Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works September 9 20031 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Public Works and Capital Projects Committee September 9, 2003 The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara Brenner in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: L. Ward Nelson None Sam Crawford Also Present: Dan McShane COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING WARPING RAILROAD TRACKS ON BAY ROAD, JUST SOUTH OF KICKERVILLE (AB2003 -309) Joe Rutan, County Road Engineer, stated new slabs will be installed in October. When they get done with their work, they will assess the situation. If they need to do maintenance work, they will do that. Brenner asked if they can be done this efficiently on other railroad projects. Rutan stated that is a goal. 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED LUMMI ISLAND PARKING LOT EXPANSION FOR CUSTOMERS USING THE WALK ON OPTION FOR THE WHATCOM CHIEF FERRY (AB2003 -311) Brenner stated she received letters from people who live next to the County - owned property. All but one were form letters. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated he hasn't seen the letter. Brenner read a letter into the record (on file) and asked Mr. Monsen to respond to questions two through five in the letter from a Lummi Island citizen, regarding fishery impacts, costs of accidents, contaminated wells, and mitigation costs. These are things she doesn't know about. Monsen stated he could not answer the questions now other than by saying every issue is something that must be addressed in detail through this process. The estimates he presented included the basic infrastructure needs. These kinds of issues are not dissimilar when looking at alternate sites. His estimate is not meant to characterize everything that might come up through a permitting process. If the Council were to approve Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/9/2003, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. today, he would still have to come before the Council if these matters or others cause problems that raise costs. Brenner asked if the entrance is on a virtual blind curve. Monsen stated it is not a straight stretch of road. The site distance available to that site can be addressed according to vehicle speed in that area. Any time an access point is added, it creates a risk point. Brenner asked what the County would have to do to prevent contaminating wells in the area. Monsen stated the County has to deal with stormwater management, which is different today than in the past. The estimate included paving the site. He would still prefer to deal with pervious surface as much as they can, which allows some of those contaminants to migrate downward. However, they may be required to pave the surface to capture and treat the contaminants. Brenner asked if the estimate includes consideration of abatement costs. Monsen stated the estimate includes a 15 percent contingency to deal with those matters. If they can't address the matters within that 15 percent, he will come before the Council. He believes they can fit the cost within the 15 percent. Brenner asked if different security would be needed on the County -owned property than on the property at the Islander store. Monsen stated any site will have to have some kind of lighting for security and pedestrian safety, but not anything dramatically different from one site to another. In developing parcels behind the roadway, such as the Matheson site, putting a walking trail from parking site to the ferry creates a different access maintenance and lighting issue that will drive the costs up. That's why they focused on the County parcel and Islander store site. Brenner asked if they are going to do some landscaping. Monsen stated they will be required to do substantial landscaping. A parking lot next to a house might not be desirable, but that doesn't mean it can't be harmonious. Crawford stated they were talking about the Islander store as the desired direction during the committee's last discussion. Monsen stated the understanding at the last discussion was that the Islander store option was closed because of issues regarding underground tanks, access, and other issues. They focused on the County parcel. However, from the standpoint of location and community needs, being adjacent to the Islander store is better operationally. The County moved ahead knowing it needs a willing seller. The options he explored with that parcel owner were not accepted, except for one, which he presented to the Council in the estimate. Crawford stated the cost per parking stall is double at the Islander store. Monsen stated that is correct. If they were to develop less than the full County site, the cost per stall would go up. It would still be cheaper per stall on the County property. Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/9/2003, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Crawford asked if they are sure about how many parking spaces are needed. Monsen stated they were originally thinking 40 to 50 stalls are needed. They don't have any great evidence that says they need a certain amount of stalls. He doesn't believe they will need 90 stalls right now, but they should approach the matching number of spaces at Gooseberry Point. Crawford asked if the recommendation is based only on the cost, or includes consideration of other factors. Monsen stated his consideration included reasonable access, a location that allows enough parking spaces, and properties that don't include additional costs for walkways and other features. He focused clearly on these two parcels. Other costs include shoulder improvement for walking and lighting improvement. Those costs are about the same for both parcels, so he did not include them. They cancel each other out. He also tried to predict the mitigation costs, and addressed it with the 15 percent contingency. The recommendation of the County -owned property is based primarily in financing, with other factors being equal. There is some operational preference for the Islander store. If the cost estimate for the County -owned site had been slightly less instead of substantially less than the estimate for the Islander store, he would have recommended the Islander store location. Crawford asked where the walkway would go. Monsen stated they would make improvements to the roadside shoulder. The only issue for both sites is establishing the walkway on one side of the road or the other, and selecting the point for crossing the road. They won't develop both sides of the road for walking. It will be an improvement to road shoulders. Brenner asked how much closer the County site is than the Islander site. Monsen stated they are similar in terms of distance. Brenner stated there are 80 spaces at Gooseberry Point. She asked if they are ever filled. Monsen stated they are filled during dry dock. Ninety -one spaces are not enough during dry dock. If the new 91 -space parking lot were opened today, it would not be filled. A major question of the 20 -year plan is where they make the next major investment: walk -on passengers or drive -on passengers. If they are going to focus on walk -on passengers, then they will need 90 stalls. Brenner asked about land acquisition of the Islander store. Monsen stated the price for the Islander store land is similar to the price the County paid for the County parcel. Those costs are offsetting, and are similar factors. He didn't add those costs into the estimate. The owner is not interested in a lease, and the County would have to acquire it. McShane asked the driving force for developing a new parking lot. Monsen stated the County will always look for walk -on options. They have maximized the use of parking space on the island. Now there is parking on Gooseberry Point. He Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/9/2003, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. assumes Gooseberry Point parking will be used more heavily if there is comparable parking on the Island side. McShane asked if there has been consideration of using a bus or another option other than parking. Monsen stated there has been that consideration. The van service on the island that is used during dry dock could reduce the need for the number of parking spaces. However, the labor cost to run a shuttle is much bigger. Transit services are provided in the context of the overall community and are heavily subsidized. The full cost of a parking lot is cheaper than the full cost of a shuttle. McShane stated the County subsidizes ferry operations by 55 percent. He asked if there would be a subsidy for parking as part of the ferry fare. Monsen stated that is a fare structure policy that he would need guidance on. If it is a service that will be subsidized, the Council has to confirm how it wants that financial comparison. Mark Marshall, Lummi Island Ferry Committee, stated he developed alternatives to the proposed parking area several years ago. The alternatives were presented two years ago. The Beach Store parking lot is an alternative. The Lummi Island Transportation Committee consensus is to get walk -on passengers or tandem ferries. The proposed parking lot is inadequate for the future for walk -on passengers. If they are going to encourage people to walk on the ferry, they need a bus service or a larger parking lot. Give the issue of choosing the parking lot more consideration. The only lot that can grow in the future is the Matheson proposal, which is accessible. A neighbor to that property was willing to grant an easement for a walkway to the ferry. Monsen stated the Matheson property is east of the Islander store. The cost to develop the site would be similar to that of the County parcel. There would be additional costs of creating and maintaining the walkway to the boat. It is a substantially higher cost per stall, long -term. One other factor was that property owners were concerned about dedicating any space for a walkway. The Granger parcel was tied up in trust issues that may make it difficult to gain an easement. He talked with members of the Granger family who had ownership in the property. If the Council wants to have more 90 spaces, then he would not recommend the County parcel. Marshall stated it deserves further investigation, given the impact on the community and need for parking spaces. Those 90 spaces will fill quickly. Crawford asked if there is parking on the island currently. Monsen stated that there are 30 to 40 spaces in and around the ferry terminal. They are usually full. Elizabeth Marshall, 2330 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, stated the County lot is wet all the time. It is directly across the street from the beach. This summer, low Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/9/2003, 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 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. tides, high temperatures, and too much seaweed created a terrible stench from the seaweed. There is a gravel embankment that leads to the ferry on the north side. There is no water flow through there. If the parking lot is situated directly across the street, all the automobile emissions will go into the ground and move easily through the ground to the water in that area. It won't get washed out. The other locations are a farther distance from the shore. The County parcel has serious washout problems from the rising tides. They are losing banks. Brenner stated the County -owned property is on the other side of the road from the water. She asked if the road is washing out. Elizabeth Marshall stated it is. Brenner stated the County will have to maintain the road, no matter where the parking lot is. Elizabeth Marshall stated the County won't be able to. It will eventually wash out. Brenner stated they are going to have to maintain the road anyway. If they do a parking lot there, they will have to do some kind of stormwater management. Monsen stated the stormwater management would be identical to that required at either location. The best guidance for stormwater management is the State Department of Ecology (DOE) stormwater manual. Surface water would be captured and go through filtration and treatment prior to release. They need to capture that water as best they can, even if it means paving the site. The type of capture and treatment is not unique to either sites. It will be the same regardless of the location of the parking lot. Brenner stated she believed Mr. Monsen said that if there is no way they can capture most of the runoff, they would not develop the site. Monsen stated that is correct. Elizabeth Marshall stated she hadn't heard about any costs being spent on stormwater collection. Brenner stated she believed Mr. Monsen said the costs would be the same at either location. Monsen stated he estimated stormwater collection costs on the assumption that the sites would be paved. Because the County site is larger than the Islander store site, the stormwater cost is more because they are capturing more. The per stall cost is similar. Elizabeth Marshall asked if the costs would be the same for a 90 -stall lot as a 300 -stall lot. Brenner stated the cost of a stormwater capture and treatment system increases at the same rate, so the per stall cost is the same. Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/9/2003, Page 5 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Monsen stated that if the decision was to develop a 300 -stall property, the County would only construct 50 to 100 today, so the costs would be the same. Elizabeth Marshall stated she hadn't heard of any plans to treat the runoff. Mr. Monsen says the two options are to pave the lot and retrieve more of the runoff, or make the lot gravel and retrieve less. Monsen stated that is not correct. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A) Monsen continued to state that infiltration is an effective treatment method. Infiltration is the preference to minimize the amount of water they would have to handle. However, on a site like this, they must pave it so they can capture 100 percent of the stormwater, due to regulations. That doesn't mean they won't look to infiltration if it is a better treatment mechanism than running all the water to a catch basin and doing treatment. Their goal is to treat water and remove pollutants, either through infiltration or collection and treatment. He will look at infiltration because it is usually cheaper. However, infiltration does not treat the pollutants as well as capturing the runoff. Brenner asked if it is possible that they would have to pave the County - owned property but not the Matheson property, making the cost lower. Monsen stated the regulations would be the same at both locations. Elizabeth Marshall stated the County property is closest to the ocean. The runoff at that property would have to be more thoroughly treated. This has been looked at carefully. Brenner stated they are both close enough to the water that they would need the same kind of treatment, according to Mr. Monsen. Elizabeth Marshall stated this hasn't been looked at carefully. Mr. Monsen has not talked to the Department of Ecology or can describe the system they will need to use. Mr. Monsen is saying that some emissions cannot be treated sufficiently through filtration. The emissions from automobiles include heavy metals and oils that cannot be treated through infiltration. Brenner stated Mr. Monsen is saying that, because both locations are within a certain proximity to the water so both locations would have to be treated the same. Elizabeth Marshall stated Mr. Monsen cannot support that statement. Those two sites are sufficiently different, unless there is a blanket rule by the Department of Ecology that all car emissions have to be collected off a paved surface. Brenner stated that's what Mr. Monsen said. Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/9/2003, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Elizabeth Marshall stated she disagreed. Monsen stated he would not promote paving it if they don't have to. However, the type and treatment and release of pollutants are identical on both sites from a regulatory standpoint and from a practical standpoint. The movement of pollutants is not about whether or not it reaches the shoreline, but about whether or not it leaves the site and encounters groundwater. Elizabeth Marshall stated that's why they have to pave the lot and collect the pollutants. Monsen stated that's why he said it is likely they will have to pave the site, regardless of location. Art Thomas, 2620 Islandview, Lummi Island, stated the Lummi Island Transportation Committee has not endorsed any specific parking site or area. They have stated they need parking and need it now. The Lummi Island Planning Committee decided that any and all parking needs to be as close to the ferry landing as possible. He drives on the ferry. In the future, he and many others will be walking because there is not much ferry capacity. There is not any ferry capacity during peak times. The 90 parking spots will not be enough in the long -term if they don't think about ferry capacity. Todd Granger, 2101 West Shore Drive, stated the .92 acre on the map is a well lot for the Hilltop Water Association, with 50 members. It is an important factor. He supports development of County -owned property. It is closest to the ferry dock and makes the most sense. Elderly people would prefer the shortest route, which is the County parcel. That is a good enough reason to develop the County parcel. Rob Benzac, Seattle, stated he is the son -in -law of June Butt, who owns the property to the north of the County -owned property. He is a real estate appraiser. There will be a devaluation of property value, called external obsolescence. He is pro -Lummi Island and for having extra parking. Living next to this parcel, he knows there are deficiencies with the County -owned lot. There are shoreline protection issues that haven't been addressed. Setback from the high tide line is 200 feet. He doesn't know if that's been taken into account. If the parking lot is going in next to June Butt's property, there will be a devaluation of her property value. He would expect either compensation or a pending lawsuit. He doesn't see in the budget how the sound and lighting issues would be addressed. He wants something more significant. He doesn't want ferry boat traffic coming and going next to his bedroom until late in the night or very early in the morning. There are issues regarding buffers, greenbelts, and shoreline setbacks. The island community needs to maintain the aesthetically pleasing part of the island. When they come onto the island, he doesn't want to see 91 parking spots there. Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/9/2003, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. McShane stated that there will be a conditional use permit for the parking lot under the zoning code. A conditional use permit will require a Hearing Examiner decision. All those issues will be discussed to create conditions on this facility. Benzac stated it seems like the right thing to do would be not to develop that lot. Brenner stated that because home and land prices are going up, any perceived devaluation may be offset by increases, but she doesn't know. Irene Embrey, 2158 S. Nugent Road, Lummi Island, stated she and her neighbors within 300 feet of the proposed parking site would be affected. She read their form letter into the record (on file). She is concerned about car emissions, nearby wells, and other factors. The County should develop the Islander store site. Dennis Matheson, 2183 S. Nugent Road, Lummi Island, stated he owns property adjacent to the Islander store. It's not his intent to sell his property, but to offer an alternative to the County -owned property. He lives 78 feet from the County -owned property. That lot is a recharge area for the well. If the lot is paved and doesn't have a permeable surface area, they would take all the surface water, run it away from the recharge area, and have dry wells. They have monitored the wells closely for three years. The well didn't go dry during the very dry summer. If the County paves over that lot, they will have contamination problems. The Lummi Island Transportation Committee provided alternatives that were only given lip service. Mr. Monsen hasn't looked at the proposed alternatives. He wants answers to questions of noise pollution, water pollution, and fitting in harmoniously to the community. The County is being secretive about what it plans to do. The residents would not be as cynical if they knew more about what is going on. McShane stated all those issues are addressed through the conditional use process for whatever location they choose. Residents will have plenty of opportunity to complain also at that time. Jim Dickinson, 2094 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island, stated he prefers that the parking lot be even closer to the ferry landing. He is the only person in this room who walks on the ferry on a daily basis. The current parking situation is that it is always full. Mitigation needs to be done for neighbors so no one sees or hears anything. Regarding the pollution problem, Mr. Monsen has nicely answered the question. Regarding pollution from cars, 50 percent of the cars that go to the Lummi Island ferry drive right by the ferry every day. They are there anyway. Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/9/2003, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. The current lots there have no mitigation. The cars are going to come by there anyway. It is two and a half minutes from the County -owned lot to the top of the ramp at the ferry landing. It is seven or eight minutes from the Matheson site. A person can get soaked in the rain walking the two and a half minutes from the County -owned site. Imagine walking the extra distance to the other site in the rain, carrying children, groceries, or for the older people. The farther site is completely unacceptable. He doesn't want to impact anyone's neighborhood, but they don't have a choice. This is where the ferry dock is located. Mitigate the site as best as they can. The Islander store site is not adequate. It does not have enough spaces. Crawford asked why more people don't walk on the ferry. Dickinson stated part of the problem is that there is no place to park. Part of the reason to walk is to not stand in line. It's not very convenient, even with the spaces right there. People do get wet, especially on the Gooseberry Point side. Almost everyone has the cost of two vehicles. David Dickenson, Legoe Bay Road, stated there is a parking problem now. Something needs to be done. The runoff is a problem of degree. There is a lot of traffic on the Islander store, Beach Store Cafe, library, and ferry traffic. There is no containment for runoff right now. A new lot would move 91 vehicles off of where they are parked today and onto the lot. Crawford asked if there is an intention to not have those current 30 or 40 spaces. Monsen stated they would keep those spaces as well. Brenner stated the councilmembers could have a Saturday fieldtrip to both sites. Monsen stated they might want to wait until after dry dock. Brenner stated she would rather do it next Tuesday. Crawford stated it would be more convenient for neighbors on a Saturday. Jim Dickinson stated a Saturday would give the commuters who work time to talk to the councilmembers. Brenner stated the most important thing is to see the two sites. People can contact her and talk to her at any time. Monsen stated either day is fine. They will have to arrange a place to meet. Benzac stated they should not predicate anything on people who weren't here today. He took the time out to come up from Seattle today. Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/9/2003, Page 9 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Brenner stated there are people whose jobs won't allow them to come to meetings. They will meet at the County courthouse at 11:00 a.m., so they can catch the noon ferry, on Saturday, September 20, 2003. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 2:57 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/9/2003, Page 10