Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources February 20 20011 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee February 20, 2001 The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Dan McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Also Present: L. Ward Nelson Connie Hoag Absent: None COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS (AB2001 -041) Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated an ordinance was adopted last year that established three factors that the Council would consider when initiating amendments. They relate to whether the amendment is in an urban growth area, a designated agricultural, forestry, or mineral resource land, and whether a future date is set for examining the issue. He put together a chart of the amendments. For each item, he would address those three criteria. There are maps of each of the areas. 2001 K MRL - BIRCH BAY LYNDEN ROAD Aamot stated this does not involve an urban growth area or any resources lands, and there is an action item in the Comprehensive Plan to review the mineral resource lands (MRL) designations within seven years, by the year 2004. That comment will apply to all of these applications. There is a future date to take a comprehensive look countywide at these things. There are 37 acres in a rural area. The first map is an aerial photo from 1998. There is a power line on the southern portion of the property. There are some residences in the area. It is in a rural zoning district. The owners received a conditional use permit (CUP) to mine three acres on the northern end of the property. They have another CUP application in to mine another three acres. It has not yet been granted. The second map shows the designated resources lands. There are none for this item. There are some agricultural soils. The third map shows aquifer recharge areas and wetlands. It is in an aquifer recharge area. Doug Goldthorp said that is common in areas with mineral resources. There are no wetlands on the site. The site doesn't have steep slopes or major pipelines. The last map shows the MRA2 areas mapped from the mineral resource area background study from 1994, which shows high sand and gravel content. They also have a draft state Department of Natural Resource (DNR) study Natural Resources Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 of aggregate resources that is mapped. According to both studies, the general area has mineral resources. It is a high sand content area. Hoag questioned what was coming out of the pit before. Aamot stated he thought it was sand. McShane stated there was significant mining in that area in the 1960's for I- 5. It is not in a wellhead protection area. Nelson moved to recommend this item to the full Council. Hoag stated there are no areas of concern, and it was mined in the past. However, the Agricultural Advisory Committee asked the Council to defer any decision until a comprehensive review of the mineral resources land is done. The purpose of the MRL's is to make sure that adequate resources are identified, so it may be more appropriate to do that in a comprehensive review rather than looking at these one at a time. She had no opposition to this, but it may be more appropriate to do it as an overall review. McShane stated that there is residential housing in the vicinity, and it is not a high quality deposit. They are in the process of looking at MRL's in that type of setting with a committee that was created to look at how the MRL's should be operated and the reclamation that should be done. This is an area that will create lake areas if it is mined. The groundwater is shallow in the area. It may be a good area for mining, but this may not be the year to do it. Nelson stated the only way to get good information is to designate it as a Comprehensive Plan amendment to provide the opportunity to ask these pertinent questions. They can get comments from experts and also from the community. A second guess ahead of time would not be fair to the applicants to say it's not time now, but maybe later. If the applicant wants to submit this to the process, this is the process. It is appropriate to move this forward unless there are outstanding issues that they all can see. Hoag asked if there are houses around the site. Aamot stated there is a gun club to the east and a new short plat going in to the west. There is some residential development to the west and the east, past the gun club. Dawson stated she heard a reference to an inventory of the resources that already occurred. McShane stated the DNR did an inventory. The question now is whether it is adequate. Aamot stated he has a draft from DNR. They are close to having a final draft. The Surface Mining Advisory Committee (SMAC) intends to have Western Washington University professor review and make recommendations for completeness or further study. The County Council would have to decide if they Natural Resources Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 need more study and detail. That aggregate study is an action item in the Comprehensive Plan. Hoag stated she liked to have that draft study discussed in committee while it is still in draft form, to comment on any concerns. Until they know what the study was based on, what the parameters were, and what the study did and didn't look at, they don't know whether the conclusion is valid. It is appropriate to review the study as a draft, especially if they are talking about using the study as the study that the Council will use to fulfill the Comprehensive Plan. Aamot stated the DNR is trying to finalize the study now. They just have some geographic information system (GIS) work to do. He'd heard about different due dates. Hoag asked if there has been a public comment period. Aamot stated no. McShane stated it is not a public comment type document. It is a study. They laid out the assumptions they made in their evaluation. The draft was clear about what they are looking at. Regardless of a countywide perception of whether there is as shortage, there isn't a lot of resource in this area of the county. It is mostly sand. There is a limit in that portion of the county. The Council might need to tweak how it looks at MRL's in that part of the County. Hoag asked to schedule the DNR study for the next Natural Resources Committee. McShane stated he would schedule it in the future, but maybe not the next meeting. He would like the draft to be discussed in the SMAC and with Scott Babcock, who is going to review it. Hoag stated she wanted to look at it before it is final because they are talking about incorporating it into the Comprehensive Plan requirement. That gravel study is something she's been pushing for a year to budget. The County has not done it. It is due by May of next year. She is concerned that it needs to be done thoroughly and to designate adequate resources. She was concerned about protecting the prime farmland. Don't rush it through. Motion failed 1 -2 with Nelson in favor. 2001 L MRL - E. POLE ROAD Aamot stated this is a proposal in the agricultural zone to create an agricultural /MRL study area for 130 acres. There has been some mining done on the site on the eastern end. Doug Golthorp indicated that mining was done and is in the process of reclamation. The applicants applied for three acres as agricultural enhancement. It is not in a UGA. It does involve designated agricultural lands. There is a future date when it is to be looked at for countywide MRL's in 2004. Agricultural soils are present. Most of the site, except an area to the north, has agricultural Natural Resources Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 soils. It is in an aquifer recharge area. Fountain Lake is to the northwest. Wetlands are there. Buffers encroach slightly on the site, but not much. There are no pipelines or steep slopes. This is on the MRA2 map and the DNR map. The site is entirely in the MRA2 area. Most of the site is in the DNR study area listed as a significant resource. Hoag asked if the resource is mostly sand. Aamot stated it is. Dawson questioned the slope. McShane stated the land is fairly flat, with a drop off. Dawson questioned the area that was mined before. Aamot stated the area is in the northeastern section. Nelson asked the difference between a designated MRL area and an MRL study area. Aamot stated the phrase "agricultural /MRL study area" only appears one time in the Comprehensive Plan, in criteria 12. It doesn't give much guidance on designating agricultural /MRL study areas. It only says that, within five years of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, they can designate these areas in the county. Once the aggregate study is done, it is determined that there is a shortage of aggregate, and they need to go into the agricultural areas, then they can make these areas MRL's. The site would not qualify now for an MRL because of the prime soils. Nelson asked if mining was done on the Pole Road on the other side. Aamot stated there were several mining activities in that area. They were agricultural sites that had done reclamation. He went to one on the south side of Pole Road where farmer removed a hill. The farmer was Mr. Vanwierdhuizen. They are farming that area now. Nelson stated a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) concern was about losing agricultural land. That is extreme when looking at restoration projects. There is some argument about whether or not they are the same quality of agricultural lands as before. He questioned whether this is a project similar to others that are proposed. Aamot stated they are proposing to make this an MRL study area, not just a normal agricultural enhancement as a conditional use. Nelson asked if they could make it part of the conditional use. Aamot stated it could probably be a condition. Hoag stated they would not need to make it an MRL if all they were doing was agricultural enhancement. Aamot stated agricultural enhancement can be done on a three acre site right now. Hoag stated the requirements for agricultural enhancement are different than for an MRL. If the applicant was trying to do what Mr. Vanwierdhuizen did, they would not ask for an MRL. Natural Resources Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 4 1 2 Nelson stated questioned whether there is a way to condition it for 3 restoration if they are in an area where mineral resources are necessary and the 4 Council agrees to this. Aamot stated they could do a concomitant rezone condition. 5 In the past, they've done rezones for commercial sites, for example, with 6 concomitant agreement to upgrade the road. 7 8 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, agreed. 9 10 Hoag asked what kind of agricultural soil is on the site. Aamot stated he 11 would have to research it. 12 13 McShane stated it is Lynden sandy loam. 14 15 Hoag stated that when they went through the Comprehensive Plan process 16 and designated MRL's, there were two MRL's in prime farmland. The Planning 17 Commission had a criterion that said there would be no MRL's in prime farmland. A 18 compromise was worked out where those two who applied were designated as 19 agricultural study areas and were put off until the study was completed, within five 20 years of the Comprehensive Plan. She never heard any discussion of designating 21 other MRL's as agricultural study areas. It was just for those two. She asked how 22 deep they are currently mining. Aamot stated Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje would 23 comment on that. 24 25 Hoag asked if they have a plan on how deep they plan to mine. Also, 26 regarding restoration, she studied the items turned in during the Comprehensive 27 Plan process by the mineral industry showing the restoration sites. She called each 28 of the farmers who owned those spots and asked what the mining and reclamation 29 consisted of. Three out of the four presented had not gone into the subsurface at 30 all. They simply scalped. They hadn't gone more than 10 to 15 feet deep. One 31 went 20 feet deep. The reclamation had been so poor that they couldn't even grow 32 grass. They had to grow corn because it could be cut off at a height that wouldn't 33 interfere with the machinery. She also spoke with Mr. Vanwierdhuizen, who is 34 growing grass and corn. Grass and corn don't require prime agricultural soils. She 35 asked the Council to consider whether the soil could produce what it did before it 36 was mined. Experts testified during the comprehensive planning process that no 37 one can reclaim to agricultural purposes. Getting the soils back to what they were 38 would cost more than what was put in to it. They reclaim to lakes, quarries, or 39 amphitheaters, not agriculture. It's important to protect the agricultural soils. 40 41 Aamot stated agricultural area mines in Abottsford had different opinions 42 about reclaiming. There was quite a bit of discussion on that issue. 43 44 Hoag stated that a farm up there received an award because it had the best 45 reclamation. However, the farmer doesn't even use the field anymore because the 46 soils are so poor, and berries won't grow on it. The point is whether or not the soil 47 can do what it did before. 48 Natural Resources Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 5 1 Nelson stated the earth takes time to heal, similar to surgery on a person. 2 Being judgmental about reclamation one or two years after it is done is premature. 3 One of his concerns was with the mineral resources standards and what is 4 available. There are only certain areas where they can withdraw mineral resources. 5 Agriculture and timber are also resources. They want to preserve agriculture. He 6 assumed that the applicant came from a farmer, who is proposing this as his 7 resource to use in this fashion. He understood Councilmember Hoag's loyalty to 8 agriculture, but they have to look at the needs of the agricultural community and 9 the general community. Recognize that some of these people are making economic 10 decisions. These resources are available in these areas. They have lesser impacts 11 than in the urban areas or geological hazardous areas. He hoped the Council would 12 keep an open mind to allow these processes to go through and explore all the 13 options and all of the questions in an objective fashion. 14 15 Dawson stated that one of the most famous restored areas is the Buchart 16 Gardens. 17 18 McShane stated he has the same reasoning for this application as the 19 previous application. He agreed with most of Councilmember Nelson's comments, 20 but they need to create a means of evaluating whether or not these are good ideas. 21 They don't have that currently. They will be asking the Planning Commission to 22 evaluate whether or not it falls into that category. 23 24 Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, attorney, stated she spoke on behalf of the 25 Hardys. This application is unique. It is not an application for an MRL. It is 26 different than the other applications because it is only a Comprehensive Plan 27 request. It doesn't involve a change of zoning. If there is a change in zoning, it 28 means that those sites could move forward through a permitting process. This site 29 is a few steps further removed from it. 30 31 When the Comprehensive Plan was set up, they set up the MRL designation 32 areas. In order to be in a designated area, they have to meet the designation 33 criteria. For agricultural zones, the Council said it would allow bumping out the 34 boundary to make the MRL square or round if it is adjacent to an MRL and there are 35 prime soils. If one is not adjacent to an MRL and would not make the MRL square, 36 then it would be an agriculture /MRL study area if there are prime agricultural soils. 37 One site was placed into the agricultural /MRL study area when the Comprehensive 38 Plan was adopted in 1997. There was no language about whether or not other sites 39 would be added, but it is clear that the agriculture /MRL study area is a designated 40 area on the Comprehensive Plan map. The agriculture /MRL study area only allows 41 the area to be recognized as a study area. At the time the County completes its 42 study, then individual sites may be designated as agricultural /MRL areas. The 43 applicant has to demonstrate at that time that the estimated extraction activity 44 would be in the best interest of the county based on different criteria. It also says 45 that the permitting of this activity needs to be overseen by the County because it 46 requires restoration to productive agricultural capacities comparable to previous 47 levels. They could argue all day long about whether reclamation is successful, but 48 that isn't the question that they are presented with at this meeting. The question is Natural Resources Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 whether this site is an appropriate area to study. If it is an appropriate area to study, then the applicant will have to come back and show that their site meets these criteria to be designated agricultural /MRL when the study is complete. If the site is designated as agriculture /MRL, then any project activity would have to be reclaimed to comparable capacities to previous levels. That is a lot of tests that someone has to meet. She asked the Hardys the point of putting their land into the agriculture /MRL study area since the County had not completed its study. At that point, they looked at the DNR study being done in late spring. She called the Planning Department. Planning Manager Sylvia Goodwin stated that the applicant wouldn't be lost in the system. They could become a study area and be studied. The reason this is an appropriate area is because there has been extraction activity on the site. The Hardys have been happy with the reclamation to date. There is a host of DNR permitted surface mines to the east of this site. Those sites are all required to be reclaimed to agriculture as well. That is part of the reason that area wasn't looked at as regular MRL. The Hardys have an application in at this time for a three -acre removal of a ridge. Right now, there is debate going on about the ridge. The County has taken the position, through the Hearing Examiner process, that the CUP should be limited to three acres. The Hardys said they wanted to look for another avenue to lower the topography level of the field and get closer to the water table. That is the reason for this request. The site that was permitted through a CUP was prior to the County's knoll and ridge removal conditional use requirements. It is finishing up. The greatest depth mined was to 20 feet. The topography of this site is that there is a large slope coming up from the north. It tapers off. They want to create a level field from Pole Road to the back of property. The work would not take place until the County finishes that comprehensive aggregate study and determines that it would enter into any agricultural areas. At that point, they would have to determine if the site was appropriate. The deposit has a lot of sand. They would screen the sand from the gravel. The sites further east become more gravelly. From their early removals, it is evident that the south end of the Hardy property was more gravelly. Nelson asked what they are using the property for. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated it is used for farming. They have cows and grass crops. Mr. Hardy wants to look at corn for the area he reclaimed previously. They have not been successful in any other crop. Dawson asked the depth of the aquifer in the area. Starkenburg- Kroontje stated Mr. Hardy says the highest point in the county is one of the ridges on his property. The water level for one well is 26 feet and for another is 30 feet under the surface. Natural Resources Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Nelson asked if he would tap into the water table at 20 feet. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated it would be above the water table. McShane asked how close they could get to the water table. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated they can create two irrigation ponds on the other site. Other than those irrigation ponds, the limit is five feet above the water table. McShane asked how big the ponds could be. Sta rken burg- Kroontje stated she thought two acres each. Hoag stated wells don't usually end at the water table. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated she was talking about the water level in the well. Hoag asked if Mr. Hardy has tried other crops besides corn. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated that the reclaimed area is in its second growing season. That is what he tried. He hasn't had success on other areas of the farm. She didn't know what other attempts he's made. Hoag stated that is odd since it's prime agricultural soil. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated that Mr. Hardy is too far above the water table for irrigation. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Aamot stated there is not a lot of information in the Comprehensive Plan about the study area. He asked if the study was the countywide study of aggregates, or if the Hardys would study this particular site. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated a site can be designated an agriculture /MRL study area. They cannot change its designation until the County finishes its study. When the County completes the countywide study, each site that wanted to be designated as an agricultural /MRL would complete the tests of criteria (A) through (G) in an effort to be designated an agricultural MRL. The Hardys could do nothing until the County finished its plan. If the County felt a need to go into the agricultural areas, then the Hardys could present information that they are an appropriate site. This gives the Hardys a recognition that they are out there. Aamot asked if they would provide a site - specific study. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated they would when they wanted to into the agriculture /MRL area. Hoag stated it didn't sound like there was a transition study in between. She asked about the requirement. Starkenburg - Kroontje read from Comprehensive Plan. Roger Ellingson, attorney for City of Sumas, stated they are concerned about this and the other MRL applications in agricultural zones and prime farmland soils. This area has Kickerville loam, which is identical to those found in the area near Sumas and over the top of the Sumas aquifer recharge area. Sumas is concerned Natural Resources Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 about the precedent setting nature of this proposal. It is also a waste of time. A request for a designation as an MRL study area doesn't accomplish much. The only thing it accomplishes is that it is not lost in the system. He didn't think that accomplishes anything. It sets a precedent and lays the roadway for an approval as an MRL designation site before the comprehensive aggregate study is done. Criterion 12 in the Comprehensive Plan is a long way from that. The study involves a public process. The SMAC said that there is a new study not incorporated by the DNR study, done by Dr. Easterbrook and another fellow. It shows substantial resources in two areas in the county. It needs to be incorporated into the DNR study at a minimum. The SMAC also approved a motion to forward a request to the County Council to do a less than full -blown study in the eastern quadrant portion of the county, including the Hardy area. Until the studies are complete, it is premature to do agricultural issues. There is no threat that they are going to run out of construction quality aggregate in the next ten years. There is no reason to rush to judgement on these issues. Wait until the studies are done, as the chair of the Agriculture Advisory Committee suggested. Criterion number 12 has strong language. He read it into the record. This Council needs to have much evidence beyond what it has as to whether the mined lands can be reclaimed and whether that is economically viable. Experts agree that farms' viability for growing a wide variety of crops is destroyed. It is not cheap to mine in agricultural areas. A County ordinance has extensive requirements. It's more appropriate for soil scientists than for farmers or gravel miners to be doing. Chapter two of Comprehensive Plan does not include a mineral resource land study area designation. He was not sure what criteria to apply. The entire county is being studied. He didn't know what is going to happen if they are designated a study area. When the applicant comes back for a zoning change is when the applicant has to prove that the criteria are complied with. Those criteria go beyond what that simple site could do. They will have to address how the mining will be allowed in agricultural zones. It better be reclaimed. They would like to do it all at once. The farming community deserves the chance to provide the Council with some good, scientific evidence. Then, the Council will make the political decision. There is no reason for this case, or the other cases in the agricultural zone, to push these through. Wait until the studies are in. Mr. Hardy is farming the site as a dairy right now. That dairy farm is clearly failing. He has done the mining on the property to rob Peter to pay Paul. It has kept his dairy farm alive. He didn't just move in there. He was born there. His father bought the land. It is an old farm. From the condition of the farm, Mr. Hardy is not living a luxurious life. He is barely getting by. That means that all the royalties from the gravel is going into the farm to keep it going. Now, he is bringing forward a proposal that is going to destroy the family farm. Hoag asked about the criterion about restoring soils to comparable levels. Ellingson stated that "comparable" means equal to or exceeding previous levels, according to the dictionary. He was not sure whether criteria (A) through (G) would override any comparable language. Natural Resources Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 9 1 Hoag stated the criteria doesn't require that the soil be brought up to the 2 level it was previously. She questioned whether agricultural capacity is the same 3 thing as soil potential. Ellingson stated that the Council would make that call. If it 4 is appealed, it will be the court's call. 5 6 Hoag questioned whether a lake is acceptable as an agricultural zone use. 7 Ellingson stated the Council would determine what it means, and then it would be 8 subject to a legal challenge if any parties disagree. 9 10 Hoag stated she was concerned that people are left with the perception that 11 it has to be farmed when reclaimed, when the reality is that it might be a lake. 12 13 Dawson stated she was concerned that this is going to be a shallow area, 14 knowing that dairy farms and fertilizers can contaminate aquifers. 15 16 Darlene DelBoca, 7208 Lankhaar Road, stated she is an adjacent property 17 owner and did a mini -cost benefit analysis. Using the information they have, the 18 aquifer is at 26 to 30 feet below the surface. There are 130 proposed acres. If the 19 applicant is going to do what the industry claims is good management to stay 5 feet 20 above the water level, then they would excavate 21 feet of material. The volume of 21 the deposit would be 33,880 cubic yards. Van Boven had been doing some mining 22 of his farm, and was getting $.50 per cubic yard for the sand they were taking out. 23 Farmers have said they are grossing $20,000 per acre per year. This property has 24 class two soils. There are no class one soils in Whatcom County. This is the best 25 soil in the county. The owner grows mixed crops. 26 27 Nelson stated $20,000 is an exceptionally good income. 28 29 McShane stated the total is $2 million for the gravel and $2.6 million per year 30 for the agricultural use. 31 32 DelBoca stated the farmer could get $2.6 million per year from an 33 agricultural use. The mining sequence that is proposed these days is on a three - 34 year basis. The loss in production and in income for that acreage is astounding. 35 The cost of the reclamation, the water table risks, road impacts, and the 36 surrounding impacts have not been factored in. There are a number of young local 37 people who want to go into farming. There is an opportunity for a transition into a 38 farm rather than a mined out area to continue farming for generations. This is 39 similar to environmental accounting. One of the best things the Council can do is 40 help the farmers who are facing hard times due to world policy to make transitions 41 to other viable enterprises. 42 43 Dave Ernst, 7208 Lankhaar Road, stated he would discuss the fundamentals 44 of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan, in its goals and policies, 45 places agriculture as the primary thing to be preserved if there is going to be a 46 competition between agriculture and mining. In addition, policy 8L -1 requires 47 mining to enhance farming and that the mined land must be restored. Those two 48 words are not defined in the Comprehensive Plan or the zoning ordinance. The Natural Resources Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 10 1 definition in the dictionary is clear that "enhancing" makes it better and "restoring" 2 is to a previous use. If they were following the goals and policies of the 3 Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act (GMA), it would be necessary 4 to restore this to some sort of farming and to its soil capability. Lakes are not 5 something considered as farmable land. It also has to enhance that soil in the 6 mining process. That means the land has to be better. They should not mine in 7 the agricultural zone or in prime agricultural soil areas. 8 9 They have to find a better way to notify people who are involved in the 10 process. He hasn't seen any effort to do that. The Comprehensive Plan says that 11 the County must do that. 12 13 He is also concerned with enforcement. He's lived with the Hardy pit since 14 1986. The people have failed to follow the CUP. He was promised last summer 15 that it would be closed by the end of 2000. It is still there and operating. They 16 may not be actively mining it now, but they still have trucks there and are still 17 taking sand out. Since last June, he's had no definitive response to a long letter 18 listing complaints about each area of concern. There is a photograph of the areas 19 of his concern. They are required to be 50 feet from a property line, but the photo 20 shows they are mining right up to the property line. That is a minor point. He 21 questioned how the Council could continue to let the agricultural zone be degraded. 22 The County can't do any better when the neighbor notifies the County of a 23 violation. They pass laws, and then don't enforce them. They might as well not 24 have any laws. Also, a 9:30 a.m. meeting is too early. They can't get all their 25 chores done before coming to the meeting. 26 27 Hoag stated she didn't want agriculture to die, which is why she defends it 28 and why the County needs to look carefully at what it's doing with the agricultural 29 soils. Agriculture cannot survive without agricultural soils. They've put together an 30 Agricultural Advisory Committee because farmers were complaining that the Council 31 was making decisions that affected them without their input. The Agricultural 32 Advisory Committee asked the Council to defer this item. If the Council wants to 33 help farmers, then do what the Agricultural Advisory Committee requested. She 34 agreed with Mr. Ellingson that this is premature. The Comprehensive Plan says that 35 they need to prove there is an overriding need to mine before they encroach upon 36 agricultural lands. It is a waste of time to designate an agriculture /MRL study area 37 at this time. It does put someone's foot in the door, which is why the applicant is 38 applying for it. 39 40 Nelson stated he recognized Councilmember Hoag's desire to protect 41 agriculture. He also recognized that people's lives are affected and they are trying 42 to survive economically. He was encouraged to hear that someone is grossing 43 $20,000 per acre. He did not know what the net profit is. If they can move in the 44 direction where agriculture can survive, he would support it adamantly. In the 45 meantime, he didn't want to become myopic and ignore that there are people who 46 are trying to survive out there. They have to look at all alternatives to protect all 47 resources, and use those resources to the best advantage. He didn't think he Natural Resources Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 agreed with Councilmember Hoag and had many questions about this. He had a problem with the way the agriculture /MRL study area is being interpreted. Goodwin stated this came forward as an application. The Council has to decide whether or not to put it on the docket. If it is not docketed this year, the applicant could apply next year. The Comprehensive Policy says that the areas can be designated as an agriculture /MRL study area for only five years from the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. If it is not added as a study area this year, it cannot be added as a study area next year because it would be after five years. It still could be studied and added as an agricultural MRL later if the resource study shows a shortage of gravel. Nothing in the Comprehensive Plan prohibits going from an agricultural area to an agricultural /MRL area if there is a shortage of gravel outside of the agricultural area. That has yet to be determined. Hoag stated the reason for the study areas had to do with the pending proposals at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The Comprehensive Plan took those proposals and tied them to the same timeline as the study. The intent was to do the study to determine whether those proposals would be denied or allowed to apply for status as an agriculture /MRL area. Doing this accomplishes nothing except wasting staff time and money. She moved to recommend denial of the item. Nelson stated he would abstain because he has more questions. The applications came to the Council without much information. Material is still coming in on them. He could support a motion to move forward with no recommendation. Goodwin stated there is no reason that the Council has to take action at the evening meeting. They could defer the decision until the next Council meeting in two weeks. There is not a big hurry. Aamot stated the application materials are on file in the Council Office. It was too large for staff to make copies for all councilmembers. Motion to recommend denial carried 2 -0 -1 with Nelson abstaining. 2001 M MRL - MINAKER ROAD Aamot stated it is a proposed MRL for 20 acres on Minaker Road. There is an MRL existing to the north. It is not in a UGA or in a designated resources land area. There is a date set to examine this in the future. It is in an R10A zone area. The Sumas River is Ya mile to the northwest. It has agricultural soils. There are no wetlands on the site. It is in an aquifer recharge area. There are pipelines in the area. Cascade Natural Gas has a 16 -inch high - pressure pipeline that goes through a part of the proposed MRL. There are also three pipelines immediately to the east near the subject property. The MRL to the north was set back a certain distance from the pipelines. Only one of the pipelines goes through the property. Natural Resources Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Hoag asked if the existing MRL has three pipelines going through it. Aamot stated there was a proposal last year to extend the MRL to the northeast. The Council did not initiate that request because of the pipeline issue. Aamot continued to state that it is in the MR2 classifications and DNR significant sand and gravel study. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Aamot continued to state that there is mixed sand and gravel. Hoag questioned why the applicant would do this. Debra Benner, 4406 Minaker Road, stated there is already a gravel pit in their backyard, and the land bordering it isn't much use for residential. In 1994, she started a short -plat procedure. The area is great high quality sand and gravel. There is already a pit in the area. If there is a need for the resource, it makes more sense to stay within what is already there. If the Council is looking for sand and gravel resources, it is better to stay in the area and expand it. Nelson asked if there is a residence at the end of Minaker Road. Benner stated there is a neighbor nearby. Hoag asked the location of Cedar Springs in relation to the proposal. Benner indicated its location on the map. Hoag asked if there is anything such as hills that would block the noise, because the proposal would bring this activity closer to Cedar Springs. Benner stated there are woods. Hoag asked the topography in relation to the gas pipelines. Benner stated they are on level ground with the pipelines. There is no pipeline where they are proposing the mining. Most of the property is level or above the pipeline. Hoag questioned the amount of MRL that would be given up to buffer of the pipeline. Benner stated the buffer is to be about 125 feet from the pipeline. Hoag stated that the original concerns regarding pipelines and Cedar Springs don't go away. Benner stated their thought was to not mine right away. She doesn't need the income to get by. It would give the county the resources for the future. Hoag asked if the neighboring MRL took away their ability to short plat. Benner stated there were interested parties who are no longer interested because of the neighboring mining activity. McShane moved to recommend approval. It is a good source. An MRL is right next door. It seems to be an expansion of an existing MRL. Natural Resources Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Hoag stated she had the same concerns. She would abstain from voting because she needed more information. Nelson asked if the existing MRL is approved. Hoag stated it is now. Nelson stated he would support the motion, but was concerned with the pipeline buffer. Motion carried 2 -0 -1 with Hoag abstaining. 2001 N MRL - COLUMBIA VALLEY Aamot stated this is 97 acres. It is by the Peaceful Valley subdivision. The applicant wants to create a rural five -acre (R5A) buffer around the MRL. There are large subdivisions to the west and south. They want to also create a 330 -foot R5A buffer on the western and southern property lines. It is partly in the Columbia Valley urban growth area (UGA). It is designated Rural in the Comprehensive Plan, and the entire property is zoned Rural Forestry. It is not in a city UGA. The area has designated forestlands, which is the entire site outside the UGA, on the eastern part of the parcel. They would examine this at a future date. It has agricultural soils, but it is a forestry area. McShane questioned whether they are proposing to make the R5A buffer along areas that are now in the UGA. Aamot stated that was correct. Nelson questioned whether there is a 300 -foot buffer all the way around it. Aamot stated the buffer is 330 feet wide. Hoag asked the kind of agricultural soils. Aamot stated he didn't know. Hoag stated that they should wait in areas where there are prime agricultural soils. That is what the Comprehensive Plan says to do. If it is not prime agricultural soils, then they could go ahead. Nelson stated there has been no farming up there. McShane stated it is excessively well drained as well. Aamot stated there are some wetlands in the R5A area. Hoag stated it would not be an empty buffer, but a residential density of one person per five acres interspersed throughout. Aamot stated that was correct. Natural Resources Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Hoag asked if there is anything to stop the noise from traveling. Aamot stated not that he was aware of at this point. Aamot continued to state that it is in a wellhead protection area. It is within Water District 13. There are five- and ten -year time -of- travel areas that are indicated on the map. In the Comprehensive Plan, MRL criterion number seven talks about MRL's not occurring in the five year zone of contribution. It also says that they shall not allow mining within ten feet of a water table in a ten -year area of contribution. That is a significant issue for this site. There is also an MRL to the northeast. Steep slopes are to the east. There are no major pipelines. It is mapped as an area of mixed sand and gravel over quarry rock for the MR2 designation. It is mostly in the DNR study area of significant resources. Hoag asked if there are any other geo- hazards. Aamot stated there are steep slopes, but they are to the east. They are not present on the site. McShane moved to recommend approval. Hoag stated it violates the Comprehensive Plan. It is not appropriate as proposed. Remove the five -year wellhead protection area from the proposal, or condition the proposal. McShane questioned the latitude the Council has to amend the proposal. Aamot stated the Council could initiate part of the proposal. The rest of the area is within the ten -year time of travel. There is another large MRL in the area that is outside the wellhead protection area. McShane stated the source area is to the northeast. They've given added protection to that area. Travel time boundaries are probably not well defined. Hoag questioned whether it makes sense that the water would come from the steep terrain toward the zone. McShane stated it would make sense if that was all he knew, however he knows more about that valley. They know the main direction that the water is coming from. In that aquifer, the water moves from the northeast to the southwest quite fast. Dawson questioned whether the mining operation would interfere with the aquifer. McShane stated that is a question for the applicant to answer. The Planning Commission would take a look at that. It is certainly an issue that needs more discussion. The Council doesn't need to have that discussion at this time. The same would be true of the buffering issue. The issue is whether that is an appropriate buffer. There is already a big MRL that uses blasting, so he isn't too concerned about buffering. Natural Resources Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Hoag asked if criterion six says that they will not approve an MRL adjacent to residential areas. This proposal is right next to residential areas. The Comprehensive Plan also says that it will not be done within a five -year wellhead protection area. They are flying in the face of the rules. Aamot read criterion six, which says that MRL's must not be adjacent to or within developed residential zones or subdivisions platted at urban densities. McShane stated that is why the applicant is proposing to downzone one side of the MRL. Nelson asked how many feet are being proposed between the MRL and the existing residential areas. Aamot stated the applicant is proposing 330 feet. Hoag asked if that qualifies as being adjacent to a residential area. Aamot stated the criterion is ambiguous in that it doesn't specify the exact distance. It only says "adjacent." Hoag stated the point was to keep mining away from houses and people. Three hundred thirty feet is not very far away. She had a real problem with it. The Comprehensive Plan went through extensive hearings, discussion, and expert testimony to arrive at these criteria. It makes no sense to ignore the criteria. There are very good reasons why they should not do it within the five -year zone and next to residential areas. Nelson stated his concern was that there is quite a bit of mineral resources being mined out, which is the only primary limestone in the county. He questioned what material would be mined. Aamot stated sand and gravel would be mined. Nelson questioned whether there are other locations in that area that have sand and gravel. Aamot stated he didn't know. Nelson stated they need to think about site location. He had many concerns, including it being in the five -year wellhead protection area and that residential areas are nearby. Hoag questioned why they would docket the MRL outside of the process if they are set up for seven year review. Aamot stated there is a one -year process where anyone can submit a Comprehensive Plan amendment. MRL's are not excluded from that process. Last year, they said they would look at them on a countywide basis in the near future. Hoag stated there is a considerable amount of resource in that area. She stated she wanted to know how much if it is available in areas not near residential and wellhead protection areas. They are not getting that information. Aamot stated they would do that during the 2004 review. area. Hoag asked if there are other sand, gravel, and hard rock resources in the Natural Resources Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 McShane stated he believed so. Nelson stated he had reservations, but approval would open these topics up for discussion. He wanted these questions answered, which would happen if the item were docketed. Hoag stated they are wasting staff time and taxpayer money by looking at them individually. Motion carried 2 -1 with Hoag opposed. 20010 MRL - SMITH ROAD Aamot stated this proposal is for 28 acres. The Planning Department never received a correct application form for this request. Hoag moved to recommend denial. Goodwin stated the applicant submitted an application, but the wrong one. Aamot stated he mailed a letter in early January requesting a correct application. The applicant first submitted the incorrect application on January 2. There are houses on the north side of Smith Road. The area is not in a UGA or on agricultural land. It is to be examined at future date. There are agricultural soils on a portion of the site. The site has some wetlands on the site. The Planning Department never got a map with the application. It only got parcel numbers. There is the Deer Creek wellhead protection area to the northwest. It is not in the area, but close to the area. There is a letter from the Deer Creek Water Association, which asked that the MRL not be granted. There are pipelines south of Smith Road. None are on the site. It is not in an MR2 or DNR mapped area of significant resources. Hoag stated it seems that they have had a lot of people who have missed deadlines by one day on important items. She didn't see a point wasting staff time because the applicant has not responded to a request for a correct application. It is not an even application of the law. The rules should be applied evenly. In addition, it is not mapped, and the Deer Creek Water Association did not recommend it. Nelson stated law has to be flexible to the public. However, there is no definitive reason to designate this area at this time. There is a lot of missing information. There is not any significant material at this site. He would support the motion to deny. Hoag asked the type of agricultural soils. Aamot stated he didn't have that information. Natural Resources Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 McShane stated he did not like the boundaries, which would be asking for trouble. He would be surprised if there is gravel there. Motion to recommend denial carried unanimously. 2001 A THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES McShane stated this would be held to the next meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Hoag asked if these Comprehensive Plan amendments have to all be approved together on one resolution. Goodwin stated the rules say that the Council will pass a resolution, which insinuates one resolution. The Council would do them all together. She recommended that the last item that was not discussed, regarding the threatened and endangered species, be addressed by the Committee of the Whole. The Council wouldn't docket the items at the evening meeting. McShane stated that another way to do the item regarding threatened and endangered species would be to make it a Council- initiated item. Goodwin stated that would be another way to do it. The Council would have to do it as an emergency, which requires a 2/3 rd vote of the Council. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dan McShane, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 18