Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources November 21 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee November 21, 2006 Committee Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood None Carl Weimer Also Present: Sam Crawford Barbara Brenner L. Ward Nelson COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1. PRE - HEARING DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING A MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION ON BRECKENRIDGE ROAD (AB2006 -422) Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services, gave a staff report and described the subject site and the neighboring area. There are ten specific approval criteria in the Comprehensive Plan for designating mineral resource lands (MRUs). The Department's decision is that the proposal meets the criteria. The Planning Commission had six members in attendance at its meeting and could not get a five -vote majority. Staff recommends approval with four conditions. He read the first condition. Crawford referenced the first condition, and asked what `side` means. Aamot stated they could clarify it. There are criteria in the Comprehensive Plan. McShane asked the buffers between the property line and the mining area. Doug Goldthorp, Planning and Development Services, stated the buffer established from property lines is a site specific buffer, depending on surrounding uses and conditions. Rarely is it less than 50 feet. McShane asked if the buffer is more likely to be larger, given the residential use immediately adjacent. Goldthorp stated it is. McShane asked if that's based on County code or State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) code. Goldthorp stated the buffer is often enhanced with berm structures that are required under the DNR reclamation permit. Those are vegetated increase mitigation of potential impacts to the surrounding residential use. Aamot referenced and read finding 14. He continued to read the staff' recommended conditions. Natural Resources Committee, 11/21/2006, Page 1 Fleetwood asked for the reason for no mining on the panhandle. Aamot stated the applicant proposed it for a safety valve, if there is access difficulty in other places. It is potentially for access. The access out of the existing pit is on a hill. They don't have adequate turning radius. Trucks have to go into the other lane. There is a site distance issue. Crawford asked if MRL designation includes access and, without the panhandle, the applicant wouldn't have access. Aamot stated that hasn't been evaluated. They could make improvements that allow access. There could be mitigation to allow them to use that access. Crawford asked if they can use access in another location without being an MRL. Aamot stated it doesn't have to be designated MRL to be used for access. Crawford stated it seems strange to designate something. Aamot continued to read conditions three and four. Condition three was proposed through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process as a condition for the mitigated determination of non- significance (MDNS). The transportation planner recommended condition four. Safety is important and should be addressed in general by the rezone, and more specifically when permits are applied for at a later date. They don't know when the mining permits will be applied for and what the conditions will be at that time. The Engineering Division would work with the applicant to develop mitigating measures for safety. Weimer asked if the City of Nooksack and school district are happy with the traffic mitigation. Aamot stated they have to ask the City representative. Fleetwood asked if anything prohibits growth area (UGA). Aamot stated there is the public interest. There is a similar cri findings, finding 12. MRL designation directly adjacent to an urban iot. There are general criteria about being in erion, number seven, on page three of the Fleetwood stated it's like a loophole. They know there will be urban density there in the future. Aamot stated that in Everson, there is quite a bit of MRL adjacent to the UGA. McShane stated a purpose of MRL is to designate an area so people know they live in areas where extraction will continue in the future. Have large MRL where possible so they don't run into the problem of mining pressures immediately next to existing UGA's. Crawford stated it appears that the proposal is that the applicant will create a new access when the new MRL is opened up. He asked if the applicant would reroute the existing trucks to the new access. Also, letters refer to the expansion of the pit. He asked what pit is being expanded: Aamot stated a pit by Concrete Nor'West is in the existing MRL. The request is for an MRL expansion, so they can assume there would be continued mining operations someday. Crawford stated the proposed area looks like it will be a new pit. It looks like it will be many years before anyone would get to the new proposed area. Weimer asked about contamination of the aquifer. There isn't much discussion about how they're sure that's not going to happen. Goldthorp stated those environmental issues are discussed, reviewed, and conditioned in -depth when a project application is applied for. Natural Resources Committee, 11/21/2006, Page 2 1 Until they know what degree of mining operation is going to take place, it's difficult to 2 assess the potential impacts. Monitoring wells is a standard practice to measure 3 groundwater quality over time. The State Department of Ecology (DOE) has stringent 4 stormwater discharge rules for these types of operations. 5 6 Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 313 -- 4`h Street, Lynden, stated she represents Concrete 7 Nor'West. This proposal does meet the Comprehensive Plan designation criteria for MRL 8 designation. Allow them an opportunity to protect up to 1.7 million cubic yards for 9 Whatcom County's future use. The Whatcom County study done four years ago concluded 10 that they are short in mineral resources. The study pointed to this area as one of the three 11 that may have future potential high quality aggregate. The MRL designation protects the 12 resource. It does not provide a right to mine or an opportunity to do mining unless and 13 until permits are applied for and received. Specific concerns will be addressed during the 14 permitting stage, later in the process, when and if an application comes forward. Oversight 15 and permitting is required locally and from the State. SEPA would be completed for any 16 project specific action that would be proposed later. 17 18 Issues came up at the Planning Commission. One issue is the pipeline near the site. 19 The pipeline doesn't run through the expanded MRL area. If access were used from the 20 existing access, Concrete Nor'West will comply with the pipeline company on any safety 21 measures necessary. 22 23 A second issue is the school. The school submitted a letter, but didn't participate in 24 the hearing. Their concern was that traffic not go past the school. Now, the current access 25 road does not direct traffic past the school. The proposed access would route the traffic in 26 front of the school. The applicant knows that isn't ideal. They would use all measures 27 possible to continue to use the existing access to keep traffic away from the school. 28 29 The two -acre parcel was included in the MRL request for access purposes because 30 Whatcom County's policy about access has fluctuated over the years. The only interest of 31 the applicant is insuring a backup access in the event there is a regulatory issue with the 32 existing access. The applicant is committed to complying with all regulations, but they don't 33 know what will happen in the future. They are comfortable with a restriction on the two 34 acres indicating that it will not be used for access unless the current access can't be used 35 because of governmental regulation. 36 37 The City of Nooksack is concerned about the existing access. They want the traffic 38 rerouted. The applicant, to come up with a project specific proposal, would need to review 39 the specifics of that access for mitigating conditions. There have been some improvements 40 at the intersection of Breckenridge Road with State Route 9. Those improvements don't 41 meet with the State Department of Transportation (DOT) standards. The DOT isn't sure 42 how that happened. That level of detail would need to be explored to offset some of those 43 concerns. 44 45 They recognize that this is close to an urban growth area. The County requested 46 that the City update its codes on buffers and platting. It doesn't appear that the City of 47 Nooksack has taken the initiative to bring those codes forward, but it would help in the 48 process. The expanded site moves farther away from the UGA area. 49 50 The application fits in with the 158 -acre area already set aside for mineral 51 protection. The neighborhood is already familiar with the use. The material is high quality. 52 Allowing the additional MRL will round out the deposit and allow them to cut down on the 53 setbacks from the existing MRL areas. The area between the current and proposed MRL Natural Resources Committee, 11/21/2006, Page 3 would no longer need to be maintained for setbacks. All setback issues are dealt with when a project permit comes forward. Access was the biggest issue at the Planning Commission. There isn't a way to address the concerns of the City now. They don't know what will happen when permits are submitted. It would be best to take staff's work, and allow input based on the conditions at the time. The City just located a truck facility right off the same intersection where they indicate that the truck traffic could pose a problem. This is not an expansion of a mine. It's an expansion of the MRL. At this point, the majority of the property within the 150 -acre MRL is already permitted. A good mitigating measure in addition to staff's recommendation is to indicate that the two -acre site be only open to access if regulatory agencies prevent the current access. Brenner asked if the property will be restored before the pit is moved to another side. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated they would have to complete mining on a given side, which includes restoration. Brenner asked if they have approached the school district with ideas for the amendment. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the amendment does away with their concern. They were sent a copy of her letter to the Council yesterday. Fleetwood asked if restoration is the same as reclamation. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated it essentially is. Fleetwood stated the topic of reclamation always comes up in these conversations, but restoration never seems to occur. He asked how the applicant is legally bound to do reclamation. Starken burg -Kroontje stated a lot of the sites now were permitted under the old DNR standards, which is why they don't see a lot of reclamation now. The reclamation statute was updated by the State legislature because of that concern. Any reclamation permits that are updated or new reclamation permits, which this would include, have to meet the current standard. Phasing is required. It must be no more than eight acres. Five to eight acres is considered an optimal working area. Once more acres are opened, used areas have to be reclaimed. Now, the level of detail and oversight required includes DNR staff walking the site to regulate the phased areas. The DNR dramatically increased the bonding amount per acre. There is an incentive for the older sites to be reclaimed. It's extremely costly for new areas to be opened. The new regulations have been in place since 1993. Fleetwood asked if there are any examples in Whatcom County of a fully restored site. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated there are several sites that have been reclaimed, including sites that are farmed again. However, no sites have been reclaimed since the new regulations. She would bring that information to the Council. Roland Harper, Sehome Planning, City of Nooksack Planner, stated the City would like to see certain things attended to if this happens, including the safety of the students at the elementary school and of the residents, due to impacts to City streets. Out of the six planning commissioners who were there, four members agreed to support the City of Nooksack request that access to the expanded site be required by way of Sorenson Road, to the northeast of the additional area. That would eliminate the trucks near the school and through the city streets. Include that as a requirement. A question asked was what would happen to the existing access if this was permitted. They have to get the entire area permitted, and the access would likely all be shifted to Sorenson Road if that were required. Natural Resources Committee, 11/21/2006, Page 4 1 2 McShane stated there seems to be a right -of -way east of the proposed MRL. Harper 3 -stated it is a DOT right -of -way for a Highway 9 corridor realignment. There was a County 4 right -of -way that crosses that State highway. The DOT couldn't give a definitive answer 5 about whether one could or could not get across that highway right -of -way. 6 7 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 8 9 Harper continued to state that if the County and City support getting across that 10 right -of -way, they would look into it. 11 12 Weimer stated there was discussion about the UGA touching the proposed MRL area. 13 He asked if the City is concerned. Harper stated there is no room to argue it because it's 14 not a developed area. However, if the UGA were already developed, it would be in conflict 15 with that policy. 16 17 Weimer asked if the MRL that close changes the amount of density the City could 18 accept. Harper stated he didn't think so. The County will be diligent about the buffering 19 requirements. If the County sees that it's a good spot for it, the City will work with the 20 County to get it buffered appropriately. Other property owners attended the Planning 21 Commission meeting. To the east of the State right -of -way, there are a number of small 22 urban sized properties. 23 24 There are a couple of policies that relate to this. Policy 8P talks about designating 25 these areas to achieve a certain number of things. The staff has looked at achieving a 26 distribution throughout the county. The same policy also says they want to locate these 27 things in a way to reduce future land use conflicts and balance the designations with other 28 competing uses. The school is a competing use with the access. The City of Nooksack is a 29 competing use. Expanding the existing pit is a foreseeable outcome of this action, and it 30 must be considered. If it's going to be done, do it in a way to protect the children and 31 Nooksack residents. 32 33 As an alternative to Sorenson Road, consider adding a condition that provides for 34 mitigation of impacts to the City of Nooksack streets. He doesn't know whether that will be 35 required in the County process. There have been significant impacts to the City streets, on 36 Madison Street. The traffic analysis says the applicant anticipate that the truck traffic will 37 increase to 200 truck trips per day. He appreciates the County's work with mitigation. He 38 has concerns with site distance and the fact that the trucks now go out of their lane and into 39 the oncoming lane and pedestrian lane. That would absolutely have to be taken care of. 40 41 McShane asked about wear and tear on Madison Street. Harper stated it is a current 42 issue now, with the existing truck traffic. Even when the school was built, the pit was 43 relatively dormant. 44 45 The interlocal agreement between the County and City of Nooksack doesn't require 46 the City to change its own zoning to accommodate adjacent mineral resource lands. 47 48 McShane asked about the direction of long -term future growth of the city of 49 Nooksack. Harper stated it depends on the Council. Nooksack, like a lot of other cities, is 50 in a tough spot by being surrounded by agriculture. The area to the east is up out of the 51 flood plain and is not agricultural. That seems to be the logical direction to grow. 52 Natural Resources Committee, 1112112006, Page 5 Fleetwood asked if the Nooksack UGA is divided into short-term and long -term areas. Harper stated it is. He indicated the locations on the map. The northeast UGA area is in the short-term UGA. They received and processed an annexation request last year, but the City Council decided to not pursue that annexation, to support infill in the existing city limits first. Had the Council been different, that could have come forward. Fleetwood asked about the buffer and sound barrier, and the standards they use to determine a sufficient sound barrier. Goldthorp stated there are State standards that the County adopted for the Optimum amount of noise measured at the receiving property line. It depends on the type of use producing the noise. In this instance, it's 60 decibels. The berm structure is required to mitigate the noise to be less than that. Fleetwood asked if a neighboring development would be able to hear that noise level. Goldthorp stated it can be heard, but not considered a nuisance by State standards. McShane moved to recommend that this issue be sent back to the committee for further discussion after the public hearing before the full Council at this evening's meeting. Motion carried unanimously. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PRESERVATION OF WHATCOM COUNTY'S AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, & NATURAL RESOURCE LAND BASE (AB2006- 203) Kraig Olason, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted a handout of a presentation on the proposed agricultural work program (on file). He read the presentation. Nelson asked if they are looking at just the land for agriculture protection, or if they are looking at uses also. Olason stated the Advisory Committee went through a process to look at areas adjacent to heavily used agricultural areas. Those are the areas most convenient to the agriculture base. Soils were important, but there are good agriculture soils throughout the county that aren't always farmed. They looked also at land use, creating additional buffering, and potential long -term value. Nelson stated understand the criteria for identifying those areas for agricultural protection areas. Olason stated he has that criteria, which has been consistently applied. Brenner stated she's not optimistic about purchases of development rights (PDR's) and transfers of development rights (TDR's) because of what the County has spent so far. She hasn't seen a good- working PDR or TDR program from anywhere. It's not the size of the lot, it's how the lot is used. Have something about how the property is designed for non - agricultural related footprints. Olason stated that is included in the agriculture protection overlay (APO) proposal, in terms of siting. There is draft language about where to put residential structures on a lot. He continued to read the presentation on the general timeline of tasks and activities. The items scheduled between now and June 2007 are things they can do now at a low cost. The items after that will create a long -term management expense. Weigh it against the benefit of a TDR program. A feasibility study will be useful to help factor in what they will Natural Resources Committee, 11/21/2006, Page 6 get for all the effort. If they work, they require a lot of care and feeding. He continued to read the presentation on the general timeline of tasks and activities. The last group of tasks and activities is about implementation. Look at whether or not they can get decent information from other counties by observing what they're up to. Fleetwood stated work on getting the commodity up to a level so the farmer doesn't covert the land seems to be missing. O[ason stated that was brought up in May, and the Council decided not to focus on it because other groups were working on that issue, and the County should work on land use issues first. Fleetwood asked how they make farming pay, locally. McShane stated this program is more of a resource protection approach. The Economic Development Chapter of the County Comprehensive Plan emphasizes that concern. The County Council made sure there is a forestry representative and agriculture representative on the Economic Development Investment (EDT) Board. There are activities for value -added efforts. Those are covered under that approach, not what they're doing here. That concern is not being forgotten. Olason continued to read the presentation on the work flow. A technical review committee would provide the majority of the detailed work. Brenner asked if staff or the public sector would be on the technical review committee. Olason stated include agricultural representatives, agriculture business representatives, and building and land use representatives. It would be a working group that is representative of the community, with an agriculture focus. Have people who are knowledgeable about agriculture from the business side and people with some real estate or development background. Brenner asked if those people are all on the Agricultural Advisory Committee. Olason stated they are, but the level of effort on top of the Agricultural Advisory Committee may be too much. Make a decision on the level of public process they want to go through, and devise a list of appropriate technical advisory committee members to appoint. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Olason continued to state that it takes more time than they have. They need to get some folks who can spend time on it. Fleetwood asked if the proposed labor force is three FTE's, plus $60,000 to $80,000 for the consultant, and if the 2007/2008 budget supports it. Olason stated the budget supports the senior planner, assistant planner, and part-time help. He assumes he can get GIS assistance. McShane stated this item would be held in committee. OTHER PUSINESS There was no other business. Natural Resources Committee, 11/21/2006, Page 7 1 2 ADJOURN 3 4 The meeting adjourned at 11:08 a.m. 5 7 8 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 9 10 11 ATTEST: 12 `,��N� nrry�i 13 ��` '� C 411,1 14 goo go 15 16 17 Dgna rowFbD*ri.,j,.Cour it F-lerk y STATE OF ` •.,;rylN G .• WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dan McShane, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 11/21/2005, Page 8