Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works February 12 20021 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. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Public Works and Capital Projects Committee February 12, 2002 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: Laurie Caskey- Schreiber None Sharon Roy Also Present: Sam Crawford Dan McShane COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. RESOLUTION APPROVING ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN ARCO AND BP, ASSIGNING THE NON- EXCLUSIVE PIPELINE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT TO BP (AB2002 -046) Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated he has spoken with Councilmember Fleetwood, who had asked that the matter be held for a couple of weeks. He reviewed a few matters in terms of the area that was involved in Exhibit A of the franchise, at the south end of Kickerville Road. They also discussed other matters about the franchise. He assumes that Councilmember Fleetwood is satisfied with the information they discussed. There were questions about the nature of the regulation that applies to this pipeline, where this particular pipeline is located, where it runs from and to, and the liability insurance that is required under the franchise. He'd asked Councilmember Fleetwood to contact him if there were any additional concerns or questions. However, Councilmember Fleetwood has not contacted him. Carl Weimer, RESources, stated he called Councilmember Brenner last night. He asked some of the same questions that Councilmember Fleetwood did. In the last couple of years, the City /County consortium put together a 25 -page model franchise agreement. This agreement is only four or five pages. There is a difference in the amount of insurance. The current agreement has $300,000 of insurance. The model agreement has $100 million of insurance. There are other things in the model agreement that are not in this agreement. He didn't know whether or not the County has an opportunity now to beef up this agreement. Brenner questioned whether the County could make any changes to the agreement legally at this time. Gibson stated this is an assignment of franchise. Assignments are to be done as a matter of course. If there are glaring problems, then one has the opportunity to address them. In this instance, he has not seen Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 1 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. 1 any glaring problems in this agreement. The one thing that has been mentioned a 2 number of times is the requirement for insurance with relatively low limits. Some 3 people think that is the full extent of the company's liability. By no means is that 4 the extent of the company's liability. It simply means that the company has to 5 carry insurance to at least that level. In the case of a company like British 6 Petroleum (BP), the size of the company and the nature of the reserves that they 7 carry is such that these limits are relatively meaningless. 8 9 Brenner asked why the County doesn't just raise the minimum insurance. 10 The company obviously has the money to make the commitment. She is 11 uncomfortable with waiting eight more years to raise that minimum. It's not about 12 BP. Companies can extricate themselves from their subsidiaries sometimes. She 13 didn't think that BP would, but the County should reassure the public since BP has 14 the money to make that commitment. The amount that Mr. Weimer mentioned was 15 in the model agreement sounds good to her. Gibson stated that the County should 16 speak with the company before making that kind of requirement. 17 18 Roy stated Mr. Gibson, as an attorney, has looked at the document and is 19 comfortable with it. Councilmember Fleetwood, as an attorney, has looked at it. 20 She is the person who initially asked to look at the agreement. They've had 21 enough legal opinions to say that the Council should move forward with this unless 22 there is something really extraordinary about this rather than make BP wait another 23 two weeks. She accepts Mr. Gibson's legal opinion. She moved to recommend 24 approval to the full Council. 25 26 Brenner asked why they wouldn't put that recommended liability limit in the 27 agreement now. Gibson stated he has never seen the model franchise agreement. 28 He is the person who is assigned to work with franchises for the County, and he 29 hasn't seen it. He doesn't know whether or not the amount of $100 million is 30 better or worse than any other amount. The more pertinent issue is that the 31 County converse with the company. The question to ask is whether or not the 32 company can realistically demonstrate its financial ability to respond to lawsuits. 33 34 Mike Abendhoff, BP Government and Public Affairs Manager, stated he wants 35 to discuss how the agreement was written, which allows the County, with 30 days 36 notice, to notify the company about any concerns with the existing document. 37 Assuming that the new pipeline franchise agreement goes into effect, the company 38 would be happy to sit down and talk about any liability levels that might occur if 39 they are given adequate notice. At this time, all the company is looking to do is to 40 transfer the name from Arco to BP, and assume every obligation that they have 41 already in the document. That is what they are talking about now. They can 42 certainly sit down and talk about future insurance requirements. The company is 43 self- insured. Their State tax bill is almost as high as the amount that was 44 mentioned. The company has the reserves and the capability to back up any 45 potential liability or harmful situation. 46 Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/12/2002, 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 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 questioned whether the County could adopt an ordinance to use the model franchise agreement, and then sit down with BP at that point. Gibson stated BP is asking for an assignment of an existing franchise. They are entitled to an assignment of the existing franchise. Brenner asked if the County is limited on whether or not it could ask the company to raise it's insurance rate, if the County adopts an ordinance requiring it. Gibson stated this franchise contains provisions that enable the County Council to make changes within the next eight years. Motion carried unanimously 2. PRESENTATION BY ROLAND MIDDLETON, PDS LAND USE SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER, REGARDING JUNK CARS (AB2002 -113) Roland Middleton, Land Use Services Division Manager, stated there was a question that came up last June or July about abandoned vehicles and junkyards. Representatives from the Sheriff's Office, Health and Human Services Department, and Planning and Development Services Department met to discuss the different codes that may pertain to that use. One code is the Abandoned Vehicles, Whatcom County Code (WCC) 8.32. The other two are the solid waste ordinance and the illegal dumping ordinance of WCC 8.28 and 8.15. The code that the Land Use Division enforces is WCC 20.80.540. There have been changes in staff in the different departments. He has a different compliance officer. There is a different road use investigator for the Sheriff's Office. There are different people in the Environmental Health Division who were all responsible for this. They were each operating from a separate code. They found that a few individuals were using the new staff to go between each other. The three departments met in August and again in January to reestablish that communication. Now, they are proceeding with enforcing with a more joint effort. They are having greater success. The vast majority of the complaints that the County receives is from people who the County will work with to get into compliance. The people will begin to get into compliance. As soon as the County backs off, the issue arises again. A person may have 20 or 30 abandoned vehicles. The County cites the person, who will remove the vehicles and may get down to three, four, or five vehicles. The County will consider them in compliance. Three months later the neighbor calls again, and the person will have collected another 20 or more vehicles. They have to start the compliance procedure all over. He's run into that on a couple of different occasions. One of the problems that the Sheriff's Office has found is that they have to have a victim. A deputy cannot just go out and cite a person for a violation of that code. There needs to be a victim. If the neighbor is unwilling to file a complaint or testify in court that it is a nuisance, the case doesn't go anywhere. Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/12/2002, 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. The Planning Department enforces if the person is storing vehicles in a residential zone or operating a business, such as a salvage yard or towing company. He is going after three different towing companies right now that are operating illegally. He is not prepared to get into details because all of his actions can be appealed to the County Council. When the three departments met with Karen Frakes, they could not identify any changes that need to be made to the ordinances at this time. This group hopes to pay attention to those areas that are lacking. They don't have that information at this time. Right now, the process works with the more serious violators. There isn't a three strikes rule for abandoned vehicles. People can repeat their violations many times. It takes something more serious than junk cars for the Prosecuting Attorney to use up his time to go after criminal action. Brenner asked if the citations are fines. Middleton stated he believed that the Sheriff's Office issues a fine. For the zoning code violation, there is an automatic $250 fine. For illegal dumping, the fine is $100. Brenner asked if the $250 fine is the one used most often for junk cars. Middleton stated it is more often the fine issued by the Sheriff's Office. He believes it may also be a civil infraction, for which the fine is $200. Brenner asked if there is an incremental rise in the fines for repeat offenders. Middleton stated there is not. It is just like a parking ticket. A person can continue to get parking tickets. If the person keeps paying them, the fine for repeat violations doesn't increase. Brenner asked if the County has the option to create an incremental fine. Middleton stated it does. They could go to assessing civil penalties. That is much trickier because the definition of what the enforcement officer sees must be specific enough so that everyone is treated the same. Brenner asked how many vehicles make it a violation of the code. Crawford stated the number of vehicles doesn't matter. The vehicle has to meet a certain definition. Middleton stated it depends on the condition and type of automobile. One vehicle could be a violation. When an abandoned vehicle is a nuisance and he receives a complaint. At that time, he will notify the Sheriff's Office to work with the deputy on investigation and enforcement action. He will also notify the Health Department, which will investigate. From the complaints he's received, they've proceeded on some kind of enforcement action for all of them. Brenner stated she spoke to a person at the Planning Department last year who told her that it would be helpful if there was an actual number of vehicles specified in the ordinance. Middleton stated that if the Council decides to add an Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 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. additional ordinance regarding the number of vehicles that can be onsite, he would need something as specific as a number, so he can go to the site and count the number of vehicles. At that point, they get into issues such as whether or not just a vehicle body is considered a vehicle. If there is even one auto that is an abandoned vehicle under the definition of the code, it is a nuisance to a neighbor or someone in the area, and the neighbor is willing to file a formal complaint, then enforcement can be done and it will be taken seriously. Brenner stated she gets a lot of calls about junk cars. One of the callers is in the Kickerville Road and Birch Bay - Lynden Road area. She asked if that is a nuisance area. Middleton stated that area is a substantial problem. There is actually a Whatcom County junk car website. There are pictures of those sites that he knows very well, and the owners know him well. That is prevalent throughout the County codes and enforcement. There are repeat offenders who do fill -and- grade violations, zoning violations, and Unified Building Code (UBC) violations. He deals with them all the time and has for many years. Brenner stated the least the County could do if it is not getting better would be to raise fines to pay for the staff's time. It bothers her that the taxpayers are footing the bill and nothing is changing. Middleton stated the violators continue to pay their fines, and the fine covers the cost. Brenner stated the fine should double the second time, triple the third time, and keep going up incrementally until they clean up their act. Middleton stated the Council's first opportunity to make a change would be when staff brings forward the code enforcement ordinance. The Planning and Development Services Department code enforcement ordinance that he's worked on in the past with Councilmember Nelson and others. That will come forward hopefully in the spring or summer. Karen Frakes has the draft. Staff is reviewing it. They will take all of the enforcement actions out of the land use codes. There are six to eight different codes that the department enforces. Each code has its own different enforcement procedure. They are planning to incorporate all of the current codes into one ordinance. Brenner stated there are different kinds of violations that have different levels of seriousness. They may present a public health hazard. Middleton stated they can address that issue easier in one ordinance than trying to fix each individual ordinance. Roy asked if Councilmember Nelson is working with staff on this. Middleton stated no. The issue is something that Councilmember Nelson had serious concerns about last year and the year before. He has instructed the staff to work on that as something he would support and sponsor. It has taken some time to get it done because it has been quite a chore. Roy questioned whether this committee can make a recommendation to this study, or if a recommendation must come from the entire Council. Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/12/2002, 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. Brenner stated that the County Executive told her that the committee can make a recommendation. She would like the committee to make some recommendations. She's looking at the abandoned vehicle code. What the County has to do looks pretty onerous. Roy stated she would like the committee to recommend considerably higher fines. That seems to be the consensus here. Middleton stated the staff will put together recommendations on enforcement from the Council, Executive, the Planning Commission, and the public. The recommendation from the committee and the Council needs to be as specific as possible, and not just ask for stiffer fines. Roy stated the objective is to decrease the number of repeat offenders. If people are thumbing their noses at the fines, then the County must figure out a way to make the second offense worse. Caskey- Schreiber asked Mr. Middleton to consider that the committee would like to develop incremental fine schedule for repeat offenders. Middleton stated that if there is a third zoning violation by someone, the department can seek criminal charges. At that time, the case leaves the Planning Department and goes to the Prosecuting Attorney, and it is prioritized with them. Caskey- Schreiber stated that is too much. She would like an incremental fine from the Planning Department. Brenner stated she does not want this issue to be able to go to prosecution. The Council can't even get the prosecutor to prosecute at Paradise and Peaceful Valley. The Prosecuting Attorney's Office is overloaded. She wants to make sure the Council can raise the fine to a point where someone takes them seriously. To some, the fine right now is just a cost of doing business. Roy asked about burned out mobile home hulks. She questioned what happens to them and whether this issue is just about automobiles. Middleton stated that if it's a licensed vehicle, it falls under this ordinance. The one thing that prompted this issue more than anything was about old buses that become abandoned. Brenner stated a bus doesn't have provisions for people to live in it. She asked what happens if it is a vehicle that can't go down the road because it is unlicensed at the moment or there was never a license. Middleton stated that if it's not in working order, it is an abandoned vehicle. Brenner asked what happens if it can run, but it is not legal because it is not licensed. Middleton stated he didn't know that it would be considered an abandoned vehicle. That might just be something that is parked. That would be different than what they are dealing with when people are bringing in many vehicle hulks that are really big pieces of scrap metal. Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/12/2002, 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 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 Paul Holtzheimer had a list of reasons why things aren't working, and it didn't seem like the problem was just a lack of coordination. It seemed that the problem had to do with the fact that nothing could legally be done about certain things. She asked if the County could handle junk car problems simply by proper coordination. Middleton stated the staff would like the opportunity to see what holes in the regulations actually exist. They want to go with what is on the books now before they ask for any changes. One additional change would be to adopt the code enforcement ordinance. They can add incremental fines to that ordinance, and see if this helps to clean up the problem. As the administrator of the code, he is not a fan of adding new codes. He would rather make what they have work better, given the circumstances that they have. He suspects that a problem is a matter of aesthetics. If a person buys a couple of trailers to rebuild them, it doesn't meet the definition of an abandoned vehicle. They are something that the person is working on, yet the neighbors don't like it. County staff gets involved in those kinds of squabbles quite often. They have nothing to do with the land use. It has more to do with how neighbors react to one another. He would like to stay out of those disputes. Brenner asked if the County can require screening. Middleton stated businesses have to have the appropriate permits. Staff deals with towing and junkyard businesses. Screening is involved. He requires those businesses to get those permits. Brenner asked about a complaint on Deer Creek years ago. Someone had a lot of junk cars, and neighbors were worried about things getting into the creek. She asked about pollutants and public health nuisances. The Health Department got involved because of rats that were around the vehicles. Middleton stated other ordinances would cover those issues. Brenner moved to recommend the idea of a code enforcement ordinance, looking at incremental fines, and having a discussion on the maximum number of vehicles that will be allowed. Some of this will depend on zoning. Something that is a problem in one zone may not be a problem in another zone. Middleton stated there are storage restrictions in the residential zones. In the rural zone, something that is not an abandoned vehicle can be stored. Brenner amended her motion to also recommend screening. Caskey- Schreiber stated they would have to get into a discussion of what adequate screening is. Roy stated that is addressed in the cottage industry rules. If it is an illegal junkyard, the County will not ask the owners to screen the vehicles. The County will ask the owners to get the vehicles out of there. Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/12/2002, 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 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 she only wanted to discuss it if they aren't going to specify a number of vehicles. Middleton stated he would look at the different sections of code, see how they apply, and provide the committee members copies of that information. The requirements are different in the different zones. There is a requirement for screening of storage in certain zones. Caskey- Schreiber stated she didn't want to bog the staff down too much. There are different ways to do screening. Roy stated the objective is to get rid of junk cars. The screening confuses the issue. Brenner withdrew the amendment to her motion. She restated the motion to recommend the idea of a code enforcement ordinance, looking at incremental fines, and having a discussion on the maximum number of vehicles that will be allowed. The motion carried unanimously. Roy asked about the committee's ability to ask the Planning Department to look at her concerns. Brenner stated Executive Kremen told her that the committee doesn't need to take it to the Council. She assumes this is fine. Brenner asked Mr. Middleton and Mr. Hart to call Paul Holtzheimer. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Brenner continued to state that Mr. Holtzheimer is really concerned about this issue. 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TO INCLUDE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY AND MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SELLER TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE BUYER CONCERNING THE WATER SOURCE WHEN SELLING DEVELOPED PROPERTY (AB2001 -369) Brenner thanked Paul Chudek for spending hours with her on the phone going over this stuff. It is really wonderful that he took the time to clarify things for her. Paul Chudek, Environmental Health Supervisor, stated he can go through the questions that Councilmember Brenner brought to him previously. Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 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 she only wanted to discuss the questions that Mr. Chudek said he would work on. Chudek stated he has not had an opportunity yet to talk to Randy Watts about real estate transactions and disclosures, and how the Health and Human Services Department is out of the enforcement loop. Brenner stated that section is about real estate law. It isn't the County's job to enforce real estate law. Mr. Chudek told her that it wasn't the department's intention to do that. She understands that some kind of wording will be included that will say that all sections except the real estate section would be enforced by the Health Department director or the Prosecuting Attorney. Chudek stated that is correct. He would leave it up to legal counsel to decide how best to word that language. Crawford asked if the Council has had a hearing on this. Brenner stated it has. The Council put it into committee to work on further. The first time it was in committee there was quite a bit of discussion. The committee didn't get to it two weeks ago. Regina Delahunt, Interim Director, stated they've discussed the concept at the Board of Health meetings a couple of times last year. Brenner stated she previously handed out comments from Doug Campbell. Mr. Chudek has had an opportunity to go over most of them and respond. The Council also got a comment from a well driller. Mr. Chudek also spoke to that well driller, so that will be taken care of as they go through this. Crawford stated Mr. Campbell mentioned the no- protest agreement. At some point, he would like to know what the answer was to that issue. Brenner referenced Council packet page 129, the definition of item (24), single family dwelling. She talked to Mr. Chudek, who is comfortable with her suggestion. The County doesn't have the right to decide who lives in a single - family swelling. Don't make distinctions about who lives in them. She moved to amend language, " "'Single Family Dwelling" means one residential structure or speusal equivalent." Motion carried unanimously. Brenner moved to amend the definition of item (24), single family dwelling, "'Single Family Dwelling" means one detached residential structure." Motion carried unanimously. Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 9 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. 1 Brenner referenced Council packet page 128, item (19), public water system. 2 Mr. Campbell was concerned about two -party wells being a public water system. 3 The concern was that it would fall under a particular Washington Administrative 4 Code (WAC) and would not be allowed. Chudek stated the definition is the 5 definition taken from WAC, which also allows local health jurisdictions to exempt 6 two -party from any or all requirements of the WAC. They've done that by policy. 7 They do that through a joint plan of operation and contract with the State 8 Department of Health. He developed a new definition, "'Public Water System 9 means any systern PFE)Viding piped water f()F consumption, excluding a systern 10 11 eenneetmens seFving enly Fesidenees en the same faFng a non -group B two party well 12 or water supply means a water system using one well to serve two single - family 13 residences for which the director has waived all requirements found in the WAC." 14 15 Brenner asked for wording like that under the definition for Public Water 16 System. Delahunt stated she is hesitant to modify the State definition. The County 17 can waive the requirements, but she wouldn't want to change the definition. 18 19 Chudek stated Title 21 is clear on when they have to and do not have to use 20 public water. There are times when two -party wells or wells serving only two 21 residents will have to be developed as public water supplies because of Title 21. 22 Nothing precludes someone from using two -party wells as long as it is consistent 23 with Title 21. 24 25 Brenner referenced page 131, section (1)(a)(ii), Requirements for Approval 26 of Building Permit Applications Proposing to Use an Existing Public Water System, 27 which talks about signing a statement that ensures it complies with the WAC. She 28 asked if this is the WAC in which the Health Department is allowed to exempt the 29 two -party well. Chudek stated Mr. Campbell's concern is about having to be 30 completely in compliance with the rule. In the same section on Council packet page 31 131, subsection (2)(b), there was a concern that a positive coliform sample could 32 be construed as not being in compliance. To avoid that perception, the staff 33 recommendation is to strike subsection (b) completely and strike everything after 34 "...to provide water to the building" in subsection (c). That is how it happens 35 anyway. Staff determines whether or not they are in significant compliance with 36 the rules. 37 38 Brenner moved to amend packet page 131, to strike subsection (2)(b) 39 completely and amend subsection (c) on Council packet page 132, "...water to the 40 building except fer Greup A water system s the fellewing cenditiens alse apply. 41 42 {t} , ; eF 43 44 WAG 246 299." 45 46 Motion carried unanimously. 47 Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 10 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. Brenner referenced Council packet page 133, subsection (f)(i). She asked why they would say "may" instead of "shall." If someone can meet the conditions in subsection (A) or (B), it should be the same as if they were 100 feet away. Caskey - Schreiber stated the director may approve an alternate course, as a consequence of the first section. It is optional. Brenner asked why it would be optional if someone meets the conditions in subsection (A) or (B). Councilmember McShane, as a geologist, said these two things would protect the well site. Chudek stated the standard setback is 100 feet. If someone can't meet the standard setback and can meet the other criteria, the department will entertain the possibility of reducing the setback to 50 feet. That is slightly different than saying that a person would automatically have a 50 -foot buffer if he or she meets those conditions. McShane stated they should leave it discretionary. They are asking the director to make a decision when there are certain circumstances. In his experience, health directors are flexible on that rule. Chudek stated there are other issues about that. The real issue is that unless the person is going through a restrictive covenant requirement, there is not a provision for reducing the setback. That is an oversight on his part. He can suggest wording that would fix that. What happens now in practice is that someone can get a reduction to 50 feet even if he or she does own all the property. They inadvertently left that out. He recommended amending Council packet page 10, subsection (e)(vii), "Easements for ingress and egress, 100 feet, except the director may approve a reduction to 50 feet when the well location would result in obtaining water from: (A) a consolidated formation where the well draws water from at least 30 feet below the ground surface, or (B) an unconsolidated formation protected by at least six feet of clay or other permeable material." Brenner stated that is the same language as in subsections (f)(i)(A) and (B). Chudek agreed. Brenner suggested putting wording in for clarification that says this does not include private driveways that only serve one person. Chudek suggested that they add one more setback requirement for a private driveway of ten feet. Staff looked at trying to weasel in private driveways to the easement section, and it got more and more confusing. He would rather come up with no setback requirements for no driveways, if that's what they want. Brenner stated she would rather leave it alone. She didn't want to create a setback of ten feet. If staff tells her that the easement is for the easement and not a private driveway, she is comfortable with that. Delahunt stated they don't have Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 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. much to say when reviewing a site plan if a well is close to a driveway. A private driveway is different than an easement. Brenner moved to add the language from subsections (f)(i)(A) and (B) to subsection (e)(vii) on Council packet page 133. Motion carried unanimously. Chudek stated same situation applies for roads and highways. Add subsections (f)(i)(A) and (B) to subsection (e)(viii). Brenner so moved. Motion carried unanimously. Brenner referenced Council packet page 134. In subsection (g)(i), she is concerned about a four -hour pump test when the source yields less than four gallons per minute. She doesn't have any problem with a pump test when it is less than one gallon per minute. She spoke to well drillers who felt that this wasn't necessary. They could do two -hours without a pump test, and even a four -hour pump test wouldn't guarantee that a well wouldn't run dry. There are other options such as reservoirs and holding tanks. Chudek stated staff recommends eliminating the requirement for a four -hour pump test because it would produce less than four gallons per minute. According to Mr. Clothier from B &C Well Drilling, they have the capacity to show whether the well will produce 400 gallons per day, which is the minimum for a house. If there were less than 4 gallons per minute, one would need a reservoir anyway. Since they started this process, they've added the requirement to look at the well during the dry season, if they have really low producing wells. He recommended striking the last sentence. Brenner moved to strike the last sentence of subsection (g)(i) on Council packet page 134. Many of the wells she knows of produce 1.5 gallons per minute, with a holding tank. Many are less than four gallons. Motion carried unanimously. Chudek stated staff recommends a change on Council packet page 134, subsection (i)(ii), to strike "sodium." It is not a primary inorganic chemical. Strike it everywhere else in the ordinance. Brenner moved to strike language on Council packet page 134, subsection i ii , "...selenium, and silver and sea:. �"" " Motion carried unanimously. Chudek stated staff recommends striking all language in the ordinance, 'the director determines." Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 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 she agreed. That language is redundant because it meets the law anyway. It's not a determination. She moved to change language in all areas of the ordinance, "...if the direeter detern9ines:" Motion carried unanimously. Brenner referenced Council packet page 135, subsections (k)(ii)(A) and (B). If someone is going to spend the money on a treatment system that brings him or her above the standards, the person shouldn't have to sign a no protest agreement to hook onto public water when and if it becomes available. She doesn't know if it is a legal issue. It's not fair to make people pay twice. Chudek stated the opinion from Karen Frakes years ago when it was put into place was that it is legal language. Brenner stated that if they are worried about it meeting standards, she would rather require testing at the point of sale. The County should not make someone sign a no protest agreement. time. Crawford stated he wanted to get into this discussion when there is more Brenner stated this item would be held in committee for two weeks. Crawford stated he doesn't even understand what a no protest means. Currently, there is a developer at Lake Samish who proposes to bring in public water. There are people coming to the County Council who are protesting that. Brenner stated that is not the same. There is a legal no protest agreement between private parties. If two parties willingly sign a no protest agreement because they are both receiving a benefit, it is one thing. This is a no protest agreement that the County would set up. The County would allow a person to dig a well, and if the well didn't meet the maximum contaminant load (MCL), then the person would have to spend money to put in a treatment system and also sign a no protest agreement. The people in Lake Samish have a choice. Chudek stated that if no protest agreements actually work, approximately 50 homeowners in the last ten years in the Lake Samish watershed have filed no protest agreements with the Health Department. Those agreements say that when public water becomes available, they will hook to it and quit withdrawing from Lake Samish. Brenner stated that is an agreement with the water district, not with the County. Chudek stated it was an agreement with Whatcom County to get a building permit, because they are proposing to use a contaminated supply. The County has been doing that since 1993. Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 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. Roy stated she would like to know the reason for the no protest language in the ordinance. Chudek stated he understood that the Whatcom County Health Department, at that time, felt that contaminated water supplies were not adequate water supplies under any condition. That was not palatable. A compromise was to allow treatment of that water supply and a requirement to hook to a public water system when it becomes available. The County said treatment of a contaminated supply was a temporary measure only. It's up to the homeowner to manage and maintain a small treatment system. The Health Department doesn't really believe as strongly in the reliability of the small systems as they do in the larger systems that have paid operators on staff. It is a safer source of water. Roy asked if the Health Department's assumption is that the water is less safe than the water in the public water system, and the reason for the requirement is for public health reasons. Chudek agreed. There is a greater potential for health risks due to failure of the treatment system. Brenner stated anything that the committee voted on applies as a recommendation for items that recur in the ordinance. Chudek stated there might be some plat requirements where that may not apply. He would point that out. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 3:05 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, 2/12/2002, Page 14