HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works April 17 20011
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
April 17, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Committee Member Marlene
Dawson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Dan McShane
Absent:
Barbara Brenner
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY
BICYCLE/ PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2001 -131)
Richard Duane, Engineering Manager - Development, stated he was available
to answer any questions.
Scott Thompson, Anvil Corporation Project Engineer and Foothills Bicycle
Transportation Advocacy Group member, stated the Council should establish this
committee for the County. Several years ago, the primary reason people was
motivated to use non - motorized transportation in Whatcom County was for
environmental reasons. Also, there were fitness and economic benefits. Since that
time, they've implemented Commute Trip Reduction (CTR), and have asked
employees to find alternate transportation. For shorter trips, they recommend
bicycling and walking to minimize vehicle travel. In the last few years, the Center
for Disease Control has said that U.S. citizens should do more bicycling and walking
for transportation because an over - reliance on automobiles has led to a sedentary
lifestyle problem, which is a serious new epidemic and a preventable disease. It
leads to many health problems.
The problem in Whatcom County is that there isn't a good infrastructure for
bicycle and pedestrian transportation outside of Bellingham. There are references
in the Comprehensive Plan that say they need to improve bicycle and pedestrian
transportation facilities. They are obligated to provide safe routes for citizens.
Roads with wide shoulders could be improved significantly. In addition to the
benefits for non - motorized transportation, there is a recreational element to
promote tourism. The Public Works Department has done an excellent job in
designing truck and automobile transportation. Now the department could have
more funding from grants or other sources to ask help with bicycle and pedestrian
transportation. Part of the charter for the committee would be to identify grant
sources for major projects. The net cost to the County would not have to be
significant. The committee would utilize existing resources wherever possible.
Many people support this committee. There was concern that the committee
should be effective, which would require close coordination with various County
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 4/17/2001, 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
departments. He asked that the committee be in place in time for the Community
Health Partnership Summit next month. It will be an issue there.
McShane thanked Mr. Thompson for his effort. He hears that the weather is
too lousy for bicycling. The summer is a better time, and that time of the year has
a problem with air quality. This would improve the air quality in the summer time.
Dawson stated she would be hesitant having people ride in bicycle lanes
along the roads because of the proximity of cars going 50 miles per hour. She
suggested having a bicycle path on the other side of the road ditch. Thompson
stated that would be preferable in many cases. The committee could help with the
Coast Millenium Trail, which would mostly be off road.
Dawson questioned how the committee would be financed.
McShane stated that is addressed in the ordinance.
Ellen Barton, volunteer, stated she is working on two bicycle trail projects. It
is an impediment for the Public Works Department to not have volunteer advisors
on this issue. If the County encourages bicycling on the roads, as the roads are
currently configured with lanes, there is a potential exposure to liability because the
County has not adopted any standards from federal or state highways. The County
has multi - purpose shoulders. This is an opportunity to develop some standards. If
there is a lack of an ability to promote the county as a safe place to bicycle, there
will be a decrease in the people who come here to bike. The Council has an
opportunity to use the community's expertise. It is a cost savings for the County to
not have to hire consultants. They've met with Pete Kremen, Roger DeSpain, and
Mike Donahue, who have been very positive.
McShane moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. UPDATE REGARDING THE WORK OF THE UTILITIES PLANNING AND
ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2001 -134)
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated staff has been working with the Utility
Committee since October 18, 2000. They have been meeting twice per month.
Mike Kaufman, Utilities Planning Advisory Committee Chair, stated the
committee discussed whether the County Council would take its recommendations
seriously. The committee wants to keep the Council updated and a dialogue going.
The committee just completed an outreach program into the community. They
went to the cities of Everson and Custer and the Rome Grange for town hall
meetings. The committee consists of a dynamic group of representatives. First,
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 4/17/2001, 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
the committee brought the members up to speed on utility issues. Then, the
committee identified issues they wanted to champion. People are very interested in
safety issues regarding gas pipelines. He is interested in the economic issues of
utilities. He submitted a list of the issues (on file). Puget Sound Energy and
Cascade Natural Gas were initially reluctant to list their issues, but have said they
have issues with I -490.
This is not an issue that has been beaten to death, like the water issues
have. This is an issue that not many people know about, including the County
Planning Department. Along the way, they've learned that the public utility district
(PUD) system is unique to Washington State. It has a lot of power by law. It can
tax to fund planning. It can also generate electricity. The PUD is an asset to the
community, and the County should work with the PUD to explore the PUD's
opportunities.
McShane stated the PUD is an elected body. He questioned whether their
membership has had any interest in this board. Kaufman stated it is a good of
boys network. One member is open to ideas and discussion. Tom Anderson, the
PUD manager, is an asset to the community. Everyone respects Mr. Anderson.
There is a lot of authority the PUD has that needs to be researched.
McShane stated it might be more appropriate for the PUD to look into some
of those issues. Kaufman stated they have ways to fund for things such as
conservation efforts. They have the ability to tax and pass bonds.
Dawson stated that conservation efforts wouldn't be compatible with their
mission. Kaufman stated it could be. The PUD is charged with providing electricity
and communication, not natural gas. He didn't know what their boundaries are.
The PUD can be selective about who it supplies to. They are an asset that the
committee needs to explore.
He also learned that a utility can't establish eminent domain over the County.
The utility has a franchise. The Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC) has
no siting criteria. The County can make those criteria. They need to rethink how
they look at eminent domain.
McShane questioned whether the committee is driven by consensus.
Kaufman stated it is.
Scott Smith, Planning Department staff member, stated knowing the type of
pipeline is how one finds out who has jurisdiction. Petroleum -based pipelines go
outside state lines and into Canada. The Natural Gas Act regulates the
construction, modification, and location of natural gas lines. The federal
government has taken authority over this type of pipeline.
In the case of an intrastate pipeline, they have to look at the size
requirements of a pipeline. The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC)
may regulate pipes over a certain diameter or certain distance in length.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 4/17/2001, 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
McShane stated that if the pipeline proposal is not consistent with the local
government, the EFSEC could override what the local government is choosing to do.
Smith stated that no one seems to be taking authority over small and /or
short pipelines, so it appears the County has the authority. Regarding interstate
petroleum pipelines, they do not have a federal act corresponding to the Natural
Gas Act. However, the Constitution gives Congress authority to regulate interstate
commerce. Depending on the type of restrictions, that could come into play.
McShane asked if there are FERC - regulated petroleum hydrocarbon pipelines.
Smith stated FERC controls natural gas. It is also involved with setting rates. The
state Department of Transportation (DOT) is involved with petroleum pipeline
construction standards. Much of this process works out to environmental reports
that have to be completed by the applicant. The applicant has to address local land
use in the area.
Olason stated staff updated its GIS map by evaluating state Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) photos. He explained the pipelines displayed on the map.
The committee is trying to wrap up its discussion of issues. Once they decide what
issues to look at, they will determine whether they have any authority to look at
those issues.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Olason continued to state that, if they do have jurisdiction, they could
develop policies for the Comprehensive Plan, which would dictate how they would
respond to FERC, for example, or allow the County to produce siting criteria
through the zoning code and administrative procedures. All the agencies have
different systems and timelines for approval. Part of what they are trying to learn
is when the County must comment in these different systems and timelines. The
committee's next activity is to look at the existing pipelines in terms of how well the
pipelines are laid out. They will use that as a basis for establishing criteria to give
to a pipeline company when the company is designing its routes. The committee
will develop some idea of where pipelines ought to be. It is tied to jurisdiction.
They've asked the County attorneys about that. Case law shows that the County
doesn't have much authority regarding federal preemption. After determining the
issues, they will look at siting criteria, then the development of policies by autumn.
Dawson asked if Olympic Pipeline is the only one that has oil. Olason stated
TransMountain has crude oil.
Hoag stated Arco has an oil line. Olason stated Arco has a natural gas line.
Hoag stated Arco testified previously that there is a line of crude oil. Olason
stated they have a small line that goes to Arco. He didn't know that it is used much
anymore. It is there. The proposed Orca line is for natural gas.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 4/17/2001, 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
48
McShane stated that EFSEC is claiming jurisdiction over Orca Pipeline,
although Orca Pipeline wants to be in FERC's jurisdiction.
Hoag stated that EFSEC would questioned whether a proposed line complies
with local land use rules. FERC doesn't ask that question. Olason stated FERC
questions whether the route would create problems with the land use of the area.
There is some recognition that local rules have to be addressed to some extent.
Follow -up case law has been clear that, in the event that rules cause undue
difficulty, the rules should be out of the way. If there is a well- reasoned concept
for siting, and that information is given to the company early on, then the company
is going to have to show why it is not doable.
Hoag asked what is happening with the Williams Pipeline. Olason stated he
heard that they wouldn't move forward for another year.
Hoag questioned whether they've filed an application. Olason stated they are
under the moratorium.
Kaufman stated the moratorium ends in May.
Olason stated the Council might need to vote to extend it at the meeting in
two weeks.
McShane stated the upside of this is that the County has a good case if it
decides to intervene if there are established corridors. The downside is that the
County has to decide where those corridors are. Olason stated the difference
between a preferred corridor and an outright zone is the difference between an
environmental impact statement (EIS) and a Comprehensive Plan map. When the
company comes in and wants to site a pipeline, the company is going to have to go
through the EIS process. The County wants to avoid siting their pipelines for them
and paying for it. He tries to encourage the committee and others to recognize the
potential downside of that.
Kaufman stated they need to find a way to make the corridors an asset that
people want. Find a way that the property is not turned over to the corporation.
Make a reward for the property owner for having pipelines on his or her property.
Then, they will find that people will be more acceptable.
Hoag stated that if there are two high - pressure gas lines in the area, it is not
a substantially higher risk than if there is only one. However, a there is a
substantial change in risk if a high - pressure gas line is run with an existing low
pressure distribution line. She wanted to see the committee look at requiring siting
in corridors unless there is a good reason to break out of the corridor.
Kaufman stated the committee discussed transmission. The industry will not
want the County to develop standards and thresholds for transmission levels. Once
they identify what is transmission, then relegate it to the corridors.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 4/17/2001, 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
McShane stated the County is growing rapidly. He questioned whether the
committee would look at how to deal with existing zoning and density in relation to
pipelines. Olason stated the issue of conversion is something that a policy for
rezone could address. Other tough issues are adjacent uses and takings.
McShane stated that vegetative maintenance of pipeline areas is a mess.
They are overrun with noxious weeds.
Hoag asked if there is anything in the rezone criteria to look at the presence
of utilities. She suggested that the committee look at rezone criteria. Olason
stated they could update the policies. There is no direction in the Comprehensive
Plan now to do anything other than comment.
Kaufman stated that he would like to see the County councilmembers put
their issues in writing for the Utility Committee.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Acting Committee
Chair
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 4/17/2001, Page 6