In 1990 the population was 1,578. In 2010 it was 2,598. This was an increase of about 51 9 people per year. Everson is proposing exactly what was in the multi-jurisdictional 10 resolution to increase the population by 1,242 people. This is about 54 people per year. 11 12 The employment growth proposal is 602 jobs which is the same as the multi-jurisdictional 13 resolution. 14 15 A map was shown of three areas the city is proposing changes to. There are two split 16 jurisdiction parcels. The majority of these parcels are in the City of Nooksack and the 17 remainder is in the Everson UGA. The two jurisdictions have been discussing this and have 18 agreed that the balance of those parcels should be allowed to shift into the Nooksack 19 UGA. The other areas of proposed change are the western edge of the city and UGA. One 20 area is planned for a combination of residential and industrial development and the other 21 is planned for commercial. The city is not anticipating they will be needed within the next 22 20 years. They are proposing to shift those properties into the UGA Reserve. By making 23 these shifts some of the UGA surplus is reduced. The population capacity of the existing 24 UGA is 1,293. The proposed growth allocation is 1,242. This is a difference of 51 people. 25 With this shift the difference is brought down to a difference of 31 people. Regarding 26 employment the capacity of the existing UGA is 836. The proposed allocation is 602. This 27 is a difference of 234. With the proposed change it would bring it down to 84 jobs. 28 29 Commissioner Elenbaas asked if the Everson Livestock Auction is a permitted use. 30 31 Mr. Harper stated is in the county so it is not under Everson’s jurisdiction. If it was 32 annexed into the city it would be allowed to continue. 33 34 Commissioner Honcoop stated it is very unusual to not have a challenge to a UGA 35 reduction. Have the property owners in the areas of the proposed changes been notified? 36 37 Mr. Harper stated they have not been specifically notified. They are not proposing to 38 remove them forever from the UGA. They are only being shifted to the UGA Reserve. 39 None of the properties that are proposed to be shifted are zoned agriculture and none are 40 in the 100 year flood plain. They are only in a holding pattern until the UGA needs more 41 property. 42 43 Commissioner Honcoop stated the negative to putting them into the reserve is that the 44 property owners are basically locked in time. They have limited ability to which way they 45 can go. The reserves were supposed to be a one-time use when the UGAs were originally 46 oversized and then reduced. 47 48



4

Mr. Harper stated that if the commissioners are comfortable with the small surpluses that 1 are there in the existing UGA then the city council would be probably be comfortable with 2 leaving those areas, on either side of Everson Goshen Road, in the UGA and living with 3 the surplus. 4 5 Mr. Personius stated staff can review the issue and bring it back for discussion at the next 6 meeting. 7 8 Commissioner Knapp stated the 9 acre parcel is very convoluted in its configuration. Was 9 there any thought to making a straight line across there? 10 11 Mr. Harper stated the property owners did not express any interest in a change. 12 13 The commission took comments from the public. 14 15 Clayton Petree, Whatcom County: In the County-Wide Planning Policies there is wording 16 regarding citizen involvement. It addresses notifying people that live outside of city limits 17 but inside proposed UGA changes. 18 19 The public comment period was closed. 20 21 Commissioner Elenbaas asked if the county or city does the notification. 22 23 Mr. Personius stated the county would do it. 24 25 Nooksack UGA 26 27 Rollin Harper presented the City of Nooksack UGA Proposal. 28 29 In 2009 the county changed the designation from UGA to UGA Reserve for the area south 30 of Breckinridge Creek. This was because of the concern about naturally occurring asbestos 31 from Swift Creek sediment. Jurisdictions have been working together to sort out the Swift 32 Creek situation to see if Nooksack would be able to safety develop within the UGA Reserve 33 area or find other places to grow. 34 35 In 1990 the Nooksack UGA had a population of 616 people. In 2010 it was 1,363. 36 Nooksack is unique in that if you take the multi-jurisdictional resolution and run a land 37 capacity analysis (LCA) the result, based on the existing UGA, is that Nooksack has a 38 deficit for growth of 122 people and employment growth of 228. The Nooksack proposal 39 includes a proposal to increase the residential densities. The historic densities have been 40 around 4.2 units per acre and an increase is proposed to 4.4 units per acre. Just this year 41 the city council approved its first residential sub-district with small lot sizes. As part of the 42 proposal Nooksack has reduced what it is going to ask for. The residential growth 43 allocation in the multi-jurisdictional resolution was 1,035. The city has reduced that to 44 990. On the employment side the multi-jurisdictional resolution stated 290 more jobs. The 45 city proposal is now 115. 46 47



5

Nooksack is proposing the following UGA boundary changes: Shift 9 acres of split 1 jurisdiction parcels from the Everson UGA to the Nooksack UGA. Add a 6 acre property, 2 owned by the school district, to the UGA for future ball fields. Add a 42 acre area, north of 3 Tom Road, to the UGA for future industrial development. Removal of an 81 acre area from 4 UGA Reserve in exchange for the 42 acre and 6 acre parcels being added. 5 6 There is a state law that prohibits jurisdictions from extending UGAs into 100 year 7 floodplains except under certain conditions. One of the exceptions is for areas that are 8 planned for outdoor recreation, environmental restoration, or stormwater facilities. The 9 school district property is entirely planned for outdoor recreation so it is allowed in the 10 proposed area. North of Tom Road there are only narrow bands of property that are in the 11 100 year flood plain. The proposed areas would only be utilized for stormwater facilities or 12 environmental restoration. 13 14 The county has a policy and goal of having 100,000 acres of agricultural land. The two 15 areas they are proposing to add total 48 acres which is in an area zoned Agriculture. So 16 this is counted in the county’s agricultural land supply. To bring that 48 acres into the city 17 the city is proposing to remove 81 acres of land which is zoned agricultural and actively 18 used for agriculture. They have gone through the factors and criteria, in the GMA, for de-19 designating agricultural lands of long term commercial significance. The GMA criteria 20 looked at states: the property is not already characterized by urban growth; it is used for 21 or able to be used for agriculture; does the area have long-term commercial significance 22 for agriculture? A series of criteria needs to be looked at. The GMHB has said it is not 23 enough to just say the property is next to the city therefore it doesn’t have long-term 24 commercial significance. The city is saying there are other factors, in combination with the 25 proximity to the city, that meet the criteria. The factors are: the lands are bordered by 26 city limits on two sides; it is bordered by the state highway; it is also bordered by Tom 27 Road; the city has water and sewer mains in the area as are other utilities. The multi-28 jurisdictional resolution states TDRs and PDRs have to be addressed. The city is 29 comfortable that its swap is essentially addressing that. They are willing to be part of any 30 TDR or PDR program that is brought forward. The development rights, that would have 31 been available with the area that used to be UGA, those are going to go away and there 32 will then be development rights that will come in the area added to the city’s UGA. 33 Essentially the city is helping sustain the agricultural land base. 34 35 Commissioner Elenbaas asked if the land owners, in the areas being swapped, have been 36 notified. 37 38 Mr. Harper stated they have all been notified by mail. 39 40 Commissioner Honcoop stated he did not buy all of Mr. Harper’s argument. The highway is 41 benefit because it provides for farm-to-market. The highway and Tom Road are a natural 42 barrier to development. The areas on the other side are prime farmland. Why there versus 43 somewhere else? 44 45 Mr. Harper stated this highlights the conflict between uses. The Sytsma property is flat, 46 dry and great for farming. It is also very developable. It is out of the 100 year flood plain. 47 On the other side of tracks there is the Sumas River watershed and the Swift Creek 48



6

impact area. You would be trading the UGA Reserve, by Breckinridge Road, for one on the 1 left side of Gillies Road, which is just as impacted by the Swift Creek sediment. Even north 2 of the city limits, on the east side of the tracks, that area was completely covered by Swift 3 Creek sediment back in January 2009. To the east of the Sumas River it is all gravel, 4 mineral resource lands. Nooksack is completely surrounded by agricultural land, mineral 5 resource lands, or Swift Creek sediment except for a small area going up Breckenridge 6 Road, which is already in the UGA. 7 8 Commissioner Honcoop stated the Sytsma property is a major contributor to the 9 agricultural industry. To take that out is an issue. 10 11 Mr. Harper agreed it is an issue. They have correspondence from the Sytsmas saying they 12 would be interested and they thought it would be a good area for the city to expand. He 13 pointed out that Swift Creek property is also agricultural land, although not as good. That 14 is why they are trying to offset that by including some multiplier. They also have to listen 15 to the property owners who say they are ready to be in the city. 16 17 Commissioner Honcoop spoke about the parcel in the southern portion of the UGA which 18 is proposed to be transferred to Nooksack. It makes sense. At the same time, that land is 19 not as productive as say the properties to the north. It could potentially be a better 20 location for expansion to the south versus the north. He has a hard time seeing a good 21 operating dairy being taken into the city. 22 23 Mr. Harper stated they did contact the property owners to the south of the Sytsma 24 property who stated they did not want to be in the city. Also it would not be useful to add 25 it to the UGA at this time. 26 27 Commissioner Barton agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Honcoop. Is 28 there other land that would be better to convert? 29 30 Mr. Harper stated they have to be very careful to not get close to the Swift Creek 31 sediment so they are boxed in. 32 33 Commissioner Honcoop is going to oppose the swap in the future for a few reasons. One is 34 the ones he already mentioned, but even greater is the property remaining to the west of 35 it needs access. That is good farmable ground that needs access to roads, buildings, etc. 36 The location of development is going to be very limited. The impact on agricultural is 37 going to go well beyond what that UGA designation is. He cannot tell, from what was 38 provided, whether the land is bisected, whole parcels, etc. 39 40 Commissioner McClendon stated that one of the boundaries is the Everson UGA. Explain 41 why Everson is even there. (inaudible) the Nooksack UGA then Everson could expand in 42 the southeast area, which is not in the floodplain. 43 44 Mr. Harper stated that the thinking, back in 1997, was that the area is along a state 45 highway and could be a future industrial area for Everson. That is what it is currently 46 planned for. 47 48



7

Commissioner McClendon asked why it is not part of the Nooksack UGA. 1 2 Mr. Harper did not know. He could only speculate. 3 4 Commissioner McClendon suggested if the whole area were Nooksack UGA that there 5 would be space to expand without dealing with (inaudible). Then Everson could make up 6 their need for the UGA in the southwest area, which is a better area. 7 8 Mr. Harper stated he did not know how the Everson City Council would respond to that. It 9 would impact their capacity issues. The idea might solve the issue on paper but you 10 wouldn’t actually have created any place for industry for the City of Nooksack. 11 12 Commissioner Knapp stated Everson has obviously designated that area as a UGA, on 13 both sides of the road. He thought the property owner, east of the peninsula, would 14 discuss the issue with the other property owner. The boundary needs to be cleaned up. 15 Nooksack should be brought farther south. Why isn’t there more coordination between 16 Nooksack and Everson on this issue? 17 18 Mr. Harper stated he didn’t know what Everson would think about having a reduction of 19 their UGA. 20 21 Commissioner Knapp stated they could create more in the southwest. 22 23 Mr. Harper stated that is not entirely true. They are restricted by gravel pit and they are 24 getting too far away from the city to extend services. 25 26 Commissioner Vekved stated he could not make a decision without seeing a topographic 27 map and a flood map, which includes the area impacted by the Swift Creek sediment. 28 29 Mr. Harper will work with the county to provide those. 30 31 The commission took comments from the public. 32 33 There was no public comment. 34 35 Ferndale UGA 36 37 Jori Burnett presented the Ferndale UGA proposal. 38 39 Ferndale expects to have a population growth of 6,833; as stated in the multi-40 jurisdictional resolution and employment growth of 4,000; which is an increase from the 41 multi-jurisdictional resolution. 42 43 A couple of years ago, when the multi-jurisdictional resolution was done, he told both the 44 County Planning Commission and County Council that Ferndale was not going to expand 45 their residential UGA. They are proposing to live up to that promise. They are, however, 46 proposing to convert approximately 115 acres of land at the northeast corner of Slater 47 Road and Pacific Highway from UGA Reserve to the UGA for future employment. 48



8

By percentage, Ferndale is the fastest growing city in Western Washington, besides King 1 County. That is a pretty significant comment when you think about all of the cities in 2 Western Washington. It is not just that there has been a spike recently. From the early 3 1990s to 2013 they have stayed on a straight line growth percentage increase. There 4 hasn’t really been peaks and valleys. During the recession they had a peak instead of a 5 valley. This is due to a lot of small developments and developers that have come in. 6 7 The land capacity analysis states that they will have a 406 person capacity deficit, so they 8 would need to expand the UGA in order to meet the capacity if the growth trends 9 continue. 10 11 As some on the commission may know last time Ferndale did its UGA review, in 2009, 12 they got some things wrong. They did not do the planning they needed to do. They have 13 learned from that. People had the impression that Ferndale was willing to sprawl out and 14 that densities didn’t matter. They do not think that was ever the truth. What they have 15 done is adopted over two dozen incentives for infill and downtown development. They 16 have done away with their basic zoning concept for residential, which was based on 17 minimum lot sizes. This has been replaced with lot averaging requirements and minimum 18 density requirements. They have pulled over 120 lots off the sidelines, in the last 12 19 months, because of those ordinances. They have also invested over 20 million dollars in 20 the city’s core with a new library, trails, community center, Boys and Girls Club, etc. 21 22 They do not anticipate needing a UGA expansion but they will assess the situation as they 23 go and if needed come forward with a request for expansion. 24 25 Regarding employment, in the multi-jurisdictional resolution it only maintains the existing 26 ratios. This is approximately .41 jobs for every person living in Ferndale. They do not want 27 to be a bedroom community, they want to be more sustainable, which they are not right 28 now. Right now Ferndale loses about 80 cents on every dollar for retail sales to 29 Bellingham. That is money that could stay in Ferndale and pay for services. They also 30 know that many high school graduates leave Ferndale and never return. They go to 31 Bellingham to work in order to stay in Whatcom County. They want to change this. 32 33 Within the city limits the Lummi Nation has purchased about 50 acres of land. They have 34 also purchased about 110 acres of land within the Bellingham UGA. The Lummi Nation 35 wants to reclaim economic independence and they are looking at a variety of different 36 options in order to do so. One of the options is a proposed commercial develop that could 37 be three times larger than Bellis Fair Mall. This would be at Slater Road. They know that 38 interchanges are the location for major retail development. Ferndale is one of the only 39 cities on the west coast with developable interchanges. The state has recognized this and 40 has allocated over 20 million dollars in improvements to Slater Road. This will take effect 41 in 2019. Everything points to the Slater Road interchange developing pretty significantly. 42 The city is proposing a larger allocation to take into account the Lummi Nation lands as 43 well as the other growth that is likely to happen as a result of that and that 115 acres be 44 transferred from UGA Reserve to UGA. In the last five years approximately 100 acres of 45 otherwise developable land has been taken out of the control of the city. 45 acres for the 46 Lummi Nation land, 40 acres purchased by Whatcom County for the jail and the other 47



9

taken over by the U.S. Border Patrol. This is land that was last time considered for 1 development, now the city has no control over it. 2 3 The city feels that the UGA Reserve does not provide them with the certainty that is 4 necessary to plan. It does not allow them to act as quickly or confidently and it does not 5 give the property owners any confidence regarding what is going to happen. The city has 6 come up with an annexation phasing plan. It has worked really well. Certain criteria is 7 examined before the next area is considered for annexation. They are recommending that 8 as a condition of this area being transferred to UGA the city commit to language within 9 the annexation blueprint that states they will not consider any annexation of the area until 10 either traffic at Slater Road increases by a certain percentage or that there be a certain 11 square foot of development that occurs at other areas of the interchange. 12 13 The GMA requirement that there be open space areas within and between UGAs can be 14 interpreted to mean that there is a connection between UGAs. Whatcom County has 15 determined that there needs to be buffer between UGAs. At Slater Road they are 16 proposing that the buffer be incorporated into the existing right-of-way. 17 18 Commissioner Knapp asked what is happening with the land to the north owned by Joel 19 Douglas. 20 21 Mr. Burnett stated the land is in the UGA. The properties are pretty much fully developed. 22 One of the reasons why that development was allowed to occur was because it was in the 23 UGA. All of their needs have been met so there is no incentive for them to annex into the 24 city. The city has worked with county to amend the county’s development standards so 25 there is no similarity between the two. Hopefully in the future there will be ways to make 26 it more expensive to extend water and sewer to those outlying areas and maybe have a 27 cost sharing agreement or limit development until there are services are out there. 28 29 Commissioner Elenbaas asked if Mr. Rasmussen’s request (see letter on file) was honored. 30 31 Mr. Burnett stated the UGA does not extend to the properties that he owns. It may be 32 considered in the future. 33 34 Commissioner Honcoop stated that Ferndale has some aggressive development 35 requirements in order to meet their population allocations. He applauded the city for that. 36 The city’s population growth is astounding. He addressed the Grandview area. This is a 37 reserve area that is stuck in the middle. That area is inhibited from getting annexed and 38 developed. Are there services to that area provided by the city? 39 40 Mr. Burnett stated they do not have services there currently. It would be very expensive 41 to expand services to that area. Whatever development goes into that area needs to be 42 big enough to help carry some of that expense. This will be part of the capital facility 43 planning in the future. The city also needs to talk to the property owners to find out what 44 their visions are for the area. 45 46 The commission took comments from the public. 47 48



10

John Wilson, Whatcom County: Referred to his letter (on file). He has visions to utilize his 1 property for commercial purposes but because he is in the UGA Reserve he cannot do so. 2 As such, he is restricted to using the property for residential purposes. He supports the 3 area going into the UGA. 4 5 Laurie Irwin, Whatcom County: Has property at 4958 Pacific Highway. Her business, 6 Embroidery Creations, has been there for 11 years. She has lived there for 40 years. The 7 traffic has become horrendous. She was not notified when her property was put in the 8 UGA Reserve. That did not make her happy. It has prohibited her business from growing. 9 She has a cottage industry permit. She needs to enlarge her business but can’t. She has 10 had two people, in the last eight months, wanting to buy her property. They are also 11 business owners. When they go to the county with their plans for the business they find 12 out they can’t do what they want. This is ridiculous. All of the people living on the road 13 are renters. One of the persons who wanted to buy her property bought property on the 14 south side of Slater Road so he was able to run his business from that side. 15 16 Clayton Petree, Whatcom County: Supports Ferndale’s proposal. They do an amazing job 17 of planning. Birch Bay is done turning recreation homes into full time homes so people are 18 having to turn to the slightly more expensive homes. It is good to see Ferndale trying to 19 build a complete city instead of a bedroom community as in the past. He then spoke of 20 annexation. There are people that would like to annex earlier than the city’s schedule. He 21 would like to see that discussed. Just saying outright that they have to wait is 22 problematic. Ferndale should have some sort of policy that allows them to be more 23 flexible. 24 25 The public comment period was closed. 26 27 Work Session 28 29 2016 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Update: Chapter 8 – Resource Lands. 30 Review the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act, which requires 31 the County to periodically review and revise, if needed, the Comprehensive Plan under 32 RCW 36.70A.130(1) and urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A.130(3). 33 34 Karin Beringer presented some changes. 35 36 At the last meeting, regarding this chapter, the commission recommended keeping 10-19 37 on page 8-5. Staff has incorporated those paragraphs back into the draft. Staff also 38 noticed some minor typographical errors which they have corrected. 39 Joshua Fleishmann stated that over the last 15 years two studies have been done 40 regarding identifying aggregate resources. These areas were shown on a map. 41 42 The commission took comments from the public. 43 44 Clayton Petree, Whatcom County: RCW 36.78.070.4A addresses lands of long term 45 commercial significance in UGAs. It states: “Forest land and agricultural land, located 46 within an UGA, shall not be designated, by a county or city, as forest land or agricultural 47 land of long term commercial significance under 36.78.170 unless the city or county has 48



11

enacted a program authorizing transfer or purchase of development rights. The county 1 needs to have that in place. A long time ago the county tried to do a holding zone. This is 2 kind of the same thing. The county has held themselves to have a 50 year mandated 3 supply of MRL lands. He did not see an analysis of that. 4 5 ?? Wiese, Whatcom County: She would like to see more consideration of watershed 6 functions and aquifer recharge. Water is a resource and in thinking of it within the scope 7 of this chapter would be constructive. Both the quantity and quality of our water depends 8 on how well we manage our lands. As we increase density and agricultural uses we 9 decrease the opportunities for winter flooding that can be charging more aquifers, 10 especially in the north part of the county. Uphill and forest lands serves to restrain water 11 runoff and retain water reserves that are released later in the seasons. All of our resource 12 lands are an important buffer which keeps our water clean and sustainable. In addition to 13 planning our land use with impacts on watersheds and aquifers in mind the county should 14 consider designating specific lands that are crucial to watershed functions and recharging 15 the aquifers. As we switch to land that must drained all year we have to consider that 16 means we are not allowing aquifers to function somewhat like wetlands. 17 18 Max Perry, Whatcom County: Member of the Forestry Advisory Committee (FAC). In 19 February 2014 the FAC sent a letter to the County Council stating their concern of the no 20 net loss of forest land. They have never heard anything back. They are also concerned 21 about working forests. If you look at a map of the county ¾ of the county is in forest land. 22 Through the reconveyance 2,000 acres of timberland was lost. Forest lands are like a 23 crop. If that crop is never harvested it can become a fire hazard. It needs to be managed 24 well. 25 26 Teresa Sygitowicz, Whatcom County: It was brought to her attention that the FAC had not 27 met for almost a year. She encouraged the committee to meet before the final version of 28 the chapter is adopted. This would be a benefit to the county. 29 30 Mr. Personius stated the committee met last fall and reviewed and approved the draft that 31 is before the commission. There has been no need for them to meet since that time. 32 33 Evan Johnson, Whatcom County: Speaking on behalf Anne Russell with Re-Sources 34 Waterworks Program. Re-Sources would like to see the following addressed in the 35 agricultural section: in-stream flow; in-stream uses; stronger language regarding fish and 36 wildlife; identify the role of ??. The following should be addressed in the MRL section: fish 37 and wildlife habitat; water quality; gravel mining in river beds. (inaudible). There needs to 38 be more emphasis on conservation and water quality. 39 Phil Cloward, Whatcom County: A member of the FAC. He is also a registered professional 40 forester. He sensed there was confusion about input from the committee. In November 41 2014 staff provided the FAC with a copy of the draft chapter. This was completely 42 reviewed and their comments were forward ( to council ???). There has been no reply 43 back. It would be appreciated if there were some reply or acknowledgment. 44 45 Commissioner Elenbaas asked Mr. Cloward if he had any concerns regarding the current 46 draft. 47 48



12

Mr. Cloward stated the committee does have concerns. He is not sure where things are in 1 the process. 2 3 Mr. Personius clarified the issue by stating the FAC finished their work, reviewing Chapter 4 8, last fall, after several months of review. That work is what is reflected in the draft. This 5 is the first time, since last fall, that it has been reviewed by the commission. There has 6 not been any other review until now. 7 8 Commissioner Elenbaas asked if the FACs questions, comments and concerns were dealt 9 with and incorporated into the chapter. 10 11 Mr. Personius stated everything the FAC wanted in the plan is in the current draft. The 12 committee wrote a separate memo to the County Council regarding their desire for a no-13 net-loss forestry policy. That language is reflected in proposed revisions to the forestland 14 section of this chapter. They did not get a response from council because the process has 15 not gotten to that point yet. 16 17 The public comment period was closed. 18 19 Commissioner Honcoop stated he does not support the TDR provisions. TDRs are 20 supposed to work to increase density requirements. The density requirements are being 21 utilized. The TDR program has a cost associated with it. It is a waste of money from the 22 county government standpoint. TDRs raise the cost of development, especially for a 23 residential use. The costs get passed on to the end user. 24 25 Commissioner Honcoop moved to strike the TDR language in Policy 8A-2 which 26 states: Implementing a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program in which 27 the development potential of a site could be transferred to another location 28 where development is more favorable. Commissioner Elenbaas seconded. 29 30 Commissioner Elenbaas is in complete opposition to a TDR program because it will do 31 nothing but harm agriculture and the agricultural economy in the future. However, if there 32 is a tool that a landowner feels they want to utilize it should be available to them. 33 34 Commissioner Knapp stated he isn’t sure if there is enough knowledge and experience 35 with TDRs to make them work. He wants to keep an open mind as he has heard good 36 rational for both sides. It should be kept in and given the opportunity to succeed. 37 38 Commissioner Elenbaas stated the policy conflicts with other policies in the chapter, 39 particularly Policy 8C-4 which state: Support the continuation of owner occupied/family 40 owned farms. There are a lot of small acre farming activities going on in the rural zone. 41 He would be more supportive of a TDR program if the development rights were being 42 transferred inside the zone. Farmers need to live on their farms. There are parcels where 43 it is more appropriate to have a house than agricultural activities. Doing that type of 44 development right would benefit the agricultural zone. Transferring the development right 45 outside of the zone just creates more and bigger farms. The big farms aren’t bad but our 46 community values the smaller farms. 47 48



13

Commissioner Honcoop stated the program ends up being operated similar to the CREP 1 program. The restrictions placed in the TDR program, especially those related to 2 impervious surfaces, make a lot of the farms in the program unusable. Bellingham’s study 3 on TDRs effectively says there is no incentive so it is not being utilized. If it can’t be used 4 through volunteer methods then it gets to be where you are required to do it. Then it 5 becomes more of a fee. The economics of that is you drive up the costs of development. 6 7 Commissioner McClendon stated TDRs are only one of ten ways listed to support Policy 8 8A-2. She was not convinced that they would be able to resolve whether or not TDRs are 9 good or bad. They are just one of many options. Farm Friends and the AAC have both 10 supported the program. The commission should not make that judgement when they 11 think it is a viable option. 12 13 Commissioner Knapp wanted to know staff’s opinion of the program. 14 15 Commissioner Elenbaas stated he knows what staff’s opinion is. The TDR option could get 16 pushed down someone’s throat. They may not be able to do what they want if they don’t 17 use TDRs. Planning will make people do this outside of the rule of law. We have been 18 through this and have asked where does it say we have to do this. Planning responds by 19 saying they are letting us do this. The majority of system is take back. That is why 20 Commissioner Honcoop and him are totally opposed to TDRs. If it doesn’t get greatly 21 misused it will be a great tool, but it will get misused. Planning knows he is correct 22 because this is part of your plan Mr. Personius. 23 24 Mr. Personius stated the county position is there is a list of tools available to help preserve 25 agriculture. He does not know all the details of the program. There are lots of ways to 26 design a program. That is what should be looked at. He did not feel comfortable saying 27 the county should or should not have them. The county needs to do some more study 28 before a program is developed. 29 30 Commissioner Knapp agreed with staff in that the policy says it may be included, not shall 31 be included. If it was forced he would not support it either, but leaving the door open is 32 okay. 33 34 Commissioner Vekved suggested adding verbiage stating: These measures may not be 35 offered by PDS conditionally; they are offered for voluntary use by the landowner. 36 37 Commissioner Honcoop addressed Mr. Personius stating: your argument supports his 38 motion. Why are we proposing something like this before it is studied and we know that it 39 is headed in the right direction? Typically that is how political decisions get made. You 40 need to say it works or it doesn’t work. It will get manipulated to where it becomes a 41 requirement. It is a form of blackmail. That is what “may” means. This type of progression 42 has happened in the past. Don’t go there. 43 44 Mr. Personius stated it may be a potential solution. It needs more study. 45 46 Commissioner Honcoop stated they should look at something that has the potential for 47 actually working, not a political football. 48



14

1 Mr. Personius stated that the existing program has lots of loopholes and is not doing a 2 great job. However, it only applies in the Lake Whatcom watershed, so don’t use that as 3 an example of all TDR programs. 4 5 Commissioner Honcoop stated that what makes a program work is having a receiving area 6 that has allowable density increases. The likelihood of the program working in other areas 7 of the county is zero. 8 9 Mr. Personius stated that some of the city planners suggested that instead of buying up 10 for density buy down density. No one has ever done that. How do we know if it will work 11 or not if we don’t study it? Don’t prejudge the program and presume a certain outcome. 12 13 Commissioner Honcoop stated if we don’t know if it will work it shouldn’t be in the 14 Comprehensive Plan. You keep coming up with reasons to have it. 15 16 Commissioner Barton agreed that if the county does not know if the program will work or 17 not it should not be in the plan. 18 19 Commissioner Elenbaas stated that in order to get funding for his property he had to use 20 his development rights. The county wants him to keep farming the property but the bank 21 doesn’t want him to. The TDR program should not be forced down people’s throats. 22 23 Commissioner Knapp stated that is not what is being done. 24 25 Vote on motion: strike the TDR language in Policy 8A-2 which states: 26 Implementing a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program in which the 27 development potential of a site could be transferred to another location where 28 development is more favorable. 29 30 The vote on the motion carried. 31 32 The commission agreed a letter should be forwarded to the County Council to continue 33 research on the TDR/PDR issue. 34 Commissioner Elenbaas moved to strike Policy 8A-2, item 9, which reads: 35 Developing a marketplace approach to strengthening agricultural practices while 36 enhancing larger-scale watershed processes and functions by identifying 37 feasible opportunities on agricultural land to improve both watershed health and 38 agricultural viability and developing incentives and tools to compensate farmers 39 for actions that exceed minimum regulatory standards. Commissioner Honcoop 40 seconded. 41 42 Commissioner Elenbaas stated the reason for the proposal was because the marketplace 43 is imaginary. It’s the same idea as TDRs. Put something in place first. 44 45 Ms. Beringer stated the county has been researching development of a marketplace 46 approach. The county got a grant from the Department of Commerce, in 2012, and have 47



15

been using that for this research. The end of the grant is near and more research needs to 1 be done. 2 3 Commissioner Knapp stated they should not move it forward if it has not been developed. 4 5 Commissioner McClendon reminded the commission this is a twenty year plan. Maybe 6 these things will be figured out within that time frame. 7 8 Mr. Personius agreed. 9 10 Commissioner Elenbaas stated this is another tool that is going to be forced on people. 11 12 Mr. Personius suggested putting in the word “voluntary”. This would make it very clear it 13 is not a regulation. 14 15 Commissioner Honcoop stated it is important to remember there are two parts to this. 16 One is strengthening agricultural practices. What are we getting in return? All of this is not 17 just about marketplace, trading, etc. That is not a free marketplace. What it is saying is 18 you can get this if you do that. 19 20 Mr. Personius stated this is all just a concept at this point. We need to keep examining 21 these programs. 22 23 Ms. Beringer stated the word “voluntary” is in everything the county has done regarding 24 study of this idea. It would not be mandatory. 25 26 Commissioner Elenbaas stated voluntary is never voluntary. The county always wants 27 something in return. 28 29 Commissioner Knapp stated in the original Comprehensive Plan this was an action item. It 30 was an attempt to come up with some experience with these programs. It does not work 31 to move it to a policy. A policy does begin to become mandatory unless there is specific 32 language that says it is voluntary. 15 years is enough time to determine if it works or not. 33 It obviously has not worked in some cases. 34 35 Vote on motion to strike Policy 8A-2, item 9, which reads: Developing a 36 marketplace approach to strengthening agricultural practices while enhancing 37 larger-scale watershed processes and functions by identifying feasible 38 opportunities on agricultural land to improve both watershed health and 39 agricultural viability and developing incentives and tools to compensate farmers 40 for actions that exceed minimum regulatory standards. 41 42 The vote on the motion carried. 43 44 Commissioner Vekved moved to reword Policy 8A-2, beginning paragraph, to 45 read: Maintain a working agricultural land base sufficient to support a viable 46 local agricultural industry by considering the impacts to farmers and agricultural 47 lands as part of the legislative decision making process. Measures that can be 48



16

taken to support working farms and maintain the agricultural land base may 1 include: the list below. These measures, in whole or in part may not be offered 2 by PDS conditionally; they are offered by voluntary use by land owners. 3 Commissioner Knapp seconded. The vote on the motion carried. 4 5 Commissioner Honcoop addressed Policy 8A-2, item 6, which reads: 6. Mitigation for loss 6 of productive agricultural lands. Mitigation is a very strong word. How do you mitigate and 7 create agricultural land? You can’t create agricultural land so obviously the mitigation is 8 another method. What is staff’s thinking on this? 9 10 Ms. Beringer stated this is another program that has not been flushed out yet. It is in the 11 Agricultural Strategic Plan as something the AAC would like to research and perhaps 12 develop a program. 13 14 Commissioner Elenbaas asked if this is mitigation for loss of agricultural land due to 15 development? 16 17 Ms. Beringer stated that many actions could trigger mitigation, depending on how you 18 structure the program. Thi is another thing that would have to be researched. 19 20 Commissioners Vekved and Elenbaas wanted some idea of what the statement meant. 21 22 Ms. Beringer stated that for example, if land was taken out of designated agriculture and 23 put into the UGAs, as some of the cities want to do, they would have to provide some sort 24 of mitigation. That mitigation has not been flushed out yet. They are looking at what other 25 areas of the country do. 26 27 Commissioner Elenbaas asked who would be responsible for the mitigation. The city? 28 29 Ms. Beringer stated in the example she gave it would be the city. 30 31 Commissioner Elenbaas moved to reword Policy 8A-2, item 6 to read: Mitigation 32 for loss of productive agricultural lands including loss due to policy 33 implementations such as the Critical Areas Ordinance, etc. Commissioner Barton 34 seconded. 35 36 Commissioner Elenbaas stated farmers don’t get mitigated for loss of farmland for critical 37 area buffers. They just have to take the loss. 38 39 Mr. Personius asked Commissioner Elenbaas if he wanted the county to pay the farmers 40 for their loss. 41 42 Commissioner Elenbaas stated he did not know. The mitigation is not defined. The county 43 loses more farmland to policies than to development by a huge, huge amount. 44 45 Vote on motion to reword Policy 8A-2, item 6 to read: Mitigation for loss of 46 productive agricultural lands including loss due to policy implementations such 47 as the Critical Areas Ordinance, etc. The vote on the motion carried. 48



17

Commissioner McClendon addressed some changes proposed in a letter from Farm 1 Friends. 2 3 They propose Policy 8A-3, item 8 read: Areas have a pattern of landowner capital 4 investment in agricultural operations improvements including irrigation, drainage, manure 5 storage, barn refurbishing the presence of barns and support buildings, enhanced 6 livestock feeding techniques, livestock upgrading, agricultural worker housing, etc. 7 8 Commissioner McClendon moved to make these changes. Commissioner Honcoop 9 seconded. The vote on the motion carried. 10 11 Commissioner Vekved addressed the chart on page 8-6 of the redline version. Are the 12 numbers on the chart adjusted for inflation? 13 14 Ms. Beringer stated the numbers are from the agricultural census. She assumes they are 15 correct to their time period. 16 17 Commissioner Vekved stated if it is not apparent that this has been corrected for inflation 18 then it is not clear what they are looking at. 19 20 Commissioner Elenbaas stated the numbers in the chart are ridiculously low. Dairy cows in 21 Whatcom County are worth one billion dollars alone. 22 23 Commissioner Vekved suggested the heading of the chart to read: Whatcom County Land 24 in Farms/Product Market Value Over Time. The commission agreed to this change. 25 26 Commissioner McClendon addressed some changes proposed in a letter from Farm 27 Friends. 28 29 They propose Policy 8C-1 be eliminated. It reads: Encourage retiring farmers to pass their 30 farms on to their children and for young farmers to be able to afford to buy productive 31 farmland. 32 33 Commissioner Elenbaas thinks this needs to happen but it’s not on Whatcom County’s 34 back to do that so he agrees it should be deleted. 35 36 Commissioner McClendon moved to make these changes. Commissioner Knapp 37 seconded. The vote on the motion carried. 38 39 Commissioner Elenbaas moved to add a new policy, to be 8A-11, to read: 40 Whatcom County shall not approve any policy which would infringe upon the 41 ability to produce food, feed, fiber or fur on lands designated as agricultural 42 resource lands. Commissioner Barton seconded. 43 44 Commissioner Elenbaas read from Whatcom County Code 14.02 which refers to the right 45 to farm. He does not see a viable agricultural economy for future generations. The things 46 hurting farming are not development, not the price received for his cattle or the price of 47 land. What threatens him are the guys that sit in the Planning Department, County 48



18

Council, and other offices around the county that are creating hardships on his way of life. 1 The policy he suggested would be the most powerful policy in the Resource Lands chapter 2 to protect 100,000 acres of agricultural land. 3 4 Commissioner Knapp asked staff what the impact of that policy would be. Some policies 5 may impact farming if they impact water quality. 6 7 Commissioner Elenbaas stated there can be water quality laws that don’t impact the 8 ability to farm. He wants to see if Whatcom County is serious about protecting agricultural 9 land. There are not a lot of polices in the plan that protect the ability to farm. The ability 10 to farm is what is going to protect agricultural lands in the future. The state is going 11 around fining people based on their potential to pollute. That is wrong and he does not 12 want to see the county go in that direction. We can’t control the state or federal 13 regulations but Whatcom County can have policies to enhance agriculture. 14 15 Mr. Personius stated that if the policy was strictly enforced it would mean we could not 16 regulate the items listed. What is the standard for “infringe”? That term would be litigated 17 immediately. There are farm plans, etc. that allow for farming in critical areas. 18 19 Commissioner Elenbaas asked Mr. Personius if he thought farm plans help farmers. 20 21 Mr. Personius stated they help water quality which farming needs. 22 23 Commissioner Elenbaas said if the county is going to make policy it better look at both 24 sides of the fence. The county does not need to go above and beyond state regulations. 25 26 Mr. Personius stated the county is required, by GMA, to adopt critical area regulations to 27 protect streams. We don’t have a choice. 28 29 Commissioner Elenbaas agreed but the county standards do not need to go beyond that. 30 31 Mr. Personius stated the county laws have to follow best available science, etc. We 32 exempt farmers from some of those regulations through farm plans, etc. The regulations 33 are designed to incorporate farming and try not to infringe on it while following the state 34 regulations. 35 36 Commissioner Vekved amended the motion to read: Whatcom County shall not 37 approve any policyies additional to or more restrictive than state and federal 38 policies which would infringe upon the ability to produce food, feed, fiber or fur 39 on lands designated as agricultural resource lands. ?? seconded. 40 41 Commissioner McClendon agreed with what Commissioner Elenbaas was trying to do. This 42 policy, as written, does not do that. 43 44 Commissioner Honcoop stated that while he was supportive of what Commissioner 45 Elenbaas was trying to do it is wide open to legal challenge. What is staff’s opinion on 46 that? 47 48



19

Mr. Personius stated he agreed with that statement. 1 2 Commissioner Elenbaas stated that the proposal does not say that policies can’t be 3 created. It doesn’t say they can’t create policies that protect water quality, etc. It only 4 says that if they are going to create those polices they can’t infringe on the ability to 5 produce food. 6 7 Commissioner Knapp stated he agreed with the intent but it does not say that so he can’t 8 vote for it. It does not address all of the impacts agriculture may have on water quality, 9 etc. 10 11 Mr. Personius stated staff could refer the policy to the county legal staff for review. They 12 would have legal staff to review it anyway if it were to pass. 13 14 Commissioner Vekved stated this shifts the operation of the county from Mr. Personius’ 15 stated notion of blanket buffers and less restrictive requirement imposed by farm plans, 16 BMPs or both. It puts the onus on the county to figure out which BMPs work instead of 17 having a document travel with the land title. This proposal is only an improvement. 18 19 Mr. Personius stated legally there could be a lot of different arguments for and against. 20 21 Commissioner Barton moved to send the proposal to legal counsel for review. 22 Commissioner Knapp seconded. The motion carried. 23 24 Commissioner Honcoop addressed the Watershed Improvement District comments from 25 Farm Friends. (Policy 8E-7) Should the words in the policy be capitalized? (No action was 26 taken) 27 28 Commissioner Elenbaas addressed the right-to-farm ordinance. It defines BMPs as being 29 defined by American Society of Agronomy, the United States Department of Agriculture 30 Soil Conservation Service, the Washington State University Cooperative Extension Service 31 in Whatcom County, and other land-based professional or industrial agricultural 32 organizations. 33 34 Commissioner Elenbaas moved to reword Policy 8E-9 to read: Provide outreach 35 and education to farmers pertaining on using Best Management Practices to 36 protect water quality as defined in WCC 14.02.020(E). Commissioner Vekved 37 seconded. 38 39 Commissioner Vekved asked Commissioner Elenbaas for clarification. Can only those 40 organizations listed bring forth BMPs? 41 42 Commissioner Elenbaas stated yes. However, it does say “land based professionals or 43 industrial agricultural organizations”. 44 45 The vote on the motion carried. 46 47



20

Commissioner Elenbaas moved to change Policy 8F-12 to read: Mitigation for 1 loss of forest lands from productivity including loss due to policy implementation 2 such as the Critical Areas Ordinance, etc.; Commissioner Honcoop seconded. The 3 motion carried. 4 5 Commission Knapp suggested staff get a legal opinion on this issue. 6 7 The commission reviewed the edits proposed by Commissioner Oliver (on file). No 8 changes were made as a result of her proposals. 9 10 Commissioner Vekved addressed Policy 8K-7. The entire policy speaks to the lack of 11 enforcement. It is stating that the existing mine needs to be looked at and do the same 12 rather than impose whatever this is. He thinks that would be done anyway prior to 13 approval of the additional MRL. 14 15 Commissioner Vekved moved to delete Policy 8K-7. Commissioner Honcoop 16 seconded. 17 18 Mr. Personius stated this policy was adopted by council this year. 19 20 Commissioner Honcoop agreed with deleting the language because it is an additional 21 requirement. It is a penalty. The goal of the MRL is to protect the resource for future use. 22 23 The vote on the motion carried. 24 25 Commissioner Honcoop addressed Policy 8N-4. Can these be sited in forestry areas? 26 27 Mr. Fleischmann stated they can. 28 29 Commissioner Honcoop addressed Non-Metallic Mineral Deposits, item 2. He thought the 30 Surface Mining Act (??) is three acres. Is that correct? 31 32 Mr. Fleischmann response inaudible. (5.02) 33 34 Commissioner Honcoop then asked why the designation size 20 acres. 35 36 Mr. Fleischmann response inaudible. 37 38 Commissioner Honcoop asked if there is a requirement for a single lot or single 39 ownership? 40 41 Mr. Fleischmann stated no. At the last meeting it was asked if multiple parcels can be 42 joined to create a 20 acre MRL. The language in the zoning code states that subdivision 43 cannot create lots smaller than 20 acres. If the lots were subdivided years ago they could 44 join together. A new designation has to be 20 acres. 45 46



21

Commissioner Honcoop moved to change Non-Metallic Mineral Deposits, item 2, 1 to read: Minimum MRL Designation size is twenty ten acres. Commissioner 2 Elenbaas seconded. 3 4 Commissioner Honcoop stated it is very difficult to accomplish the MRL goals with the 5 minimum being 20 acres. 6 7 Commissioner Elenbaas asked for clarification. Does an adjacent parcel have to be 20 8 acres? 9 10 Mr. Fleishmann stated no, the 20 acre minimum is just for new designations. 11 12 Commissioner Elenbaas asked how close mining can come to the property line. 13 14 Mr. Fleishmann believed the setback was 50 feet. 15 16 Commissioner Elenbaas stated they needed to know that for sure. It might affect how or if 17 a 10 acre parcel can be mined. He asked if there was a downside to reducing the size to 18 10 acres. 19 20 Mr. Fleishmann stated that his understanding, based on conversations with previous staff, 21 is several years ago there were a bunch of smaller mines all over the county. Because of 22 the policy to designate a 50 year supply of aggregate is was decided to move away from 23 the small mines and move towards larger ones that could accomplish this. Policy 8Q-1 is 24 proposing to remove the language regarding designation of a 50 year supply and set aside 25 land to meet future demand. 26 27 Commissioner Honcoop asked if the county is going to take the lead role in identifying and 28 protecting MRL designations or just identify them. 29 30 Mr. Fleischmann said the county would identify and protect. The Mineral Resource 31 Committee, through their review of the criteria, recommended the county do that and the 32 Council stated they would support that. Staff has contacted Skagit and Snohomish 33 Counties to gather information about their processes. 34 35 Commissioner Honcoop stated that having a smaller acreage makes the prospect of 36 mining more viable. 37 38 Commissioner Vekved asked if this would result in a bunch of MRLs in rural areas. He has 39 no problem with protecting the resources. 40 41 Commissioner Honcoop referenced Non-Metallic Mineral Deposits, item 1, which states the 42 deposit must contain at least 250,000 cubic yards of material. If a smaller parcel can do 43 that it should be allowed. 44 45 Vote on the motion to change Non-Metallic Mineral Deposits, item 2, to read: 46 Minimum MRL Designation size is twenty ten acres. The motion carried. 47 48



22

Commissioner Barton addressed Policy 8A-1. RE Sources sent a letter suggesting 1 rewording of this policy. He was in agreement with their suggestion. 2 3 Commissioner Barton moved to reword Policy 8A-1 to read: Conserve productive 4 agricultural lands and agricultural resource lands, including areas with prime 5 soils that are not now zoned agriculture, or where the area is composed of 6 agricultural operations that have historically been or continue to be economically 7 viable, by developing and implementing a long range strategy. Commissioner 8 Knapp seconded. 9 10 Commissioner Barton stated that earlier the commission looked at Nooksack’s proposal 11 and questioned why they were taking dairy farming and converting it to industrial. The 12 commissioner wasn’t sure that was a good idea. This language is consistent with the 13 discussion they had regarding that matter. 14 15 Commissioner Honcoop addressed the words “historically been”. What is the limit on 16 historical? 17 18 Commissioner Elenbaas stated there is a lot of good farming going on in the rural areas 19 and the county is looking at converting some of the rural areas to small lot agriculture 20 zoning, so is this language needed? 21 22 Commissioner Honcoop made a friendly amendment to the motion to read: 23 Conserve productive agricultural lands and agricultural resource lands, including 24 areas with prime soils that are not now zoned agriculture, or where the area is 25 composed of agricultural operations that have historically been or and continue 26 to be economically viable, by developing and implementing a long range 27 strategy. Commissioner Barton seconded. The motion carried. 28 29 Commissioner Elenbaas stated “economically viable” is a relative term. 30 31 Commissioner Vekved stated he was not in favor of the motion because it might reach too 32 far into land that is being converted to other uses. 33 34 The vote on the main motion, as amended, carried. 35 36 Commissioner McClendon stated that earlier in the meeting it was suggested the 37 commission send a letter to the County Council to continue research on the TDR/PDR 38 issue. She asked if any of the commissioners wanted to draft such a letter. No one 39 volunteered to write the letter. 40 41 Commissioner Honcoop moved to recommend approval of Chapter 8, as 42 amended. Commissioner Elenbaas seconded. The motion carried. 43 44 The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. 45 Minutes prepared by Becky Boxx. 46 47 48



23

WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: 1 2 3 4

_____________________________ ___________________________ 5 Natalie McClendon, Chair Becky Boxx, Secretary 6

Documents

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1 WHATCOM COUNTY …