HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole February 11 20141
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Committee of the Whole
February 11, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(1:40:38 PM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Carl Weimer, Rud Browne and Barry
Buchanan.
Absent: Pete Kremen and Ken Mann.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
I. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE CURRENT STATE BUILDING CODE AND
REPEALING EXISTING TITLE 15 OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE (AB2013-
271)
Wain Harrison, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report
and stated this information is the same as was submitted on January 28. It was first
brought forward July 2013. They've been working on modifications with the Building
Industry Association of Whatcom County, and came back to Council on December 10. There
were remaining issues regarding fire flow, including hose stream allowance and how much
the basic fire flow table should be reduced for smaller buildings. Fire officials from various
fire districts around the county attended the Planning Committee meeting in January. He
referenced and read WCC 15.04.040(A)(12)(d)(2) on Council packet pages 223 -224, and
stated Planning Commissioner Honcoop and Councilmember Mann recommend a reduction
from 500 gallons per minute (gpm) to 250 gpm for exception three. He does not support a
reduction.
Weimer asked the opinion of the fire officials. Harrison stated Chief Russell said the
only reason they didn't comment on hose stream allowance was because they didn't discuss
it at the chief's meeting. Chief Russell supported keeping the hose stream allowance at 500
gpm at the Planning Committee meeting two weeks ago. Chief Anderson also supported the
fire stream allowance in the packet.
Crawford stated there is always tension between fire agencies and legislative bodies
about how much fire flow is needed. Fire associations are always lobbying the State
legislature for requiring extreme fire safety measures for the purpose of risk reduction. He
asked the rationale for both 500 gpm and 250 gpm in this particular case. If someone
doesn't choose to protect their property, especially in the middle of agriculture land with
nothing else around it, give them the option to not do that. Harrison stated this ordinance
is a distinction between agricultural buildings, agricultural processing buildings, and
manufacturing buildings. They're talking about agricultural processing buildings in this
Special Committee of the Whole, 2/11/2014, 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
49
50
51
52
53
section. At seasonal peak, a significant number of employees are in the building, and there
is more equipment and more dangerous chemicals.
For example, a 10,000 square foot agricultural processing building may have a
minimum of three 2Y2 inch hoses, each drawing a minimum of 250 gallons, for a total draw
of 750 gallons per minute. The 500 gpm hose stream is in addition to the amount charging
a sprinkler system. A requirement of 500 gpm for one hour is 30,000 gallons, divided by
750 gallons per minute, totals 40 minutes of storage capacity. At a 50 percent reduction,
there would be a 20 minute storage capacity, which isn't enough time to mount a significant
defense, especially if there is suspicion of life in the building and someone had to go in and
verify it.
Crawford asked the fire flow at Mayberry's under the old code. He asked if they
meet this standard currently. Harrison stated all the existing processing facilities have been
built and permitted according to the code in place at the time. He doesn't have specific
information.
Gary Honcoop, Planning Commission, stated the Mayberry's building size is
significantly bigger than what this is proposed for. Their fire flow is in excess of this
proposal. The intent was to reduce fire flow to encourage and incentivize people to install
sprinklers. There is a tradeoff. The sprinkler system responds quickly and will provide the
first level of protection while the fire department is arriving. Fire flow sitting in a tank or
hydrant won't do that. There is a benefit to sprinklers for farmers and for the fire district
that would provide protection. Larger buildings are required to have higher fire flow
numbers. He prefers the level be set at 250 gpm.
Harrison stated the fire marshal's office has always worked with smaller businesses.
The fire marshal has the option to negotiate increases or decreases, depending on the
specifics of the situation. They've always worked with an applicant to come up with a
mutually agreed upon approach. The proposals in this ordinance also allow further
reductions with credits. This is the way the fire marshal's office has always negotiated with
project applicants. Nothing is different from the way the fire marshal's office has historically
operated. Mr. Honcoop and his community are concerned that there won't be continuity in
how the ordinance is administered. No one can guarantee continuity, but there's a good
chance for it. He's made sure that the language in the ordinance is clear that increases and
decreases can be discussed and considered. They are already almost eight months into this
three -year code cycle. He suggests that the committee recommend to the Council approval
of this ordinance. Allow him to work with the community, including the community that Mr.
Honcoop represents, and see how this goes. They'll be able to discuss this again.
Browne stated he's sympathetic to Mr. Honcoop in terms of the impact on business.
He's experienced it personally. He understands the economic impact to farmers. His first
obligation, however, has been to do no harm to employees. Employees have trusted him to
be in compliance with the fire code. Their first responsibility is to public safety. People not
in the fire business aren't in a position to second -guess the fire code.
Harrison stated he shares Mr. Honcoop's concerns and strives to come up with a
reasonable balance. The table requires significant amounts of water storage, but in no
place in Whatcom County have those storage amounts been required. If they allow people
to not provide fire flow or not document any way that the fire flow is reasonable mitigated,
the Washington Survey and Ratings Bureau (WSRB) will audit the fire district and
downgrade the district because the code isn't being applied. The district's insurance rates
will go up and the insurance rates of the people who are in that fire district will go up. The
Special Committee of the Whole, 2/11/2014, 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
49
50
51
52
53
building services division, including the fire marshal's office, is due for an audit by the
Insurance Service Office, a partner of the WSRB. They will look at all the County's codes
and policies. What is written is important. They specifically adopted appendix chapters to
set up the environment for the staff to negotiate and mitigate an acceptable fire flow
response. However, what the County has written in codes and what those organizations will
look at might potentially downgrade the county and affect everyone's insurance rates.
Weimer referenced the staff report on Council packet page 194 asked if those items
are outstanding. Harrison stated he fixed the first item on that page, section
15.04.040(A)(12)(d)(3).
Weimer referenced the second item on Council packet page 194 regarding section
15.04.040(A)(12)(d)(2) and moved to approve the staff's recommendation of 500 gpm.
Browne stated he supports the motion. They must discuss the ability to provide fire
flow in general water discussions. The County isn't in a position to second -guess the
international fire code.
Harrison stated there was discussion in the past about the cost of putting in a tank
and fire infrastructure. Mr. Honcoop presented a set of standards and associated costs. He
countered with a different set of standards and costs, but it was too hasty and didn't include
costs for in- ground piping and other associated infrastructure. The general cost of putting
in additional fire flow infrastructure is somewhere in the range of $500,000, depending on
several factors.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Weimer, Browne and Buchanan (4)
Nays: Brenner and Crawford (2)
Absent: Mann (1)
Harrison referenced appendix B and stated they've chosen to exercise the option to
adopt table B105.1, with amendments, on Council packet page 226. The Council Planning
Committee recommended changes to the duration column in December.
Honcoop submitted a comparison chart of Table B105.1 (on file) that includes the
staff proposal, the current table in appendix B, and the table as proposed by former
Councilmember Knutzen.
Harrison referenced Mr. Honcoop's handout and stated a motivation to adjust the
table was to provide lower flow rates and duration rates for smaller buildings. That's
exactly what they've proposed to do. In general, staff proposes a flow rate reduction of 250
gallons per minute and a reduced flow duration of Y2 hour. Staff can and would make those
kinds of adjustments.
Weimer asked the reason for former Councilmember Knutzen's proposal. Harrison
stated the significant reason may have been cost savings.
(2:26 :17 PM)
Honcoop referenced his handout and stated the table is written for urban areas. The
starting point for the chart is an urban setting, which has a developed water supply and
good infrastructure. The issue is how a rural area accomplishes that. They had a proposal
for 35,000- 45,000 square foot berry processing and storage facility, with a total build out of
Special Committee of the Whole, 2/11/2014, 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
49
50
51
52
53
55,000 square feet. The City of Sumas has two water tanks, each with 500,000 gallons.
That berry processing facility would have to provide more fire flow than the City of Sumas if
it follows the chart, which is unworkable. The chart says the provisions are not mandatory
unless referenced in the adopting ordinance, which this ordinance is. The staff proposal is
to reduce the State urban table by 250 gpm over the urban standard across the board.
Additionally, the duration is reduced from an urban standard. Former Councilmember
Knutzen's proposal does not change the gpm flow requirement. His proposal adjusted
duration in some cases. Realistically, the durations of three and four hours won't happen,
because no city except maybe Bellingham can provide that duration. The flow limits will
first come from what the city can supply, because a city won't be able to produce that
amount.
Browne read from the minutes regarding former Councilmember Knutzen's reasons,
including that processing facilities are being shut down because of fire flow requirements.
Harrison stated they worked out a modification to the system by eliminating one or
two hydrants, proposed to use a water catchment system for fire storage to reduce the
amount of lines they put in, and reduced the amount of storage because they were going to
use a nearby pond. The water storage they were going to use would be charged by
rainwater catchment. They agreed to about 100,000 gallons, because they were going to
have that much storage anyway. The only reason that system hasn't been installed is
because the Department of Ecology has not agreed to rainwater catchment at those levels.
They're in the process of negotiating with the Department of Ecology. The fire flow
requirement was not based on greenhouses. It was based on the attached storage
warehouse, offices, and employee facilities that are directly attached to the greenhouse.
The warehouse has significant capacity to store any kind of materials. The table would have
required a significant amount of fire flow, but staff worked with the applicant to come up
with a reasonable system.
Weimer asked if there are any businesses that have withdrawn their application due
to fire flow issues. Honcoop stated it happens all the time. He is working on four right now.
Improvements in the definitions are necessary improvements. He described an example in
which a berry owner cannot create a secondary processing facility. His other clients include
berry, ice cream, and potato processors.
Harrison stated they may have lost a couple of projects to Skagit County. Whatcom
County can't compete with Skagit County because Skagit County has a countywide public
utility district, and they can get hydrants and fire flow anywhere. Whatcom County doesn't
have that luxury. They vetted the proposed model on other counties, and substantially
based it on Pierce County. The initial fire flow for the greenhouse project was established
before this proposal. This proposal has more flexibility and options. The model, including
credits, is based on a model proposed by Pierce County, which has since abandoned this
methodology and gone back to the original table, with a few modifications for smaller
buildings. They explained it's too problematic for them to administer. He doesn't
necessarily agree that it will be problematic in Whatcom County.
Weimer stated he's not a fire professional and doesn't understand the differences
between the staff and Councilmember Knutzen's proposal, so he tends to support the staff
proposal.
Browne moved to accept the staff proposal for Table B105.1. Staff are involved in
looking at fire flow. In the absence of obvious areas, they have to accept the staff
recommendation. They must all work together to try and resolve the issue of giving
Special Committee of the Whole, 2/11/2014, Page 4
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
agriculture the ability to have a hydrant anywhere in the county, as it is in Skagit County.
Start with public safety first, and find a way to provide water long -term. He supports the
staff recommendation.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Weimer, Browne and Buchanan (4)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Brenner, Mann and Kremen (3)
Buchanan moved to recommend that the full Council introduce the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Weimer, Browne and Buchanan (4)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Brenner, Mann and Kremen (3)
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:43 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on April 8, 2014.
ATTEST:
, Council Clerk
-, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Special Committee of the Whole, 2/11/2014, Page 5