HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works March 20 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
48
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
March 20, 2001
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.
Also Present: Absent:
Marlene Dawson None
Dan McShane
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
4. DISCUSSION REGARDING POINT ROBERTS RECYCLING AND REFUSE
COMPANY'S REQUEST TO THE WUTC FOR A TARIFF REVISION TO
ELIMINATE MANDATORY CURBSIDE RECYCLING IN POINT ROBERTS
(AB2001 -066)
Brenner stated she'd talked to Dave Grant, Dan Gibson, and the Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC), who wants to know how the
County stands. There is a County process that the company needs to go through.
She didn't like it that the WUTC could change something that was adopted as an
ordinance by the County.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the County wrote a letter
to the WUTC that said any cessation of service would be contrary to the County's
service level ordinance, and the company must go through the process in the
ordinance. The owner of the company has not pursued that process through the
County Executive. The County's position is that, at this point, it would be
premature for the WUTC to grant an exception. The County determines whether a
modification is warranted, and the County would inform the WUTC. That has been
the County's consistent message.
Brenner agreed. She stated she understood that the County Council adopted
the service level ordinance, and the County Executive can make a determination if
the provider can't make the levels due to circumstances beyond his or her control.
Gibson stated two sections are involved, sections K and L of Whatcom County
Code (WCC) 8.10.050. Section K talks about the circumstances beyond the
company's control, and section L talks about seeking an exemption based upon the
uneconomic nature of the collection. The regulation was drafted with the scenario
that one or two items subject to mandatory collection may be uneconomic to collect
and could be dropped out. He read from the ordinance.
Brenner asked if other members of the public or haulers have an opportunity
through this process to present information. She asked what would prevent other
companies from claiming a hardship. Gibson stated that whoever is making the
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 3/20/2001, 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
decision for the County is going to want as much information as possible, and will
seek out that information. There is no process delineated for seeking information.
Brenner proposed a resolution to be presented at the evening Council
meeting from the Council to the WUTC supporting no tariff revision that would
eliminate curbside recycling in Point Roberts at this time. Gibson stated he was not
in a position to address that policy. The administration has told Point Recycling that
they have not made their case. The issue has not been put to the Executive. The
request, at this point, is not well founded. If there is additional information, an
appropriate decision will be reached. Until that process occurs, the administration
is in no position to act on whimsy and rumor.
Brenner stated she received a letter from Mr. Wilkowski saying that she was
interfering with Mr. Wilkowski's negotiation with the Executive.
McShane stated Mr. Wilkowski was concerned that Councilmember Brenner
was playing a more significant role than she was supposed to, because of a letter
from the WUTC that was copied to Councilmember Brenner. That is Mr. Wilkowski's
perception.
Gibson stated the County has been in contact with the WUTC and has stated
its position. The County's representative is the Executive's Office.
Brenner asked if the process would come to the County Council. Gibson
stated it would not. An exemption would be made administratively.
Brenner stated she had high regard for Mr. Wilkowski's intelligence. She
didn't think that he wrote his letter thinking that she represented the Council.
She's been clear that she is only one councilmember. There are easy ways for
people to find out if she'd misrepresented herself.
The WUTC wasn't clear about how Whatcom County feels about the WUTC
processing this tariff revision. She was confused by Mr. Gibson's letter, but was
clear when she talked to Mr. Gibson. Gibson stated that if anyone has questions
about what he intended, those questions should be directed to him. If the WUTC
has questions, they should be addressed to him. This morning was the first he'd
heard from the WUTC.
Brenner stated she wanted to make sure there is a clear message to the
WUTC. She wanted the Council to write a letter saying that the service level
ordinance has mandatory recycling in Point Roberts and there have been no
exemptions, and they respectfully request the WUTC to not grant any provision that
would eliminate mandatory recycling in Point Roberts at this time. The Council
adopted the Comprehensive Plan, and has the right to make its point through a
letter.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 3/20/2001, 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
Gibson stated the County should speak with a single voice. Two different
branches of government should not speak. The County Council certainly has a role
by way of resolution in terms of sending a letter of support.
McShane stated Mr. Gibson's approach concurs with the Council's position.
Instead of writing a separate letter, make a resolution stating the County's position.
It would completely back up the analysis of the approach the administration has
taken.
Gibson stated he would keep the Council informed on any further
communication with the WUTC.
McShane stated the issue has been raised that Point Recycling and Refuse
has not approached the administration.
Brenner asked if Mr. Gibson made it clear to the WUTC that Whatcom County
does not support a tariff revision to eliminate curbside recycling in Point Roberts.
Gibson stated he has left a clear message for the WUTC this morning, and he
addressed the position implicitly, but it was not among the four questions that were
asked of him.
Brenner moved to support the administration in its position that there should
be no tariff revisions to curbside recycling in Point Roberts at this time.
McShane asked if that works for Mr. Gibson. Gibson stated it does. He is
trying to present a united position.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated this action makes some
assurance to all councilmembers that the Council's voice would be heard.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. UPDATE REGARDING COMPLAINTS OF THE NOON ROAD /SMITH ROAD
INTERSECTION AND THE HEMMI ROAD /HANNEGAN ROAD
INTERSECTION (AB2001 -117)
Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, submitted photos of the Noon
Road /Smith Road intersection. The trees on the northeast corner are on private
property. If one pulls his or her vehicle up to the stop bar on Noon Road, that
person can't see. One has to pull ahead a few feet, which is still ten feet from the
fog line of Smith Road. At this point, it is not a critical issue because one can still
pull forward and the front of the vehicle would not be a hazard.
Brenner stated this is a problem. This is a major intersection. She asked if
there is a legal problem with requiring someone to trim his or her trees back. Mills
stated it is a gray area. He would work with property owners to trim the trees
back. It is not at the point where they would normally take a tree down.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 3/20/2001, 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
Brenner stated that if someone stops at the stop bar, he or she should be
able to see. That is the purpose of the stop bar. Younger folks without driving
experience may only stop at the line, and then pull through intersection without a
further look. Either they need to move the stop bar forward, or have some trees
removed.
Mills stated he has not talked to the property owner, but will do so.
Brenner asked if the line is mandated. Mills stated it is set so someone to
the right has adequate distance to turn the corner to the left without reducing
speed too much.
Brenner stated she's had several complaints about this intersection.
McShane stated there was a proposal for a solution by someone at a previous
meeting.
Brenner stated the suggestion was that the trees be cut back.
McShane asked if there have been accidents at the intersection. Mills stated
there have not.
Crawford stated there are intersections everywhere in which one cannot see
if stopped at the line. One stops at the line to make sure no one is making a left
turn in front of the stopped vehicle. He stops at the line, and creeps forward until
he can see. He was confused as to how the lines get drawn. He questioned what
the line is for, and the rules for that line. Mills stated he understood that the line is
there for the purpose of making sure someone has adequate distance to turn left
from the right and in front of the stopped vehicle. The sheriff will not cite someone
who stops at the stop bar, and then creeps forward.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, read section 20.80.210(3) in the
County code that talks about vision clearance. A clear vision area shall be
maintained at intersections. A clear vision area consists of a triangle, as defined in
the code.
Brenner asked staff to check to see if the lot meets clearance requirements.
Dick Prieve, Assistant Director of Administration, stated the intersection does
meet the clearance regulations. If the owner won't trim the trees, then the County
will. This person is within the legal clearance. The stop bar is for left- turning
trucks that have a large turning radius.
Brenner stated that if there is a potential site problem, the County should ask
the owner to trim the tree.
Mills submitted the photo of the Hannegan Road /Hemmi Road intersection,
which has more than enough site distance.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 3/20/2001, 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
Brenner asked why someone would plant a tree in the location this owner
did. Mills stated the tree is on their property. These people have a Puget Sound
Energy substation across the road, and meant the tree for screening.
Brenner stated there is a certain distance from a right -of -way that a person
is allowed to plant. She asked for more information on any statute about how close
to the road one can plant trees.
Goodwin stated the statute she read is just for intersections.
Brenner asked if the property line goes to the road. Goodwin stated it goes
to the edge of the road right -of -way.
Brenner asked where someone's property line goes to. Mills stated the
County has 30 feet from the center of the road at Smith Road and Noon Road. At
Hannegan Road, the County has 40 feet, and 30 feet along Hemmi Road.
Brenner asked if people could build out of the right -of -way, but not in the
right -of -way. Mills stated they can build on their own property, but it sounds like
there is an exception that allows for visual clearance at an intersection. He would
check into it.
Prieve stated this issue came up two years ago on this intersection. People
have to go out, be safe, and stop at stop signs. Many people don't want to stop.
They measured this intersection two years ago.
Brenner asked that it be checked again. If it is legal, that's fine. She was
concerned that someone would complain about the intersection when there is an
accident.
2. UPDATE ON THE FERNDALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
REGARDING DEVELOPMENT AT THE CITY /COUNTY BORDER (AB2001-
118)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the City Council already
approved the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone. According to the city's
records, they sent the County a copy of a State Environmental Protection Act
(SEPA) determination of non - significance (DNS), but no one in the County has a
record of receiving it. They supposedly sent it to John Gunther, who doesn't have
it. The city didn't coordinate with the County earlier. There was supposedly a
traffic study, but no one in the Engineering Division has seen it. That is all she
knows. It's already been appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board, and
the County could be included, but a better way to go would be to participate with
the city at the project level.
Brenner stated the County has 60 days to intervene, and has no recourse
after that.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 3/20/2001, 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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
McShane asked if this would be something to be concerned about for traffic
reasons.
Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, stated it looks like something
the County would want to comment on because a substantial amount of traffic
would be on County roads. He didn't know how much traffic they are proposing
that it would generate at this time. If a traffic study was done, it wasn't given to
the County.
Brenner stated the consultants say that hardly any traffic is going to be on
Axton Road, and would come from the freeway. She questioned whether County
staff would take the word of the consultant, or look at the numbers themselves.
Mills stated the County staff would look at the proposal. It could have an impact.
Brenner stated her interest in this is not personal, but it seems like it would
cause a huge mess on Axton Road and Smith Road because there would be three
main entrances.
Ken Downey, 1550 Main Street, Ferndale, stated he previously submitted
information to the County. He's appealed seven points to the Hearings Board. It is
important for the County to join the appeal. The Revised Code of Washington
(RCW) 36.70A.470 prohibits a city or county from using a specific project as a
comprehensive planning tool.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brenner asked if cities and counties are not allowed to use a specific project
to force a subarea comprehensive plan amendment. Goodwin stated there is an
annual comprehensive plan procedure. As long as the City of Ferndale followed its
procedure, it would be okay. The County does that all the time. The County
doesn't know if the city did that or not. Half the Comprehensive Plan docket items
for the County are for specific projects.
Brenner stated the County doesn't know enough to assume anything.
Downey stated the annual review is for correcting errors and adding or
deleting desirable features. It doesn't address changing a land use plan unless
there is an error. The annual review is not to overthrow the initial or five -year
review process. The zoning between the city and county has to be compatible. The
request is to change the long -range use of the area in violation and contrast of
what the city agreed to with the County. At least 300 people already said they
don't want to see Ferndale grow into North Bellingham. There is no urban growth
area outside the City of Ferndale limits in that area. The city acknowledged at that
time that there was enough opposition to growth in that direction, so they said they
would not do it. Now, the city is doing this without telling anyone. Once the city
makes the zoning change and the comprehensive plan amendment, then the city
will issue permits.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 3/20/2001, 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
48
Brenner stated it seems that the County's been told that it is not supposed to
do project- driven significant Comprehensive Plan amendments. Goodwin stated
many Comprehensive Plan changes are for specific projects.
Brenner asked the acreage involved in the proposal. Downey stated the
proposal is 130 acres of development, and 85 of those acres would be changed
from low- density residential to commercial zoning, with an underlying zoning of
general commercial. Goodwin stated the recent Sandall rezone was an example of
changing rezone for one property.
Brenner stated the Sandell rezone was compatible with existing zoning on
three sides of that area. This proposal changes the entire area.
Goodwin stated that if the project didn't go through, the five -year review is
next year, and the project could be looked at then.
Downey stated that there would be an opportunity during the five -year
review for the city to properly look at the scope and for greater public input. The
project proponent staff presented all of the information that was presented to the
city in all its meetings. The city staff had been working with the project staff since
May. The city is attempting to lump three comprehensive plan amendments into
one review. One amendment was the map amendment on Trigg Road that is not a
problem. The second amendment was to the UGA near Smith Road to make a
consistent land use. The third amendment is this project to change 85 acres of low
density residential to commercial zoning, with a general commercial zone underlay.
They are more than doubling it. The plan is to more than double the amount of
commercial on that property.
Brenner stated she was concerned that there would be a major impact area
right up to the city border. Any impacts are County impacts, and the County has
not been involved. The County has a responsibility because they represent the
county residents.
McShane questioned the appeal timeline. Downey stated the appeal deadline
is 60 days from the date of the ordinance. The City Council approved the ordinance
in mid - February. There is a time period from the date of approval to when it goes
into affect. It is ordinance number 1250.
McShane moved to recommend to the full Council exploring with legal
counsel the option of an appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board of this
City of Ferndale Comprehensive Plan amendment decision, Ferndale ordinance
number 1250.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner stated the County needs to make sure that the impacts are paid for
by the developer, not county residents.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 3/20/2001, 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
3. DISCUSSION REGARDING COUNTY JUNK CARS (AB2001 -119)
Brenner stated there have been complaints about junk cars lying around. It
would be helpful to limit the amount of non - running junk cars allowed on a lot.
Some lots are non - permitted junkyards. There is nothing that limits the amount of
junk cars. The Council may need to set limits zone by zone. She wanted to get
direction from the committee on setting limits on the amount of derelict cars that
sit on a property.
McShane stated he recently worked on two projects. One project was a chop
yard in a rural residential area. There were as many as 25 cars lying around. The
Lummi Community Trust hired him to do an environmental site assessment on a lot
with 23 cars, five trailers, seven or eight motorcycles, and many tires on Lummi
Island. These things build up. He suggested beefing up the existing language in
rural zones and forestry zones.
Brenner suggested also doing it on industrial land.
Dawson agreed with exploring this issue.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:55 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, 3/20/2001, Page 8