Subject: RE: FW: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan - Comments on Chapter 8 Resource La...

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Subject: RE: FW: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan - Comments on Chapter 8 Resource La..."

Polly Watson
5 years ago
Views:

1 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Dan Cox Council FW: FW: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan - Comments on Chapter 8 Resource La... Thursday, March 31, :15:50 AM image001.png I am forwarding the attached correspondence that has thus far been between myself and one Councilmember for review by the Council as a whole. Our discussion has broadened to include items that may impact the entire Council as deliberations on Chapter 8 continue. Please contact me with any questions regarding my comments. From: Dan Cox Sent: Thursday, March 31, :26 AM To: 'BBGUN1010@aol.com' <BBGUN1010@aol.com> Cc: BBrenner@co.whatcom.wa.us; NHanson@co.whatcom.wa.us; GDavis@co.whatcom.wa.us; MAamot@co.whatcom.wa.us; MPersoni@co.whatcom.wa.us; JLouws@co.whatcom.wa.us; Brad Davis <bradd@gravelpits.com> Subject: RE: FW: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan - Comments on Chapter 8 Resource La... Barbara, I talked at length with several members of the Surface Mine Advisory Committee (SMAC) regarding their 10 acre / 250,000 cubic yard recommendation. The SMAC recognized the increasing difficulty of finding sites that meet all the MRL designation criteria, and further, the SMAC discussed a recent example of the Council s failure to approve this companies fully qualifying Comp Plan request, which meet all the designation criteria, to add 280 acres to the Saxon MRL overlay near Acme (AB MRL). Given these realities, the SMAC felt that decreasing the threshold for size and volume could protect smaller aggregate reserves that otherwise would not be utilized. I also did not understand the rational for retaining language to support gravel bar scalping while at the same time voting to increase the size / volume thresholds to 20 acres / 1,000,000 cubic yards. Are you aware of any new gravel bar sites that would actually meet that criteria? Finally, language must be added to the Comp Plan or implementing regulations that creates an

2 obligation for the Council to approve for designation fully qualifying MRL applications. Failure to do so really creates a final and unwritten criteria, one which allows the Council to deny an application for reasons not listed in the criteria. This process of updating the Comp Plan is a great opportunity to vigorously debate the MRL criteria, create language that is agreed to by all parties during this public process, and then commit to making decisions based on those criteria once a adopted. Thank you for the research on property next to existing mines, which really helps in those cases. As I mentioned above, there may be stand-alone 10 acre pieces that are worth looking at protecting as well. Not all mines are wet mines as one of the Council members stated, in fact many sand and gravel sites are dry mined staying well above the water table. Neither is it true that 10 acre mines would create vertical walls as mentioned by one of the Council members. State Surface Mine Reclamation Standards require mine slopes to be reclaimed at 2:1 to 3:1 or flatter. Again, misinformation should not dictate decision making at the Council level. These small sites can certainly be reclaimed for subsequent use consistent with the underlying zoning. I appreciate your interest and willingness to discuss these difficult issues, it is to the benefit of all. From: BBGUN1010@aol.com [mailto:bbgun1010@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, :20 PM To: Dan Cox <danc@gravelpits.com> Cc: BBrenner@co.whatcom.wa.us; NHanson@co.whatcom.wa.us; GDavis@co.whatcom.wa.us; MAamot@co.whatcom.wa.us; MPersoni@co.whatcom.wa.us; JLouws@co.whatcom.wa.us Subject: Re: FW: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan - Comments on Chapter 8 Resource La... Dan, I got really worried, tried to call other council members and no one answered so I went to the comp plan to look. It clearly states that extension of an existing mine does not have to meet the criteria regarding minimum size nor the part about the amount of cubic yards required. It is on page 8-43 of our comp plan under Mineral Resources Lands (MRL) - Designation Criteria

3 Non-Metalic Mineral Deposits It definitely appears to resolve that concern. Please let me know if you have trouble finding it. I will still send you whatever I get from the planning department. If this is about county business, it is a public record subject to public disclosure upon request. Please send all s related to county business to my official county address, bbrenner@co.whatcom.wa.us. Thank you. In a message dated 3/30/2016 6:56:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, BBGUN1010@aol.com writes: Dan, I may have been mistaken but my understanding of the twenty acre minimum was for new mines, not for property adjacent to an existing mine. I am copying this to the planning department to ensure I am correct, and if I am not, I will definitely bring it back up. Thank you for pointing that out. I must not take anything for granted. They are usually very good at sending any relevant codes, which I will also send you. If this is about county business, it is a public record subject to public disclosure upon request. Please send all s related to county business to my official county address, bbrenner@co.whatcom.wa.us. Thank you. In a message dated 3/30/2016 4:41:31 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, danc@gravelpits.com writes: Hi Barbara, I sincerely appreciate your efforts and am disappointed the Council would not approve several of the amendments. But I need to be completely honest with you about my impression of what I witnessed at yesterday s meeting. I left very frustrated with the process and with the Council s approach. The Surface Mine Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission forwarded recommendations on Chapter 8 and Surface Mining that were, for the most part, disregarded. As you know these members of the SMAC were selected based on their expertise and balance on both sides of the issues. These members spent many hours over many months deliberating over the sections the Council is now re-writing. The Council does not have the time or expertise at this level of detail, and in that forum, to create well thought out, workable Comp Plan language for this section. An example is the discussion that took place regarding adding a reference in Chapter 8 to Chapter Mineral Resource Land Disclosure. This discussion went on seemingly forever, with nobody on the Council able to correctly cite this section of code, let alone describe what it says. Finally the Planner in attendance, when asked on point if such a code even existed, was able to come up with the citation in Whatcom County Code, but didn t offer to describe what it says. These are the types of details and discussion that can best take place in committee by people (experts in the field) that can take

4 the time to research certain topics, debate pros and cons, and create language that actually works. The Council s approach to making such important decisions with only partial information is very concerning to me. Another example of this was the discussion on the amendment from 10 to 20 acre minimum and 250,000 to 1,000,000 cubic yard minimum. I believe it was Rudd who said a 10 acre piece wasn t feasible to mine once setbacks were added. What a about a piece adjacent to an existing mine for example? There are situations the SMAC had considered that the Council is not thinking of. The same is true with the 250,000 c/y minimum. I m sorry to have to bring up those issues but am hopeful you might be able to reconsider the approach to this section. Is it possible to take another look at the SMAC s recommendations that have been fully vetted by that committee, or send the Councils general concerns back to committee? I think that would result in a better Chapter. Dan Cox From: BBGUN1010@aol.com [mailto:bbgun1010@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, :48 PM To: Dan Cox <danc@gravelpits.com> Cc: BBrenner@co.whatcom.wa.us; Subject: Re: FW: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan - Comments on Chapter 8 Resource La... Hi Dan, Unfortunately many of my amendments did not get passed by the council majority. However, I will keep trying. If this is about county business, it is a public record subject to public disclosure upon request. Please send all s related to county business to my official county address, bbrenner@co.whatcom.wa.us. Thank you. In a message dated 3/23/2016 3:52:47 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, bbrenner@co.whatcom.wa.us writes: -----Original Message----- From: Council <Council@co.whatcom.wa.us> To: Barbara Brenner <bbrenner@co.whatcom.wa.us>, Barry Buchanan <BBuchana@co.whatcom.wa.us>, Carl Weimer <cweimer@co.whatcom.wa.us>, "Forrest Longman" <FLongman@co.whatcom.wa.us>, Ken Mann <kmann@co.whatcom.wa.us>, "Rud Browne" <RBrowne@co.whatcom.wa.us>, Satpal Sidhu <SSidhu@co.whatcom.wa.us>, Todd Donovan <TDonovan@co.whatcom.wa.us> Subject: FW: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan - Comments on

5 Chapter 8 Resource Lands Date: Wed, 23 Mar :52: From: Dan Cox [mailto:danc@gravelpits.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, :12 PM To: Council Cc: Brad Davis Subject: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan - Comments on Chapter 8 Resource Lands Dear Councilmembers, Attached please find my written comments as requested by you at yesterday s March 22, 2016 Council Meeting. Thank you in advance for your consideration,

Thanks for the follow-up and I will work with PDS on some of your suggestions for the GPT website.

Thanks for the follow-up and I will work with PDS on some of your suggestions for the GPT website. From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Tyler Schroeder Sandra Robson Barbara Brenner; Barry Buchanan; Carl Weimer; Ken Mann; Satpal Sidhu; Todd Donovan; Rud Browne; Council; Jack Louws; Sam (Jeanne)