HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works November 27 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
November 27, 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. BACKGROUND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE UTILITY
PLANNING AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGARDING TRANSMISSION
PIPELINES (AB2001 -338)
Mike Kaufman, Utility Planning Committee Chair, stated the committee
created a new document. There has not been much work on this issue. Not
included in the report is information on whether pipelines lower property values.
There were some reports that looked at that issue. There was not much evidence
showing that the presence of pipelines lower property values. Also, the initial draft
included how the County could benefit from the pipelines. The industry shot that
idea down.
The committee also discussed overbuilding the system to accommodate
future growth. The industry shot that idea down also. They said they are not
allowed to build something bigger because ratepayers would have to pay for a
future need that might or might not be there. However, he doesn't know if that is
true.
The committee accomplished a lot of things. It recommends that the County
should intervene on anything it can. The industry representatives agreed. The
County Planning Department is now educated on this issue.
The committee recommends that the County should look at franchise
agreements. Personally, he recommends that the Council look at when to enter
into those agreements.
Dawson thanked Mr. Kaufman for his leadership on this issue.
Scott Smith, Planning Department, discussed the highlights of the report. A
summary of the committee's recommendations is on pages 49 to 51 of the report.
Nelson stated the recommendations are at the end of each section.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 11/27/2001, 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
Smith stated they are summarized in one location beginning on page 49.
There is background information on pipeline safety. They looked at the statistics
put out by the Office of Pipeline Safety. They looked at the issue of preemption, as
well. Many of the recommendations ended up being not as ideal or far spoken as
people would have envisioned in the first place, because it is a consensus driven
process. However, the recommendations are good. Many of the recommendations
come down to community awareness of pipelines and pipeline companies being
aware of things going on in the community. Make efforts to prevent third -party
damage to pipelines. That is one of the major components of pipeline ruptures.
There are chapters on adjacent uses. They looked at what uses should be
and should not be located next to pipelines. Opinions differ on this matter. There
are some uses that they all agreed on. Some areas are good locations, such as
low- density agricultural lands and forestry lands. Urban growth areas, towns, and
cities are not as preferable.
The committee also looked at the environment. There are recommendations
on mitigation when a pipeline crosses a critical area. They addressed shoreline and
wetland issues, and landslides.
The committee looked at and made recommendations on the economic issue,
eminent domain, and community impacts of pipelines. At the public meetings, the
committee heard that some of the people have a lack of trust in the pipeline
companies when they have a meeting. One recommendation was to have pipeline
meetings, but have them be sponsored by an independent party.
Dawson questioned whether the County would be one of those third parties.
Smith stated no. The committee envisioned a pipeline proponent putting money to
a fund for an independent speaker who is knowledgeable on the issues.
McShane stated the speaker would be someone to run the issues and answer
questions.
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated the idea was to have a third party
contract with a private party who would be able to explain the issues surrounding
the pipeline proposal, particularly dealing with issues like domain and other general
issues. It would be similar to an independent contractor that would work for the
County on an environmental impact statement (EIS). The County would have the
ability to hire the person who would work for the County and be paid for through
this fund as part of the application fee. Once pipelines get certifications at the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) level, they have eminent domain
and powers. Generally, they are the only people in the field talking to the
landowners. If it is a County situation, there are more rules. This is an attempt to
level the field and have a more objective explanation. Many people felt
uncomfortable being approached by the private companies.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 11/27/2001, Page 2
1 Smith stated a final chapter of the report talks about franchise agreements.
2 It acknowledges that franchise agreements are beneficial, but they are not the be
3 all and end all of local regulation. There are limitations.
4
5 Hoag stated it is a consensus -based process. Often, with a consensus -based
6 process, they will encourage minority reports to be provided. She questioned
7 whether there were any minority reports written. Kaufman stated he brought that
8 issue up at the beginning of the process. He has not written any minority reports
9 yet because he is still learning the process.
10
11 Hoag stated she encouraged members of the committee to write minority
12 reports for the Planning Commission. Kaufman stated he didn't think there was
13 that much objection, and everyone's concerns were addressed.
14
15 Hoag stated the County Council put together a letter on August 11, 1999,
16 shortly after the Whatcom Creek incident. All the major pipeline companies were
17 invited to discuss safety. The Council made recommendations to the Office of
18 Pipeline Safety, Congress, and others. She questioned whether the committee
19 reviewed the letter. Kaufman stated he didn't recall.
20
21 Hoag questioned whether there is a way for the committee to review the
22 letter and see what would be appropriate. Olason stated the committee talked
23 about everything in that letter. The committee looked at the local authority to
24 require safety measures. All of those types of ideas from the letter came forward in
25 the committee. This report will help develop policies and code that the County can
26 address. The County can address for things that it can regulate, or things that it
27 can ask for and encourage through the policy language. In terms of telling a
28 private company how to maintain its lines, the County is preempted from having
29 any authority. The County can work on making sure the agencies follow the State
30 regulations. The federal Department of Transportation (DOT) sets standards for
31 safety. FERC doesn't even mess with that. The requirements for any FERC
32 certification defer to the federal DOT. The committee spent weeks going over all
33 the different ways that the County could have impacts. When it came to technical
34 review of the system, the County is out of the picture. Even EFSEC defers to DOT
35 for intrastate lines. That is where this issue of intervention is important. If the
36 County intervenes early on in the record, it can get some standard. The committee
37 had to back away from technical recommendations and focus on where they prefer
38 and discourage pipelines in the community, and educating the public on making
39 good choices for siting their homes.
40
41 Hoag asked if it helps, when intervening, to have local policies to point to.
42 Olason stated it does. The County has that. He will talk about what is coming
43 before the Planning Commission. Staff is presenting policies and code changes that
44 implement these recommendations. The staff is providing notice to people that
45 there is a pipeline and requiring that people verify they know where the pipelines
46 are before they dig. They are trying to give companies guidance about where the
47 County would like to see pipelines located. As part of that, there are policies about
48 what they prefer and discourage. They've worked out a geographic information
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 11/27/2001, 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
system (GIS) rating system to evaluate routes on a mile -by -mile basis. It will help
prepare intervention comments.
Hoag stated that doesn't do anything for existing pipelines.
Dawson stated the County can't do anything about that.
Hoag questioned whether the County can encourage the safety measures in
its regulations, and then point to those regulations when the County intervenes.
The two explosions that occurred here could have been prevented. If the County
can't mandate it, then fine, but it can point to how the County encourages safety
measures.
Dawson stated the County can only regulate those things that it has
jurisdiction over.
Kaufman stated this committee discussed all those things. The committee
feels that what they brought forward is adequate for the jurisdiction they have.
McShane stated he would like to see a list of the methods and ways the
County can influence pipeline safety, and why those items in the memo were
rejected.
Kaufman stated the idea of a public meeting is to reach out to the
community early on in the process. What the County does with the public meetings
is very important. The information gathered at the public meetings becomes the
data that the County asks for as interveners in the environmental impact statement
(EIS).
Hoag stated the meetings are very valuable. People who survive a pipeline
explosion do a tremendous amount of work to see how it can be prevented in the
future. The industry also addressed the Council. She doesn't want to go through
that research before intervening on every issue. Other things can be added down
the road. She doesn't want to lose this body of information.
Dawson stated the County needs to stay focused on what it can do within its
jurisdiction.
Olason stated one of the reasons it did the background report is to collect
that background information. It contains a lot of the rationale for the issues, the
County's ability to react to the issues, and the recommendations. Hopefully, they
won't lose this report. It will give future decision - makers a policy that they've
arrived at.
Regarding future actions, they started this process as a reaction to a
moratorium on pipelines. Part of the committee's assignment was to address siting
for future projects. That would put something on the books and help future
pipeline proposals when siting a pipeline. There are three things to do:
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 11/27/2001, 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
1. Approve an emergency resolution to accept this product outside of the normal
docketing process. The end of year docketing process requires the entire cycle.
Because there is a moratorium, they want this in effect soon.
2. Schedule a public hearing at the Planning Commission for December 13. They
will look at policies and zoning changes. Zoning changes are not extensive.
Most of the information is in the policies.
3. Tomorrow, the Utility Planning Advisory Committee will have a meeting on the
final review of the Comprehensive Plan policies. They can discuss the letter at
that time.
The report may seem a little weak to those who expected very strong
language. In the arena of safety, they did not recommend setbacks. They
recommend notices to tell people about the occurrence of a pipeline so those people
have an opportunity to site a house or development in a way to provide some
setback from the pipeline. The committee didn't decide to put in setbacks, because
it didn't have a clear idea of how far they could require people to be back, and still
be safe. Impact zones can be up to 300 feet, depending on the type of occurrence.
The committee chose to notify people of the pipeline and potential hazards. The
committee had a lot of comments from people who want to know where the
pipelines would go. They originally looked at identifying corridors. Existing
corridors were put in years ago, but they had to back away from that. Instead, the
committee set up siting criteria. They did not recommend specific corridors. The
committee did a great job overall. There was a wide range of opinion. They kept
going until they had consensus. He hoped to have a product out of the Planning
Commission by the first part of next year.
Hoag stated a lot of the research the Council received is not in the report.
She went through the proposal for changes to chapter five.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Olason stated the purpose today is to just present the background document.
The emergency resolution says that the policies will come forward at a future date,
and not go through the docketing process.
2. RESOLUTION INITIATING EMERGENCY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT RELATING TO UTILITIES AND TRANSMISSION
PIPELINES (AB2001 -388)
Hoag asked if there would be an opportunity to make comments and
suggestions.
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated it is scheduled for a public hearing, and
all comments are welcome as part of the record.
Hoag stated they still need to work on siting criteria and the items in the
memo. She has concerns about wording changes proposed for the Utilities chapter
of the Comprehensive Plan. She referenced the new goal 5E on Council packet
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 11/27/2001, 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
page 188. It sounds like they will give the green light to any land use proposal that
will come forward. Instead, they are trying to reduce unreasonable obstacles. She
suggested an amendment "5E: Reduce unnecessary current and possible future
obstacles..."
McShane asked why that goal was written. Olason stated the term
"obstacles" is a negative term. They are not reviewing them all with the intent to
approve them. The question is about the obstacles to a legitimate proposal.
McShane stated the intent may be to accommodate a proposal that does
everything the County wants.
Hoag stated the goal as written gives a green light to anyone who puts
forward a proposal. Olason stated the term "obstacle" referred to the County's
processes.
Dawson moved to amend goal 5E, "Goal 5E: Reduce unnecessary current
and possible future obstacles..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag asked what policy 5E -1 means. Olason stated that if the County sends
a subdivision application to a pipeline company, and the pipeline company says that
they don't want the subdivision anywhere near their pipeline, then the County will
consider why they don't want a subdivision near the pipeline. It doesn't compel the
County to comply with the pipeline company's request.
Hoag stated it sounds like they are talking about a pipeline land use
application, not a subdivision land use application. She suggested adding language
to clarify, "...concerning adjacent land use development applications..."
Dawson moved to amend policy 5E -1, "...concerning land use development
applications adjacent to existing major utility facilities and will take comments...."
Smith stated these policies are still subject to change.
Motion failed 1 -1 with McShane opposed.
Hoag suggested a new policy "5E -4: Develop siting criteria to provide
predictability for the applicant and the public." It would be a way to reduce
unnecessary obstacles. Smith stated the committee only discussed siting criteria
for pipelines, not other utilities.
McShane stated this section is for uses adjacent to pipelines, not pipelines.
Olason stated they felt comfortable using more generic language in areas. In other
areas, they discussed specifically pipelines. When they talk about siting criteria for
pipelines, they identified their preferences.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 11/27/2001, 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
Hoag suggested amending policy 5N -2, Require
pipelines to follow adjacent...." Olason stated the committee talked about this a lot.
The committee didn't want to require following established pipelines, because there
are bad existing corridors.
Hoag stated a proposed pipeline could be rerouted to avoid a bad spot in an
existing corridor.
McShane asked how the County would have any authority to require use of
an existing corridor. Olason stated the County doesn't have that authority.
Smith stated the committee envisioned situations in which it is better to not
follow current corridors.
Hoag stated that would be a deviation that could be justified.
Olason stated the company will have to prove that the County is not working
with them in a manner that they can reasonably do the project. So, the Energy
Facility Site Evaluation Council ( EFSEC) can preempt the County as well. EFSEC
tries to comply with local land use to a point, but if the project itself is worthy, it
gets a nod to proceed. Part of the reason the committee didn't use "require" is
because there may be situations in which none of the routes are adequate. If one
happens to be next a pipeline, there is an inequity to getting more pipelines.
Hoag asked if EFSEC oversees all intrastate pipelines. Olason stated it does
for pipelines that are over 14 inches in diameter for natural gas and eight inches for
petroleum.
Hoag suggested language before goal 5M on Council packet page 191. She
asked about pressure requirements in addition to pipeline diameter size. Olason
stated one problem is the way distribution lines are defined by the Utilities and
Transportation Committee (UTC). A pipeline that is 14 miles long could look like a
transmission line, but be a distribution line.
Hoag suggested they add a pressure threshold to the size threshold.
Otherwise, people will try to bypass the diameter threshold by putting more
pressure on a smaller line. Olason stated the committee could look into that
possibility.
McShane moved to request the Utility Planning and Advisory Committee to
investigate adding language to the paragraph before goal 5M, regarding a pressure
threshold.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag referenced goal 5M. They are dancing around the jurisdictional thing.
Information and education don't provide much protection. She suggested adding,
"Increase protection to citizens and the environment of Whatcom County through
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 11/27/2001, 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
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
informational, afid educational, and regulatory measures." Olason stated most of
the policies were trying to get at notification. They can add it.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember McShane stepped out of the meeting.)
Dawson agreed, and stated that would be a suggestion, since a quorum of
the Public Works Committee is not present.
Hoag asked for explanation of policy 5A -1 on Council packet page 185.
Olason stated a major project permit is what they usually are. If it is a project that
requires an EIS and is over $5 million, then it is a major project.
Hoag suggested amending language in policy 5A -1, "...review process to
evaluate and /or determine suitable locations..."
Olason suggested, '...review process to evaluate and determine suitable
suitability of proposed locations."
Hoag agreed.
Hoag referenced policy 5A -6. It sounds like they are going to expedite the
review process anytime someone comes up with a possible site. Amend the
language in policy 5A -6, "...as an pessible appropriate utility corridor or facility site."
Olason stated he was concerned that the proponent might think the County could
drag its feet. When this was first done, it seems there was an effort to maintain
adequate utility service provisions for the county. That was the focus. It wasn't
these major regional projects. The idea is to not be an impediment for
development of these types of facilities. They are losing sight of the overall goal of
the original language.
Hoag stated the original goals and issues talked about making sure there was
adequate infrastructure and access to utilities. That is not saying the same thing as
expediting a project review. A proposal should match the siting criteria before it is
expedited. The question is at what point they begin to expedite a process. Olason
stated expediting a project means that the project becomes a priority over other
things. However, they don't determine suitability until halfway through this long,
drawn out process.
Hoag agreed. Using the word "possible" is not good. The intent is to
expedite a good project going in a good place. It is important to not expedite
anything and everything. She suggested using the word "preferable."
Kaufman stated they could eliminate that policy altogether.
Hoag agreed.
Dawson stated the policy is redundant.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 11/27/2001, 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
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember McShane returned at 2 :55 p.m.)
Kaufman stated the intent in the early 1990's was to not hold the utilities
hostage once they know where the infrastructure needs to be.
McShane moved to strike policy 5A -6.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated a couple of things need to be rewritten, but she would give that
to staff later.
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
Marlene Dawson, Committee Chair
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 11/27/2001, Page 9