HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole March 29 20161 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Special Committee of the Whole
3
4 March 29, 2016
5
6
7 CALL TO ORDER
8
9 Council Chair Barry Buchanan called the meeting to order at 12:34 p.m. in the
10 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
11
12
13 ROLL CALL
14
15 Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Satpal Sidhu, Carl Weimer, Todd
16 Donovan, Rud Browne and Barry Buchanan.
17 Absent: None.
18
19
20 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND PRELIMINARY DIRECTION
21
22 1. DISCUSSION AND PRELIMINARY COUNCIL DIRECTION ON COMPREHENSIVE
23 PLAN CHAPTERS, RESOURCE LANDS (AB2016 -047H)
24
25 Brenner referenced proposed change item one in the special meeting packet and
26 stated rural forestry also produces wood products. She's always heard the term "working
27 forest." She moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -21, lines 3 -4, "The eeFflffiereial
28 Working forest land base in Washington State and in Whatcom County has been steadily
29 decreasing over time."
30
31 The motion was seconded.
32
33 Sidhu asked whether there is a definition of working forest land.
34
35 Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, stated Policy 8F -11
36 on Comprehensive Plan page 8 -24 identifies the differences between working lands and
37 commercial forest lands.
38
39 Mann asked if the statement is still true if they change the definition.
40
41 Brenner stated it is. Commercial forest implies a commercial forest zone. Many
42 people in rural zones also produce wood products. The only difference is that the rural
43 forest zone allows one house per 20 acres.
44
45 The motion carried by the following vote:
46 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (7)
47 Nays: None (0)
48
49 Brenner referenced proposed change item two and stated the proposal just makes
50 the language cleaner.
51
52 Donovan moved to amend to approve proposed change item two on
53 Comprehensive Plan page 8 -22, Policy 8F -8, "Review Title 20.42 (Rural Forestry) and 20.43
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, Page 1
1 (Commercial Forestry) for opportunities to provide fe-r compatible non - forest uses that
2 encourage forest landowners to keep their land in productive forest uses."
3
4 The motion was seconded.
5
6 The motion carried by the following vote:
7 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (7)
8 Nays: None (0)
9
10 Weimer referenced proposed change item three and moved to amend
11 Comprehensive Plan page 8 -24, Policy 8F -12, to add a bullet item, "Identifying the amount
12 of acreage necessary to support a viable local forestry industry." There is no measure to
13 know how much working forests are declining. Ask the Forestry Advisory Committee to
14 identify an amount of acreage necessary to support a viable forest industry, similar to the
15 agricultural industry.
16
17 Personius answered questions on whether they can identify a specific amount of
18 necessary acreage and whether they should change the goal if they can't identify the
19 specific amount. He stated the only concern of the Forestry Advisory Committee is that
20 they don't further reduce the amount of acreage available for forestry.
21
22 Sidhu stated there should be an inventory of existing working forest land. Personius
23 stated there are 225,000 acres of commercial forest land and rural forest. In that amount
24 are about 17,000 acres that aren't managed for production. They are managed for
25 conservation purposes instead.
26
27 Weimer withdrew his amendment and moved to amend Policy 8F -12, "Maintain
28 our current working forest land base jiidus" by
29 considering the impacts to working forests...."
30
31 The motion was seconded.
32
33 The motion carried by the followina vote:
34 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (7)
35 Nays: None (0)
36
37 Donovan referenced proposed amendment 3b and stated it's not clear who would do
38 the mitigation. They also removed it from the agricultural lands section. He moved to
39 amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -24, Policy 8F -12, "MAkjat-iefr fOF less of forest lands { ~`ice
40 pf&4 uet4v-it -y; i uding less clue4 -a-p-e ' areas ar di n an ees —ems„
r
41
42 The motion was seconded.
43
44 Brenner stated this makes it sound like they're talking about what has already
45 happened. She's not sure how they would track things in the future. That's not the same
46 as a study. Personius stated they can do future tracking.
47
48 Sidhu asked if they define mitigation of forest land. He asked if they are implying
49 they will add new acreage and new working forest. Personius stated it's not well- defined
50 yet in this policy. It could include a number of strategies, including replanting, or planting
51 additional acreage, or converting lands that aren't currently in forest production.
52
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, Page 2
1 Browne stated each natural resource industry is asking for mitigation when some of
2 the land base is removed from production. No one seems to complain when an individual
3 removes land for development. The people in the industries must suggest how to resolve
4 the issues. The County Council can't create more land. In each category, ask the people in
5 the industry to identify economically viable strategies.
6
7 Donovan amended his motion and moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8-
8 24, Policy 8F -12, and approve items 3b and 3c, "Track acres of forest lands lost from
9 productivity due to conversion, development, or policy implementation such as critical areas
10 ordinance, se work with the forestry advisory committee to identify economically viable
11 mitigation strategies that can be implemented to offset the acres lost."
12
13 The motion was seconded.
14
15 Sidhu asked if land would stay forest land or become agriculture land if an owner
16 wants to replace 50 acres of forest with apple trees.
17
18 Brenner stated it becomes agricultural land, because it does not produce wood
19 products.
20
21 The motion carried by the following vote:
22 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (7)
23 Nays: None (0)
24
25 Donovan referenced Policy 8F -9 and asked if this policy, as written now, would
26 prevent conversion of Department of Natural Resources (DNR) land in the watershed to a
27 non - productive use.
28
29 Personius stated it's possible that a conversion would be prohibited. It's not
30 absolute. The Parks Department plan for the reconveyed land included a forest
31 management component, which would meet this policy. The Forest Advisory Committee
32 does not want thousands of acres wholesale converted to parks and completely off limits to
33 timber management. They wanted to include timber management in the management
34 guidelines of any future park acquisitions.
35
36 Donovan moved to amend Policy 8F -9 to add a bullet item, "This policy would not
37 discourage actions that would remove portions of forest lands from the Lake Whatcom
38 watershed for the purpose of protecting the watershed."
39
40 Brenner stated there's nothing wrong with maintaining working forests if they're not
41 near the lake. It's a renewable resource, and they're required to replant. She is opposed to
42 the motion.
43
44 Weimer asked if designated forest means it is designated for timber production or is
45 designated as a forest. Personius stated the GMA has two designations, for commercial
46 forest and for rural forest. A wilderness area in the national forest is not a designated
47 forestland. The County doesn't have jurisdiction there.
48
49 Donovan stated add language that clarifies they don't prevent future actions that
50 would prevent the impact of commercial logging in the watershed.
51
52 Browne suggested a friendly amendment to not approve a new bullet point, but
53 to amend the existing Policy 8F -9 preamble, "Discourage inappropriate conversion of
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, Page 3
1 designated forest land to incompatible non - forest uses. It is the intent of this policy not to
2 allow conversion of GMA- designated forest lands of long -term commercial significance
3 outside the Lake Whatcom Watershed overlay district if the proposed use is incompatible
4 with the maintenance of long -term forest management."
5
6 Donovan accepted the friendly amendment.
7
8 Sidhu asked if the reconveyed land can be used for another use. Personius stated
9 the zoning did not change. The land is still zoned for commercial or rural forest.
10
11 Sidhu stated changing the zone would further protect those acres. He asked if the
12 County can contract with someone to harvest timber. Personius stated the Parks
13 Department is working on that policy.
14
15 Sidhu stated he seconds the friendly amendment.
16
17 Brenner stated this should go to the Forestry Advisory Committee. She's not
18 comfortable with it.
19
20 Browne stated he disagrees with Councilmember Brenner. The Advisory Committee
21 will say it doesn't want to prohibit logging in the watershed. Jurisdictions all around the
22 world have discovered the most inexpensive way of protecting a water supply is to leave the
23 land in forestry.
24
25 Brenner stated it's offensive to the Forestry Advisory Committee to make that
26 assumption. They may have another way to ensure productive forestry without causing
27 problems. She would like to hear from them.
28
29 The motion carried by the following vote:
30 Ayes: Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (6)
31 Nays: Brenner (1)
32
33 Weimer referenced item Council proposed amendments item four and moved to
34 amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -26, Policy 8G -7, "Encourage the United States Forest
35 Service and the Department of Natural Resources to implement harvest practices that
36 maximize the use of forest lands while allowing appropriate multiple uses."
37
38 The motion was seconded.
39
40 The motion carried by the following vote:
41 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (7)
42 Nays: None (0)
43
44 Brenner referenced item five and moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -27,
45 Goal 8I, "Support the Department of Natural Resources in ee r-+r-t94- rat to ensure forest
46 practices avoid adverse impacts to the habitat of threatened and endangered fish and
47 wildlife species and to marine waters that support shellfish resources."
48
49 The motion was seconded.
50
51 The motion carried by the following vote:
52 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (7)
53 Nays: None (0)
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, Page 4
Weimer referenced item six and moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -27,
Policy 8I -1, "Ensure that adequate riparian buffers, based on best available science, are
maintained along rivers and streams."
The motion was seconded.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (7)
Nays: None (0)
Brenner referenced item seven and moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8-
27, Policy 8I -2, "Minimize, to the greatest extent— feas+ble, USOFIg B4Ps-, sedimentation to
rivers and streams, to the greatest extent possible, using BMPs."
The motion was seconded.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (7)
Nays: None (0)
Weimer referenced item eight and moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8-
30; lines 40 -43, "Controlling trespassing to surface mining can be a significant safety issue
for mine operators. Pfepefty---H- t-s Adjacent land use issues range from the right to mine
and use the value of mineral resource land to the right to live in an area with a high quality
of life and retain home values."
The motion was seconded.
Browne stated the existing language makes the point, and it seems to be important
to a certain segment of the community.
Brenner stated she proposes an alternative amendment that is more positive. The
current language is extremely negative.
Donovan asked if there is a DNR requirement to include in the Comprehensive Plan
the noxious potential of being next to a mine. Longman stated there is a section for each
resource land that talks about potential conflicts. This particular section discusses it in that
way, but doesn't have a heading that says "Potential Conflicts."
Sidhu stated the forest and agricultural resource lands sections have a separate
heading for conflicts. The mineral resource land section doesn't have that heading. The
information is mixed in with the other narrative. They should make the conflicts a separate
section to be consistent and to document the conflicts. Defining the conflicts is good for
citizens who read the Code to understand what the issues are.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Sidhu, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (5)
Nays: Brenner and Browne (2)
Brenner moved to delete the language on page .8 -30, line 36, through page 8 -31,
line 2, and replace with new language, "SUFFaEe Midi rg can ere f iets —i r-11 rit}�
The Washington State Department of Natural Resources and RCW 78.44 requires mine
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, Page 5
1 operators to reclaim all surface mines for subsequent, post mining use as approved by
2 Whatcom County (State Form SM -6). The reclamation work is guaranteed by the
3 owner /operator through a performance security or bond. Trespassing and various other
4 activities that may conflict with other land uses are generally illegal and can cause liability
5 for mine owners /operators. Numerous federal, state, and local regulations also mitigate
6 impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and environmental impacts." The language is more positive.
7
8 The motion was seconded.
9
10 Browne stated the person who testified had an issue with the language about
11 unreclaimed mines. Address his concern simply by leaving the existing language and
12 remove the term " unreclaimed." It removes the implication that mines are abandoned. He
13 will vote against the motion.
14
15 Brenner stated the person who testified had other concerns. Telling people what is
16 and is not legal is important. Don't imply there's a climate of distrust and hostility. Put the
17 issues in there, but not with the assumption that this illegal activity is happening all the
18 time.
19
20 Donovan stated he agrees with the last sentence in the motion. It can be added to
21 the existing language.
22
23 Browne stated keep the existing language without the term "unreclaimed," delete the
24 last sentence of the existing language, and include the last two sentences from
25 Councilmember Brenner's motion.
26
27 Mann stated he appreciates the attempt of the motion, but he prefers to just delete
28 the section without adding anything new.
29
30 Brenner withdrew her motion.
31
32 Mann moved to strike language on Council packet page 8 -30 to page 8 -31,
33 "Gurfadigg ni"WtHrg -c efeate ee#{fets-tea- -- pr— epeFl- the �t
34
35 The motion was seconded.
36
37 The motion failed by the following vote:
38 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, and Donovan (3)
39 Nays: Weimer, Buchanan, Sidhu, and Browne (4)
40
41 Browne moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -30, line 36 through page 8-
42 31, line 2, "Surface mining can create conflicts... property devaluation. Un reclaimed ffiMines
43 can affect... mining uses that are allowed. fez and ether faeters ... prep r-ty owners in the
44 viemnity. Trespassing and various other activities that may conflict with other land uses are
45 generally illegal and can cause liability for mine owners /operations. Numerous federal,
46 state, and local regulations also mitigate impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and environmental
47 impacts."
48
49 The motion was seconded.
50
51 The motion carried by the following vote:
52 Ayes: Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (5)
53 Nays: Brenner and Mann (2)
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, Page 6
Brenner referenced proposed Council change item nine and moved to amend
Comprehensive Plan page 8 -31, lines 4 -9, "Environmental issues associated with surface
mining may include groundwater or aquifer impacts and disruption of fish and wildlife
habitat. Surface mine reclamation can create wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat,
productive agricultural land, or provide land for parks, housing, industrial or other uses."
The motion was seconded.
Browne stated he is opposed to the motion. For the most part, surface mining ends
up with holes in the ground that are full of water. It's permanently lost to agriculture and
forestry.
Brenner stated that won't happen if done legally.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner (1)
Nays: Browne, Mann, Sidhu, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (6)
Brenner referenced item ten and moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -31,
lines 11 -15, "As a natural result of geologic forces, it is not uncommon in Whatcom County
to have excellent mineral deposits located under prime farmland soil and above an aquifer
recharge area. Mining in these areas can substantially in9paet reduce the productive
capacity of the soil and make the underlying aquifer more susceptible to contamination."
The motion was seconded.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (7)
Nays: None (0)
Longman referenced the yellow handout, item two, to create new policy 83-4.
Brenner moved to create a new policy, °83-4: Consider creating Right -to -Mine zone
areas to avoid conflicts with incompatible activities and protect mineral resource lands of
long -term commercial significance from conversion to non - compatible uses." They've been
talking about doing this for a long time.
The motion was seconded.
Mann asked about a long -range planning process for determining gravel mining
areas. It's important to decide how much supply they want and what areas are appropriate
for mining. Personius stated that will be on the long -range planning work program for the
next two years. He has no problem with language to consider creating right -to -mine areas.
Brenner stated this will prevent more lawsuits like they've gotten recently with
agricultural areas. It should be treated the same.
Browne stated he's opposed to the motion. It won't lessen the number of lawsuits.
It will shift where they come from. He's concerned about a new area designated as an MRL
under the right -to -mine ordinance, with an adjacent landowner who is suddenly impacted.
The concern is that these MRL areas will be a new land use in areas that historically has not
had them.
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, Page 7
1
2 Sidhu stated the right -to -mine is premature at this time. Once the review is done to
3 identify and pre- designate MRL areas and the Surface Mining Advisory Committee can come
4 up with right -to -mine recommendations, then it would be appropriate to bring the right -to-
5 mine ordinance forward.
6
7 Brenner stated the Comprehensive Plan is a long -range plan, and they must consider
8 strengthening the ordinance.
9
10 Sidhu stated the Right -to -Farm regulations went through a process before they were
11 adopted. They don't know yet what a right -to -mine regulation would mean.
12
13 Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services Department, answered questions
14 about the County's existing right -to -mine areas in existing mineral resource land (MRL)
15 areas.
16
17 Weimer stated they are talking about designating right -to -mine areas, but they
18 already have a Right -to -Mine ordinance. He suggests, "Consider ereating strengthening the
19 Right -to -Mine zone ordinance..." to accomplish what Councilmember Brenner would like.
20
21 Browne moved to hold until the next meeting in which this chapter is discussed.
22
23 The motion was seconded.
24
25 The motion to table carried by the following vote:
26 Ayes: Browne, Sidhu, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (5)
27 Nays: Brenner and Mann (2)
28
29 Weimer referenced proposed Council change item 11 and moved to amend
30 Comprehensive Plan page 8 -33, Policy 8K -8, "Expansion of MRL designations to parcels
31 contiguous to, and held by more than 1% common beneficial ownership or beneficial
32 interest with an existing mine is allowed, but before extraction of the additional area may
33 commence the existing mine must be in complete compliance with all operating permits and
34 regulations." The Planning Commission saw a conflict with expanding the MRL designation if
35 the current mine is not in compliance. Allow owners /operators to go forward with an MRL
36 designation process, but not mining activity, until they are in compliance. He asked if the
37 County has any control over when they begin to mine. Personius stated the County does,
38 because the activity requires a conditional use permit.
39
40 The motion was seconded.
41
42 The motion carried by the following vote:
43 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (7)
44 Nays: None (0)
45
46 Donovan moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -33, policy 8L -2, "Protect
47 areas where existing residential uses predominate against intrusion by mineral extraction
48 and processing operationsj-- r e rtided —bythe-rte+ ."
49 He asked if those areas are not protected if there are adequate buffers.
50
51 The motion was seconded.
52
53 Sidhu stated the mitigation depends on the type of intrusion.
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, Page 8
Brenner asked if it would influence the conditional use permit conditions if a mine
operator and neighbor worked out an agreement. Personius stated it could.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (7)
Nays: None (0)
Longman referenced the proposed Council changes in the main packet and items 12a
and 12b.
Donovan moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -34; Policy 8M -1, "Allew
the -agr -mature ze Te h- at- weu4id- eRhamee- 4at--mi,Rg -lie
UFidges
timeEy- Chien. The site s�-aull also I mod- fop -u-s
bled wikr tle -a_ds " He asked if the language assigns an MRL
designation to the entire agricultural zone. He asked how leveling knolls and ridges
improves the productivity of agricultural land.
Sidhu stated leveling something is a unique situation. He asked if farmers can get
permits to level their property without mining. Personius stated this is already codified for
the agricultural and rural zone for small mining operations that don't trigger the State's
Surface Mining Act, which are less than three acres. He described the conditional use
permit process. The County has permitted seven of these permits in the last 23 years. Of
those seven, two or three were never done.
Browne stated leveling agriculture results in more efficient use of water by
controlling the drainage.
Donovan withdrew his motion.
Sidhu stated this only applies to small mines less than three acres. This is a limited
situation.
Weimer moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -34; Policy 8M -1, `Allow
mining in the agriculture zone that would enhance farming by leveling knolls and ridges
where appropriate. In these areas, reclamation of mineral extraction sites should shall occur
in a timely fashion. The site should also be restored for uses allowed in an agricultural zone
and blend with the adjacent landscape and contours."
earlier.
The motion was seconded.
Brenner stated include "productive agricultural lands" in the section they discussed
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (7)
Nays: None (0)
Sidhu moved to reconsider the motion regarding proposed Council change item nine
to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -31, lines 4 -9, "Environmental issues associated with
surface mining may include groundwater or aquifer impacts and disruption of fish and
wildlife habitat. Surface mine reclamation can create wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat,
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, Page 9
1 productive agricultural land,, or provide land for parks, housing, industrial or other uses" and
2 to the language to "pwod tc tiwe enhance agricultural land."
3
4 The motion was seconded.
5
6 The motion carried by the following vote:
7 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, and Weimer (6)
8 Nays: Donovan (1)
9
10 Weimer referenced item 13 and moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -35;
11 Policy 8M -4, errf�eK -'mac t -ems
12 en"hanee;,e„t."
13
14 The motion was seconded.
15
16 Sidhu stated it's a stretch to say someone will do surface mining to enhance
17 agriculture.
18
19 The motion carried by the following vote:
20 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (7)
21 Nays: None (0)
22
23 Longman stated the next few amendments are regarding river bar scalping. There
24 are two proposals from Councilmember Brenner and an extensive rewrite from
25 Councilmember Donovan.
26
27 Brenner moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -36, " h
28 Although the public believes river bar scalping wi-I-i can significantly reduce flooding along
29 the ewe river, its benefits are local and - itFnay, if done improperly, can have negative
30 effects in areas surrounding the mining site." There will only be negative effects if done
31 improperly.
32
33 The motion was seconded.
34
35 Donovan stated the motion is an improvement over the original language, but he
36 prefers to just delete it all. In hearings about flood control, no one has ever mentioned
37 these techniques for flood control. Given the federal and State regulations that apply, it
38 won't ever be done effectively. He submitted a handout with an alternate proposal to this
39 section (on file).
40
41 Brenner stated river gravel is a renewable resource, especially if scalping is done
42 above the water. Whatcom County stopped river scalping because Canada stopped, but
43 Canada has resumed the practice. It is shown to benefit fish habitat.
44
45 Brenner amended and restated her motion to amend Comprehensive Plan page
46 8 -36:
47 " Y nts Of arc-alp-i+�g ,terboth eenno- e -Rd- -f4eed -evil
48 yeses. River bar aggregate can supply high quality rock material and, Ff done
49 pfepef4y —, baf scalping can stabilize a etion el t1, -te- giver--- eliannel and .,,ere ,..
50 €I+eed -€a- ediatek -dewnstrea-fn.,,
51 "River bar aggregate can supply high quality rock material. River gravel is a
52 renewable resource that could extend the life of other Whatcom County
53 resources."
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, Page 10
The councilmembers discussed the history of river bar scalping and whether it is
allowed.
The motion was seconded.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner (1)
Nays: Mann, Sidhu, Buchanan, Weimer, Browne, and Donovan (6)
Donovan moved to approve his handout (on file):
Proponents � supper", 1_fir G-.,,k6.._ _—„eQZTd- Raed 1 .1
tF01 Purposes. Rover bar aggregate supplies high quality feek mat
.,..e to .
�t- Fiet�-- �ces�t�ll-i�4�+- -sac_ _ � r =_ __ _== _--ia{e- eFganie ffilat-ef-i*- in
addition, if dene PFOPeF!Y, bar sealping can stabilize a seetien of the rive
channel and-4eerea-se-41-eed damage ewnstream-.
Although the public be! d — 1-1
bar scalping
flooding along the entire river, in fact The +ts-benefits of river bar scalping are
local and it may have negative effects in areas surrounding the mining site.
For example, if done improperly gravel removal can de- stabilize the river
channel locally and increase, rather than decrease, flood damage
downstream. After intensive bar scalping, floodwater that is normally stored
on the floodplain of the mined reach can be concentrated and dumped on the
reach immediately downstream. If gravel mining exceeds the rate of
replenishment from upstream, the river bed may lower both upstream and
downstream; this bed degradation can undermine bridge supports and other
structures, cause adjacent banks to erode (or stabilize, depending on how
much and where gravel is removed), lower groundwater tables adjacent to
the river, and damage riparian vegetation.
Improper mining methods in fish spawning reaches can de- stabilize
spawning gravel or clog it with silt, remove cover vegetation or trap smolts
during out - migration. Over harvesting of gravel can erode the river bed and
expose the underlying substrate, reducing or eliminating pool and riffle
habitat for fish and other aquatic animals. Finally, petroleum spills from
mining equipment can degrade local surface water quality if not responded to
properly.
While river gravel is a renewable resource that could extend the life of
other Whatcom County gravel resources, river bars are not a reliable source
from year to year. The amount of gravel that can be mined varies with
seasonal and yearly rates of gravel deposition; high and low water levels and
timing; and fish migration, spawning and out - migration timing.
Various costs raise the price of river bar gravel. For example, there are
several streams (e.g. Boulder Creek, Porter Creek, Glacier Creek, etc.) which
may offer significant quantities of sand and gravel, but which are not
currently being mined due to prohibitive transportation costs. Other factors
include the cost and limited availability of access easements to the river, the
repeated handling that is necessary for extraction and processing of the
material, and the cost of complying with regulations.
Finally, many state and federal regulations restrict scalping locations
and practices. The cost and time delay of duplicate regulation, environmental
restrictions, royalty charges and the regulatory process are deterrents to river
bar mining.
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, Page 11
1
2 The motion was seconded.
3
4 The motion carried by the following vote:
5 Ayes: Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (6)
6 Nays: Brenner (1)
7
8 Weimer moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -41, Policy 8Q1, "Through a
9 county -led, countywide assessment Sseek to identify and preteet -a" designate potential
10 commercially significant gfegate--xt- ipl:)ly mineral resource lands, to meet
11 future demand, compatible with water resources, agricultural lands, forest lands and other
12 GMA goals."
13
14 The motion was seconded.
15
16 Councilmembers discussed a County -led process versus a citizen- or industry -led
17 process to do identification.
18
19 The motion carried by the following vote:
20 Ayes: Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (6)
21 Nays: Brenner (1)
22
23 Donovan moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -42, Policy 8R -6, "Avoid
24 river bar scalping where it would adversely affect salmon spawning or critical habitat areas."
25
26 The motion was seconded.
27
28 Brenner stated the entire mineral resources section is negative. Remove this
29 language. It's not necessary.
30
31 Sidhu asked how much resource is removed from the river.
32
33 Steve Cowden, Cowden Gravel and Ready Mix, stated he took up to 200,000 yards
34 per year from one area before 1997. It's a renewable resource. He's seen more than
35 200,000 yards come in during one weekend of flooding. Since he stopped in 1997, the local
36 river bars in his area have risen seven feet. In 1997, it became so heavily regulated that it
37 became cost - prohibitive.
38
39 Sidhu asked if it is commercially - viable to augment or compete with surface mining
40 gravel. Cowden stated it is, if done properly.
41
42 Browne stated include the language, because they don't know where federal
43 regulations will go in the future. Also, make it clear they want to continue to protect salmon
44 habitat.
45
46 The motion carried by the following vote:
47 Ayes: Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (6)
48 Nays: Brenner (1)
49
50 Donovan moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -43, the MRL Criteria, "1.
51 Non - metallic deposits must contain at least 250,990 1,000,000 cubic yards of proven and
52 extractable sand, gravel or rock material per new MRL Designation."
53
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, Page 12
1 And moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -43, the MRL Criteria, "2.
2 Minimum MRL Designation size is twenty acres." He asked if these would substantially
3 increase the number of small mines.
4
5 Browne stated one might get three or four times the amount of material from a 20
6 acre pit than a ten acre pit. He doesn't want a bunch of small pits around the county, which
7 would consume agricultural and forestry land.
8
9 The motion was seconded.
10
11 Brenner stated a ten -acre pit may not have room for buffers. Someone from staff
12 said it was unlikely to fit both. It will be a lot of work for staff if it's not possible.
13
14 Browne stated encourage a small number of larger MRL areas rather than a large
15 number of small MRL areas.
16
17 Brenner stated that assumes such large MRL areas exist and are under one
18 ownership. That's not reality. She would like to vote on the two items separately.
19
20 Donovan restated the motion to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -43; MRL
21 Criteria, "1. Non - metallic deposits must contain at least -Z5G —,-G G 1,000,000 cubic yards of
22 proven and extractable sand, gravel or rock material per new MRL Designation."
23
24 The motion carried by the following vote:
25 Ayes: Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (6)
26 Nays: Brenner (1)
27
28 Donovan moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -43; MRL Criteria, "2.
29 Minimum MRL Designation size is ter twenty acres."
30
31 The motion was seconded.
32
33 The motion carried by the following vote:
34 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (7)
35 Nays: None (0)
36
37 Weimer moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -43; MRL Criteria, "12.
38 Expansion of MRL Designations to parcels contiguous to, and held by more than 1%
39 common beneficial ownership or beneficial interest with an existing mine; sigid! Fequire that
40 the cirrg -mine is vvicrrcx„ operating permits and -- regiila'ti'aft5
41 before- ex-paftst -1 of the designatien will be appmved-. is allowed, but before extraction of
42 the additional area may commence the existing mine must be in complete compliance with
43 all operating permits and regulations."
44
45 The motion was seconded.
46
47 Brenner stated it doesn't make sense to have it in both places.
48
49 The motion carried by the following vote:
50 Ayes: Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (6)
51 Nays: None (0)
52 Abstains: Brenner (1)
53
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, Page 13
1 Personius stated amend criteria 15 on Comprehensive Plan page 8 -44 to be
2 consistent with a prior change to Policy 8A -3.
3
4 Mann moved to amend criteria 15 on page 8 -44, "Prohibit MRL designations in
5 areas designated Agriculture by the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan that contain
"prime Farmland Soils" as 45t-e4-- 4 l-5, Seil SiJ°r- vey— o,r- Wn�rre^v n ce,,tJ- ffit-jf— Afeia,-
7 W�a� U.S. Department e Sall G..n5 a � eer ie . A Goldin (1983)
8 determined by the Natural Resource Conservation Service."
9
10 The motion was seconded.
11
12 The motion carried by the following vote:
13 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (7)
14 Nays: None (0)
15
16 Weimer stated he would withdraw his proposed amendment 17d. It's covered under
17 other parts of the designation process. He would also withdraw his proposed amendment
18 17e. There is no conflict in the county to deal with.
19
20 (Clerk's Note: The Committee took a break from 3 :12 p.m. to 3:27 p.m.)
21
22 Longman referenced the Additional Proposed Council Changes to Comprehensive Plan
23 for Chapter 8 regarding items that Councilmember Brenner requests to reconsider.
24
25 Sidhu moved to reconsider changes to Comprehensive Plan page 8 -4, lines 44 -45.
26
27 The motion was seconded.
28
29 Browne stated he is against reconsideration. They addressed the issue further in the
30 chapter. Preservation of agricultural land is something they have to do for every
31 generation. That's why it's a primary objective of the agricultural protection overlay (APO).
32
33 Donovan stated it's also in the Charter.
34
35 Brenner stated they just voted for language that was already in another place in the
36 Comprehensive Plan. She asked why it's a problem here. One of the best ways to promote
37 conservation of productive agricultural lands is to let people know to pay attention to the
38 law.
39
40 The motion to reconsider failed by the following vote:
41 Ayes: Brenner, Buchanan, and Donovan (3)
42 Nays: Mann, Sidhu, Browne, and Weimer (4)
43
44 Donovan moved to reconsider changes to Comprehensive Plan page 8 -10, Policy
45 8A -4.
46
47 The motion was seconded.
48
49 The motion to reconsider carried by the following vote:
50 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (7)
51 Nays: None (0)
52
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, Page 14
1 Brenner moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -10, Policy 8A -4, "Support
2 conservation of productive agricultural land by requiring the use of best management
3 practices including soil and water conservation, livestock nutrient /manure "'rrutrien
4 management, etc."
5
6 The motion was seconded.
7
8 The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
9 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (7)
10 Nays: None (0)
11
12 Sidhu moved to reconsider changes to Comprehensive Plan page 8 -12, Policy 8C -4.
13
14 The motion was seconded.
15
16 The motion to reconsider carried by the following vote:
17 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (7)
18 Nays: None (0)
19
20 Brenner moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -12, Policy 8C -4, "Eneeurage
21 r-et- i4ng --f l� ei r- 1 =.-rr- +ors-- en-4o- beg ii ling FaFmers -and e neeuFa g e the use e
22 . Encourage the use of
23 programs that help beginning farmers buy productive farmland." Encourage all kinds of
24 people, not just retiring farmers.
25
26 The motion was seconded.
27
28 The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
29 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (7)
30 Nays: None (0)
31
32 Brenner moved to reconsider changes to Comprehensive Plan page 8 -12, line 38.
33
34 The motion was seconded.
35
36 The motion to reconsider carried by the following vote:
37 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (7)
38 Nays: None (0)
39
40 Brenner stated amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -12, line 38, "A@fk-d*b1Fe -ah3jf
41 eenfiiet- vw O:- er land uses. Inqp f --nit
42 agrieultural land ay 6 rnpact the a! and recreational use of aquatie lands Fnil
43 away. Agriculture is one of the most important resources in Whatcorn County. Whatcom
44 County works with farmers to ensure productive agriculture land and improved nutrient
45 management practices help reduce impacts on aquatic lands. Whatcom County is also
46 strongly supported by agriculture fiscally with sales and jobs. Agriculture may conflict with
47 other land uses." This language is more positive.
48
49 Weimer stated he is against the motion. All the conflicts listed are about conflicts
50 that hurt farmland. He tried to insert a conflict about how farmland conflicts negatively with
51 other things. It makes sense to leave the language as it is.
52
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, Page 15
1 Browne suggested keeping the language that Councilmember Weimer inserted. The
2 language proposed by Councilmember Brenner doesn't belong in the Land Use Conflicts
3 section. It belongs under the Agricultural Products Industry section on Comprehensive Plan
4 page 8 -11.
5
6 Brenner moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 8 -11, the Agricultural Products
7 Industry preamble, "Agriculture is an essential contributor to ... for farm products are
8 available. Agriculture is one of the most important resources in Whatcom County.
9 Whatcom County works with farmers to ensure productive agriculture land and improved
10 nutrient management practices help reduce impacts on aquatic lands. Whatcom County's
11 economy is also strongly supported by agriculture with sales and jobs."
12
13 Donovan suggested a friendly amendment, "nutrient /manure management."
14
15 Brenner accepted the friendly amendment. The first paragraph of the Land Use
16 Conflicts section could be written in a less negative way.
17
18 The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
19 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, and Donovan (6)
20 Nays: Weimer (1)
21
22 Brenner stated she will work on amendments to Comprehensive Plan page 8 -12 in
23 the Land Use Conflicts section.
24
25 Personius gave a staff report on the proposal to create a section on aquatic resource
26 lands. He referenced the staff memo to the Council dated March 28, 2016 regarding the
27 Aquatic Resource Lands (on file).
28
29 (Clerk's Note: Councilmember Sidhu left the meeting at 4:00 p.m.)
30
31 Weimer stated it makes sense to have the Marine Resources Committee review it.
32 He asked if it's possible to include a goal in the Comprehensive Plan to consider creating a
33 section on aauatic resource lands by a certain deadline. He fears that if docketed. it will he
34 years before it comes to the Council. Personius stated it would be fine to add that type of a
35 goal or policy.
36
37 Brenner moved to create a goal to protect aquatic resources and at least one
38 policy, to have the proposed new goal go through the process as recommended in the staff
39 memo, and to return to Council by the end of 2017.
40
41 The motion was seconded.
42
43 Buchanan asked if the motion is to direct staff to begin the process or to amend the
44 Comprehensive Plan to include that direction as a policy for staff.
45
46 Browne moved to create Policy 8R -7 to create an aquatic resource lands section for
47 the Comprehensive Plan, to come to the Council by the end of 2017. The motion was not
48 seconded.
49
50 Weimer stated that's the wrong section. He prefers to take time to think about the
51 wording and create a goal and policy.
52
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
Donovan stated they will discuss this chapter in an upcoming meeting
Councilmember Weimer the time to develop the appropriate wording.
Brenner withdrew her motion.
Buchanan moved to hold this item.
The motion was seconded.
The motion to hold carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Sidhu (1)
Give
2. DISCUSSION AND PRELIMINARY COUNCIL DIRECTION ON COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN CHAPTER 2, LAND USE (AB2016 -047B)
Weimer moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 2 -1, the Vision Statement,
"Whatcom County is a place where urban growth is concentrated in urban areas, where
there is a distinct boundary between urban and rural uses, where agricultural use is
encouraged, and where resource lands and water resources are protected-,-a� w- Ise- Fe-Ean -d
use Rural areas are peaceful and
quiet with less traffic and congestion than urban areas. There is low- density development
with open spaces allowing for privacy. A sense of community is retained and local ms is
exereised input is respected in land use decisions." Land use changes can be brought about
in ways other than incentive programs.
The motion was seconded.
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment "input is respected considered."
Weimer accepted the friendly amendment.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Sidhu (1)
Brenner moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 2 -1, lines 14 -19, "The Land
Use chapter and map include a set of adopted land use designations which combine the
predicted needs of future populations with the availability of land and the desires of
residents. These needs and desires are expressed through the goals-,-afld policies, and
actions included below as well as through implementation of the land use map. This chapter
is divided into sections that address:..."
Matt Aamot, Planning and Development
were deleted from each chapter because they
have been completed, or are no longer relevant.
text, without action items.
Services Department, stated action items
were either incorporated into the policies,
Now they have goals and policies in the
Weimer stated most of the action items have been taken out. He wasn't sure they
need to reference them if they're no longer there.
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, 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
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Brenner withdrew her motion.
Buchanan referenced the Proposed Council Changes to Comprehensive Plan for
Chapter 2 - Land Use, and councilmembers discussed the Oxford comma.
Brenner moved to approve items four through nine of the proposed changes in the
meeting packet.
The motion was seconded.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Sidhu (1)
Weimer moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 2 -4, lines 17 -21, "The goal of
growth management is to provide sufficient land area with adequate facilities and utilities
either presently available or economically feasible to accommodate future growth. This
means having an adequate distribution of developable land to provide housing, services,
jobs, and resource land for the expected population. "
Aamot stated some resource lands, such as commercial forestry, aren't really
developable.
The motion was seconded.
Brenner asked the definition of "developable." Aamot stated he would check the
code, but there is not development in commercial forestry. It does allow living quarters for
crews.
Weimer withdrew the motion. He moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 2 -4,
lines 31 -35, "A key need for meeting land demands to generate family wage employment is
land that is "readv to go" for industrial development. Melt Many potential industrial
employers seeking to locate in Whatcom County require large tracts of land where the
infrastructure and site improvements are already in place."
The motion was seconded.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Sidhu (1)
Brenner moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 2 -5, lines 19 -20, "The Growth
Management Act requires and the "'~i^~ statement encourages concentrating growth in
urban growth areas."
The motion was seconded.
Brenner stated there are too many subjective definitions of "vision."
Weimer stated there is a vision statement for Chapter 2, which says they will
concentrate growth in urban areas. He is opposed to the motion.
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, Page 18
The motion failed for a lack of a majority by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, and Browne (3)
Nays: Weimer, Donovan, and Buchanan (3)
Absent: Sidhu (1)
Brenner moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 2 -5, Goal 2A, "Ensure
designation of sufficient land, water and densities to accommodate the growth needs of
Whatcom County and protect the local economy, rural lifestyle, habitat, fish and wildlife
which are the cornerstone qualities that make the county a desirable place to live."
The motion was seconded.
Donovan stated it's important to reference water.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Sidhu (1)
Weimer moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 2- 6,Policy 2A -7, "Establish
sufficient levels of developable residential, commercial, and industrial lands informed by
approved population and economic forecasts, inventory of existing use, land capacity
outside of critical areas and buffers, cost of infrastructure, legally available water
availability, and goals and policies of all chapters of this plan."
The motion was seconded.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Sidhu (1)
Forrest Longman, Council Office, referenced the Proposed Council Changes to the
Comprehensive Plan for Chapter 2, item 15, regarding a new policy 2A -14.
Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services Department, referenced a staff
memo from Mark Personius to the Council dated March 24, 2016 regarding the Comp Plan
Update — Chapter 2 (Land Use) suggesting language for a new policy 2A -14 and gave a staff
report.
Weimer stated they've been talking about doing this for ten years. Everyone agrees
it's important. However, nothing has been done. This is an attempt to get something done.
the Planning staff's alternate recommendation is good. He doesn't know if there is a way to
apply to the urban growth area (UGA) expansions they will approve in June. Include
language that ensures the group will get to work.
Brenner stated that if they are going to work on UGAs, it's because it's necessary,
not because the County will hold the small Cities hostage. It's up to the County to develop
a workable transfer of development rights (TDR) program that doesn't blackmail the Cities.
Browne stated he supports the principle. The challenge is the lack of receiving
areas. The problem is that the value of TDR increases the cost of housing. Focus on where
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, Page 19
1 the receiving areas should be. One idea is using certain rural areas to selectively increase
2 cluster developments. Take a development right from an area zoned rural with good
3 agricultural soil and put it on another rural area with poor soil and that won't be used for
4 agriculture.
5
6 Weimer stated increasing density in rural areas is a challenge because of the Growth
7 Management Act (GMA). When establishing UGAs, there is a significant upzone. People get
8 wealthy overnight by the decision. It makes sense to share it. Others are doing this. King
9 County has a program that requires a 4 -to -1 program. Other counties and cities have
10 successful programs. There are examples from all over, they just need to get the program
11 together. Get a group of smart planners together to figure out what is fair in Whatcom
12 County. TDR programs work in other places.
13
14 Brenner stated the County funds the purchase of development rights (PDR) program.
15 The County should fund a TDR program, too.
16
17 Browne stated the GMA allows flexibility about rural density, according to staff. If
18 there is a windfall due to an upzone, there is an opportunity to fund it. If people buy lands
19 that are already zoned with a higher density, don't ask them to spend extra to develop the
20 lots. He moved to approve Staff's recommended changes to proposed policy 2A -14, as
21 shown in the staff report from Mr. Personius to the Council and Executive dated March 24,
22 2016, without the last two bullet items and without the reference to the exchange for UGA
23 expansions in the last paragraph.
24
25 The motion was seconded.
26
27 The councilmembers discussed options for amending the motion, whether or not they
28 would tie a program to UGA expansions, including a deadline for the work, allowing a
29 broader approach for receiving areas than just expanded UGAs, considering the nexus of
30 UGA expansions into agricultural lands and TDR programs, and forfeiting the County's
31 leverage over the Cities.
32
33 Browne amended and restated his motion to approve Staff's recommended
34 changes to proposed policy 2A -14, as shown in the staff report from Mr. Personius to the
35 Council and Executive dated March 24, 2016, with changes:
36
37 Strive to establish by December 2017 a clear, predictable...
38
39 • Identifying receiving areas within g— UGA -'me l rg --arm
40 within effi .s d
�F an r- afe�.
41 . Identifying other factors and /or growth management tools relevant
42 EGA- ex-paef,�s.
43
44 Based upon ...or resource lands in exchange for UGA expansions and
45 other upzones.
46
47 The motion carried by the following vote:
48 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (6)
49 Nays: None (0)
50 Absent: Sidhu (1)
51
52
53 OTHER BUSINESS
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:57 p.m.
The CouncR,Nprpyed these minutes on
ATTEST:
Dana Browr +,►is, � urVk- jerk
1�
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
May 3, 2016.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Special Committee of the Whole, 3/29/2016, Page 21