HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources February 28 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
February 28, 2006
Committee Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 9:33 a.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Carl Weimer
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Barbara Brenner
OTHER BUSINESS
20 UPDATE AND REQUEST FOR DIRECTION ON ACME FARM COMMUNITY
21 PROJECT (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT
22 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS) (AB2006 -131)
23
24 Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, described the background of the Lummi Nation project
25 and the Acme Farm Community project. The estimated cost for the Acme project is
26 $265,000 to extend walls along the flood area that would address community concerns. He
27 is asking for support to use flood funds to mitigate those concerns and deal with the
-28 elements that the Flood Subzone Advisory Committee identified as important for the success
29 of the project and to address the community concern. They haven't finalized the exact
30 length of the project. The project would extend the area of protection both upstream and
31 downstream. The project will behave as a levee setback. It's a serious gain in habitat.
32
33 McShane moved to recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors for the
34 development of a 100 percent County - sponsored Flood Control Zone District- funded project
35 that extends flood protection for a distance of approximately 600 feet upstream of the
36 Lummi Project, in an amount to exceed $265,000.
37
38 Motion carried unanimously.
39
40 McShane stated he is not comfortable with the last part of the motion in the
41 paperwork. The Council doesn't have control over the Acme Subzone Advisory Committee.
42 He's sure they will develop a project proposal for the repair of the revetment near the City
43 of Bellingham's pipeline anyway.
44
45
46 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY
47
48 1. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
49 AMENDMENTS FOR 2006 (AB2006 -082)
50
Natural Resources Committee, 2/28/2006, Page 1
Docket # 2006 -0: APO Soils I - amend Map 10 of the Comprehensive Plan
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated the agriculture protection overlay (APO) is an
overlay that goes over rural five- and ten -acre zones. The presence of certain soils in those
areas require clustering. The APO is a clustering requirement that seeks to create a
remainder parcel. He presented two maps. One map shows the location of rural, one unit
per five acres (R5A) zones; rural, one unit per ten acres (R10A) zones; and which parcels
are comprised of APO soils. This proposal asks to add soil group 182, Whatcom La Bounty
soil, to the list of soils that require clustering. Whatcom LaBounty soils were listed as
complex because quality for farming depends on slope.
A second map shows the location of Whatcom LaBrounty soils. There are about
9,000 acres in the R5A zone and 900 acres in the R10A zone. These are only prime soils
when drained. They don't know the quality of drainage when they mapped the soil
locations. Staff would have to go into the field to make that determination. There would
have to be a site review. Of the 10,000 acres, they don't know how much is prime soil.
Typically, they find the soil has been farmed over time. If drainage was maintained, the
acreage will probably have prime soil. If the acreage was not maintained, it might not have
prime soils.
McShane stated someone with a desire to develop an area could get rid of the
wetlands by farming and draining the ground, to convert the property later. Olason stated
all Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.38 requires is clustering. If maintained as an
agricultural use, the APO would apply. A great deal of the soils have been under the APO
anyway, if they are larger lots. The issue is that this is one of the prime soil types that
didn't get listed. They are being requested to put it back on the list.
Crawford asked if this soil used to be listed, and then they took it out. Olason stated
that to get to the list in WCC 20.38, there was a Comprehensive Plan amendment to two
maps. In the process of looking at those two maps, they discovered inconsistencies
between the two maps. The old code used both maps, and it was confusing. They wanted
to consolidate the information onto one map. In the process, there was a discussion about
this soil, which was dropped from the list. It was dropped because it does occur in some
areas that can be farmed. However, if property is not actively farmed and is typically wet, it
may have reverted back anyway.
Crawford stated this affects a good portion of the area being considered for
expansion in the urban growth area (UGA) at Smith Road, the Caitec property. He asked
how that affects Caitec's proposal. Olason stated APO is not an agricultural designation. It
is a list of soils which the overlay zone addresses by requiring clustering. That zoning is
R10A. It doesn't preclude including it in the UGA.
Crawford stated that if in the UGA, the Council would presumably rezone the
property. Olason stated the APO is for outside the UGA.
Crawford asked if this affect's Caitec's proposal to be included in the UGA if this soil
type is added and Caitec wants to continue to pursue inclusion in the UGA. Olason stated it
doesn't affect the proposal on the books. It may affect the proposal if the proposal
changes. Everything the other cities, such as Lynden, do is with agricultural land. They do
UGA expansions into land with agricultural soils.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/28/2006, Page 2
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has their nationwide criteria for
what constitutes prime soils. In most locations, there are important soils that would be on
the list for specialized crops. They can be designated for local areas as prime soils. There
are other prime soils that may not be preferred for local crops.
Susan Kirsch, applicant, stated she lives in Squalicum Valley. The Caitec connection
is a coincidence. Her neighbor will inherit her parent's farm. If the farm isn't in APO soils,
she may not be able to do the purchase of development rights (PDR) program. The
Whatcom La Bounty soil has been used since 1932 for cattle and hay production. Also,
LaBounty soil is good for growing grass for new grass technology and ethanol. A company
in Skagit County was interested in areas to develop a cellulose plant. The company picked
Idaho. She submitted information on and described grass technology (on file).
McShane stated that when people think of agriculture in Washington State they often
focus on Eastern Washington and forget that Whatcom County is a big agricultural
community.
Larry Helm, citizen, stated he also lives in the area. The area was quiet until this
proposal came up. When that happened, three survey crews showed up. People don't
understand what the County is up to. He'd like more information to be available so he and
the public can know what's going on, especially good maps. Much land is involved in this
proposal. Not all of it is in typical agricultural areas. The soil is also in valleys where people
are doing small hobby farms. There could be a big impact from this. Really think about
where the boundaries are drawn.
Bob Tull, 709 Dupont, stated his firm represents many landowners across the
�. county. In past committee discussions, there were suggestions that various rural issues,
28 including tuning up the clustering rules, blend together. Seek a proposal from Planning
29 Department staff for a work program outside of the docket process. Look at the issues and
30 potential solutions. In this area, this change may make a difference. There may be a
31 burden on staffing to do soils investigations. Then, the Council will have to develop finite
32 standards on the level of drainage. Possibly divide the county into regions in terms of what
33 is going on in the areas. Also, they're still trying to understand how the increased critical
34 areas protections will affect agricultural land.
35
36 Weimer stated the Council really would like a work plan as suggested. He asked if
37 that would ultimately lead to Comprehensive Plan changes anyway. Tull stated the Council
38 would come up with tool refinements that may not require Comprehensive Plan
39 amendments. Instead, the Council could come up with changes to development
40 regulations. The Council could restructure performance standards in cluster subdivisions,
41 which wouldn't require a Comprehensive Plan change. The work plan could come out with a
42 list of specific Comprehensive Plan changes. One difficulty with this process is that they are
43 a necessity with limited time. Until they are deep in the process, they won't understand all
44 the implications and people will start to get excited all over again. Instead, start with a
45 more comprehensive approach that they can refine. Not all the changes will be at the
46 Comprehensive Plan level. If they have to do Comprehensive Plan changes, so be it. They
47 may not be as drastic as these. It's very important to know what the soil proposals mean in
48 different settings. That is very technical, and may or may not require a Comprehensive
49 Plan change in the end. Geography may trump the soils in some cases.
50
51 Weimer stated the Council is deciding now just to look at the issue by docketing
52 these things. They are very big issues. He doesn't know if he will support them. Without
Natural Resources Committee, 2/28/2006, Page 3
more information, which may be a work plan, the Council may decide against the proposals.
Tull stated there's a huge learning process to be completed in terms of using the
Comprehensive Plan docket work in one -step Comprehensive Plan monitoring and
perfection. The current process isn't sophisticated enough. In this instance, where it's clear
there are many implications, they may want to have a more encompassing, combined
process. Focus on a combined approach rather than several items separately.
Jack Petree, 2955 Sunset, stated don't docket either item. There is a huge workload.
This will take time. The proponent's chief worry seems to be a worry that farming will not
be allowed on these soils. However, the GMA says the rural areas shall permit agriculture.
Very little is achieved by docketing this item.
McShane stated the proponent said the neighbor would not qualify for the voluntary
PDR program. That's a legitimate concern.
Fleetwood asked the difference between this item and the next docket item, 2006 -P.
Olason stated he couldn't find a difference. They're generally the same thing. They both
ask to incorporate that soil type. There is a different rationale for each. If docketed,
consider them as one item.
Weimer asked the amount of staff time this would take. Olason stated the
Agriculture Advisory Committee said they would like to see this considered at some point in
the next few years, but it's not as critical as other things. This has some relevance, but it
may not be critical in terms of timing.
Fleetwood asked if this proposal would require a considerable amount of staff time.
Olason stated the issue of staff time has more to do with the site review required to
28 determine if the soil is prime. If the Council wants to include all prime soils in the APO list,
29 that is part of the workload the staff has to accept. This soil is different from other soils.
30 It's complex because it is a mixture of soil types, and the quality depends on drainage.
31 Drainage changes over time.
32
33 Fleetwood asked if they have docketed items in years past, and then put together a
34 work plan regarding those items. He asked if there is a way to withdraw the docketed item
35 if a work plan is developed. Olason stated nothing precludes that from happening.
36
37 McShane stated the rural areas as currently set up with the APO may not be all that
38 workable. They're trying to make changes that may not be useful. The APO has been a
39 nine -year experiment. It hasn't done a good job of protecting farmland or rural character.
40 He is in favor of docketing these items with the idea that a work plan be developed that
41 considers all the Comprehensive Plan proposals they have for the rural areas. This
42 committee has approved all of those so far. Come up with a work plan to consider all those
43 proposals together. He attempted to flush that out in the language in agenda bill item
44 regarding the ordinance imposing an interim moratorium on the acceptance of short
45 plat applications for subdivisions in the rural zones within Agricultural Protection
46 overlay areas, Rural Forestry zones, Suburban Enclaves, and Transportation
47 Corridors (AB2006 -110). It could be expanded and changed to a resolution. He moved
48 to docket items 2006 -0 and 2006 -P and fold them into a resolution establishing a work plan
49 with a commitment from administration and a committed staff person. If it goes beyond
50 the normal Comprehensive Plan process, they could be withdrawn for the year. Throughout
51 the process, the Council could docket Comprehensive Plan items as they mature.
52
Natural Resources Committee, 2/28/2006, Page 4
Fleetwood stated he supports the motion. He asked if there has been any progress
or work on an outline for a work plan. Olason stated there is an outline. He hopes to get a
decision on what goes in the outline. Other Comprehensive Plan docket items may be
relevant. He hopes to look at everything and see what should be included. The short list of
approved docket items becomes the basis of a work plan.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brenner stated she would like to see a recommendation of what staff wants docketed
for this year.
Crawford stated everyone who loses their ability to do a short-plat loses almost a
half million dollars from their pockets. That's what causes the panic. It would be imprudent
for an individual to not short-plat. He doesn't know of any land consultant or surveyor who
is encouraging anyone to do anything right now. His business has turned down every
request for short-plats in the last two weeks. There may be some merit to adding these
items to the docket. Look at the qualifications of the PDR program. If not having Whatcom
LaBounty prevents a parcel that is otherwise a good candidate, then look at the
qualifications for the PDR program rather than changing the cluster requirements.
Clustering is another thing in which they need more flexibility. Staff generally doesn't
exercise the option to allow something under certain circumstances, and follows the code.
They may want to strengthen that language. At this point, he would vote no because of
staff's workload.
Motion carried unanimously.
Olason stated that when staff look at proposed criteria, they look at prime soil. Any
prime soil would classify. They look to APO also, but there's flexibility there.
Crawford stated the advocate said the property was not subject to APO, and did not
qualify for the purchase of development rights (PDR) program. Olason stated it has prime
soil.
(Clerk's Note: Discussion continued, below.)
Docket # 2006 -P: APO Soils II - amend APO soils list
See discussion of docket item 2006 -0 for discussion and recommendation for
approval.
Docket # 2006 -R: Breckenridge Road - Rural to MRL
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated the request is to re- designate 25 acres from rural
to mineral resource land (MRL). The underlying zoning is rural, one dwelling per five acres
(R5A). He indicated the location on a map. The subject site is immediately south and
adjacent to an existing MRL. There are two pits in the existing MRL. Nooksack Elementary
School is in the urban growth area on the south side of Breckenridge Road. The Terason
pipeline runs to the northwest. The surrounding area is rural in nature. Breckenridge Creek
is to the southeast. The Sumas River is to the northwest. The site has prime agricultural
soils and qualifies as APO soils. Most of the site has an agricultural /open space designation.
The pipe stem would be used for access and would not be mined.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/28/2006, Page 5
Several studies show mineral resources in the county. Three studies identify the site
as a potential sand and gravel source. Most of the site has a moderate susceptibility for an
aquifer recharge area. Under the new critical areas ordinance (CAO), they would have to do
a critical areas assessment. There are no wellhead protection areas.
To docket this item, the Council must look at three factors. This site is not within an
urban growth area (UGA). This site would not impact resource lands. Last, the next review
of MRL's is scheduled for 2011. The Surface Mining Advisory Committee says there exists a
20 -year supply of sand and gravel. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to designate a 50 -year
supply.
Weimer asked if the City of Nooksack commented on the proposal. Aamot stated
there are not comments from the City.
Fleetwood asked if this item comes with a recommendation from staff. Aamot stated
it does not.
Troy Holbrook, Assistant Director, stated they would assign about 120 staff hours to
this docket item, not including time if there were an appeal. Because this is so close to a
city and school site, there may be access issues, so the estimated staff hours may be a low
estimate. It`s not time sensitive to docket this year versus next year.
Lesa Starkenburg- Kroontje, Concrete Nor'west representative, stated the site is
adjacent to an existing MRL that is almost 158 acres in size. It is a proven quality sand and
gravel reserve area. Geo- Engineers identified this reserve as having a medium probability
of having high - quality gravel. The applicant's study confirms that finding. A request to
docket the MRL will result in consideration of this site as a MRL overlay district. The MRL
overlay district sets aside lands upon which permits to surface mine can later be considered
and granted. It is not a right to mine. It does not guarantee that permits will be issued.
The MRL overlay also restricts division of the site to parcels no less than 20 acres. It
also allows for notification of property owners within 500 feet. She recommends docketing
this year. This is 1.7 million cubic yards of material that can be added to the supply. Once
a property is placed in an MRL, the permits will be a number of years away. If planning
doesn't start soon, the use of this deposit will be delayed, additional development will occur
in the area, and there won't be buffers and a reclamation plan before the City of Nooksack
expands. Also, Concrete Nor'West has an active surface mine to the west of this property.
It could update that permit and incorporate this additional area in to the planning for that.
The City of Nooksack's interest is having trucks go east, not west, through the City
of Nooksack. This proposal provides additional access to the east.
The probability of this property converting is low because it is owned by a person
interested in using it for mineral use. However, the probability of the surrounding area
developing is high. Therefore, get this process started.
This company has sites up and down the I -5 corridor. They have a staff person who
deals exclusively with getting permits. The applicant will do whatever it can to keep this
moving with as little County staff involvement as possible.
Action items in the County and City of Nooksack interlocai agreement are to make
sure the City adopts policies to make sure adjacent uses are compatible with gravel
Natural Resources Committee, 2/28/2006, Page 6
extraction and to set up notification procedures. To date, the City has not set up those
policies. This will help that process along.
Weimer asked how long 1.7 million cubic yards would last. Aamot stated he believes
it is about one year's supply.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated this is a high quality gravel, not the sand found in other
areas.
McShane asked if they have drilled the site. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated borings
were done at elevations of 148 feet down to elevation of 50 feet. It is about 100 feet for
three borings. The last boring is started at elevation of 115 feet and goes down to 80 feet.
Brenner asked if this is an extension of an MRL that is there. Starkenburg- Kroontje
stated it is. Three companies have active permits for surface mining.
Brenner asked if the appeal to the Council is next to this property. Starkenburg -
Kroontje stated it is.
Fleetwood stated he is leaning toward docketing this item. It's not a standalone area
in the midst of agricultural areas. It's next to a UGA and an adjacent MRL site.
McShane moved to recommend docketing to the full Council. The applicants have
done some significant upfront work. It's not a designated agricultural area. There is a lack
of gravel supply in the county. It may be the last area of good gravel quality that isn't
designated as agricultural land.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Weimer opposed.
Docket # 2006 -0: APO Soils I - amend Map 10 of the Comprehensive Plan
(Clerk's Note: Discussion continued from above.)
Olason stated there seems to be a limit to PDR's in non -APO areas regarding 2006 -0.
Docket # 2006 -T: Amend Hazardous Material Policies
Olason stated there is a letter from ]Veil Clement, formerly the Emergency
Management Division Manager, from last year. Mr. Clement had concerns in terms of
reporting requirements and staffing. This is the third time this request, in some form, has
been before the Council.
Gerald Steel, applicant, stated this is an ongoing effort to address issues. His letter
addressed the proposal he originally introduced, to require a permitting program that would
require staff to understand the complexities of the hazardous material industries. The
current proposal doesn't require significant staff time or staff to review the report.
The current amendment is to require an addendum report for those industries who
are required to file a risk management program to the federal government. There are
seven industries in the County that meet that requirement. They are industries that have
the most hazardous materials. The federal government doesn't cover county issue. The
addendum report to the County states that experts have looked at the plant and
Natural Resources Committee, 2/28/2006, Page 7
recommend alternative methods and materials that reduce the risk of the release of hazard
materials in a disaster.
As shown by the Hurricane Katrina disaster, they can't depend on the federal
government during a disaster. An powerful earthquake is anticipated every one hundred to
three hundred years. They haven't had one in over 100 years. Make the hazardous
industries produce a report in time for the management to consider the consultant's report
when they're doing major upgrades to their facilities. The purpose of a reporting
requirement is to reduce the risk of the most hazardous plants.
The Washington State Association of Plummer and Steamfitters has members who
work and live in Whatcom County and who are affected by the hazards that exist from these
plants. The proposed amendment requires refinery managers and others in the county to
prepare and submit an addendum report to the County each time the business is required to
file a risk plan or risk plan update. This is an addendum to that plan. He read the
requirement in his application. The business has to turn the report in to the County, and
the County files it. When the business prepares this report, it will be updated on the latest
safety measures and the latest risk reduction methods that they may not otherwise learn
about. This proposal would require periodic operator consideration of safer operating
methods and materials. It substantially reduces risk from natural and manmade disasters.
This issue is not addressed by any state or federal code. It doesn't require staff time to
review the merits of a report. The proposed report will be implement by development
regulations that will state who must file the report, what subjects should be covered in the
report, when the report is due, where the report is filed, and how the report is submitted
and processed. The submission process is really just to accept and file the report.
In 15 years, a consultant could look at all the reports and see what has been
accomplished. Time is of the essence for this issue. They need a program like this to
implement safety features before the next big disaster. The County must do this because
the federal government can't. This is a small step that doesn't take a lot of staff time, but
should have a significant effect on the largest risks from hazardous materials in the county.
Skagit County has docketed this amendment. Docket this amendment for Whatcom
County. Both counties can combine their knowledge to come up with the best way to
accomplish this objective. He will be available to help work on this item.
Fleetwood stated this sounds good, but he is skeptical about how it would work. He
asked if there is no staff oversight for the quality of the submission. Steel stated there is
only staff review to see if the report meets the requirements of the regulations, which are to
address subject areas. Staff will see if the subjects have been addressed, but will not
evaluate the technical merit of the details.
Fleetwood asked if the consultant would identify updated techniques that would
improve safety, but there is no separate requirement of the industry to implement those
techniques. Steel stated that is correct. It's important that it be written that way because
these are specialized industries. The local staff doesn't have expertise in the techniques.
The hope is that the experts hired by the industries would make the case for implementing
the technologies. The industry manager isn't required to follow the techniques, but there
will be a record of what techniques were recommended and whether they were
implemented. This requires the industries to know about the better safety techniques.
McShane stated this would be held in committee for two weeks.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/28/2006, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
OTHER BUSINESS
nnrlrct innr,_u Ciirlrlon 1lalla�� Rrn��icinnal IIC�❑ 17acriccinn
Fleetwood stated he withdrew this docket item as a regular annual docket item. The
only benefit to the application is as an emergency. It may come forward as an emergency.
ADJOURN
T meeting adjourned at approximately 11:00 a.m.
]ill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShan mmittee Chair
���� o• `ems
Natural Resources Committee, 2/28/2006, Page 9