HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works March 17 20151 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee
3
4 March 17, 2015
5
6 CALL TO ORDER
7
8 Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the
9 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
10
11
12 ROLL CALL
13
14 (1:32 :01 PM)
15
16 Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann and Pete Kremen.
17 Absent: None.
18 Also Present: Carl Weimer and Rud Browne.
19
20
21 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
22
23 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITIZEN INTEREST IN ESTABLISHING RAILROAD
24 QUIET ZONES (AB2015 -088)
25
26 Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, gave a staff report and described work the
27 Public Works Department has done in the past regarding quiet zones and efforts by the City
28 of Bellingham to create quiet zones. The City expects it will cost about a half million dollars
29 per crossing, and it will take several years. The County has two crossings south of the city,
30 which are at Yacht Club Road and Cove Road. The County has several crossings north and
31 east of the city of Bellingham. They've discussed potentially looking at impacts and benefits
32 from quiet zones. The City of Vancouver is creating quiet zones by creating sound studies
33 and local improvement districts.
34
35 Mann stated this is on the agenda because folks in the Yacht Club Road area have
36 been asking him about it. Those neighbors are interested in considering an improvement
37 district to create quiet areas. Talk with the neighbors about the work they've done on the
38 issue.
39
40 Brenner asked if anyone who has done this has applied for any kind of matching
41 federal funds. Rutan stated he's not aware of any. He described the concept of a quiet
42 zone and what a train engineer is required to do when approaching a crossing. If a crossing
43 is designed to prevent a vehicle from crossing the tracks, the engineer will not be required
44 to sound the whistle.
45
46 Brenner asked about cement barriers. Rutan stated he would prefer another design
47 to achieve that barrier. Curbs will alter drainage, make it hard to repave, and make it hard
48 to plow. There are many designs that could achieve a quiet zone. If the Council wants staff
49 to go forward, they would get design recommendations from a consultant.
50
51 Weimer stated the City of Bellingham has been looking at this too. Rutan stated it
52 has. The City expects a cost of about a half million dollars for crossings around the city.
53 The County has many more crossings.
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 3/17/2015, Page 1
Brenner stated not every crossing would have the same noise impacts.
4 Kathy Bovencamp stated many neighbors are interested in making this happen. Her
5 contact for Burlington Northern has been very helpful. Burlington Northern would do a site
6 visit and work with Public Works Department staff to decide what needs to be done at that
7 crossing to increase the safety standards. The upgrades would have to be for a permanent
8 quiet zone crossing. Burlington Northern would tell the County what upgrades are needed
9 and would provide a non - engineering cost analysis. This effort increases safety at a
10 crossing. For Yacht Club Road, she was told that adding two more barriers would provide
11 that safety. Neighbors would decide whether or not to agree to the non - engineering cost
12 estimates. If the neighborhood agrees to the safety standards, then Burlington Northern
13 will take the proposal to the Washington Utilities Transportation Commission, which
14 approves the safety upgrades. After that, the County would decide how to fund the project.
15 The railroad company representatives said it is easier to do one crossing at a time. This
16 would be a great benefit to everyone living in the Chuckanut area. In that area, the sound
17 reverberates very loudly. Train traffic has significantly increased, and track noise has
18 increased. Every jurisdiction has to address its own crossings. The crossing in her
19 neighborhood is in the County's jurisdiction. On the main line, the County has about seven
20 crossings that are appropriate for quiet zones.
21
22 Rutan stated the County has jurisdiction over 50 crossings. The County must
23 prioritize crossings based on some criteria.
24
25 Mann stated this crossing is being discussed today because the neighborhood is
26 willing to consider creating an improvement district. When the citizens have taken that
27 level of initiative, it's time to talk about it. Rutan stated they talked about a quiet zone at
28 this crossing, and the non - engineered estimate was about $250,000.
29
30 Bovencamp stated the criterion for prioritizing is the number of homes impacted by
31 the crossing.
32
33 Kremen stated that rather than spending staff time prioritizing the crossings, it
34 makes more sense to address them based on what the constituents ask for. They already
35 know there is an acute problem at this location, so begin with Yacht Club Road. Rutan
36 stated he gets many calls from residents in other areas with a similar complaint. People will
37 want to know why the County is addressing Yacht Club Road and not their crossing.
38
39 Mann stated the people at Yacht Club Road are willing to pay for it.
40
41 Rutan stated the County should have discretionary immunity through prioritizing and
42 identifying, which will give the County coverage in a court of law.
43
44 Bovencamp stated the residents could partner with the County to fund this project.
45
46 Mann stated the County can't make decisions based on who complains the loudest,
47 but in this case, the neighbors have presented an actual solution and are willing to actively
48 participate in the solution, possibly by taxing themselves to fund this. Bovencamp stated
49 they would rather do fundraising. The neighborhood has an infrastructure in place to be
50 actively involved.
51
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 3/17/2015, 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
49
50
51
52
53
Mann stated the Committee seems interested in moving forward. He asked what the
next step is. Rutan stated they would have to create some kind of special district. The
Birch Bay Watershed Aquatic Resources Management (BBWARM) district is a close example.
Mann asked if the community can fund it through a fundraising drive instead.
Bovencamp stated Whatcom County would have to be the initiating agency.
Tyler Schroeder, Executive's Office, stated the administration needs direction from
the Council to work with the community, Burlington Northern Santa Fee (BNSF) Railroad,
and the Utilities Transportation Committee (UTC) to formally petition the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for this type of quiet zone. The quiet zone is regulated under the FRA.
They would do that after the County talks with BNSF, UTC, and Public Works staff. The
neighborhood would hopefully fund that work. The County would work with that community
group. The Council would officially ask to move forward with submitting it to the FRA.
There are larger questions on the prioritization. There are only two crossings in this area.
They would have to look at both crossings in terms of creating quiet zones. It's important
to understand the process of prioritization.
Brenner asked if the two areas have the same geologic structure. Rutan stated
many of those areas have similar problems.
Mann stated that if residents from other areas come forward saying they are going to
pay for it, the Council can approve it, too.
Rutan stated one criterion is to continue to expand from quiet zones that already
exist.
Bovencamp stated the Cove Road and Yacht Club Road communities are different.
They shouldn't have to wait for the City of Bellingham.
Mann stated this is not about prioritizing anything. This community has indicated a
willingness to pay for it. If Cliffiside Drive or any other area comes to the County with
money for a quiet zone, the Council will approve it.
Rutan stated that if a community comes forward to fund it entirely, there is no
reason to prioritize anything.
Brenner stated that if a neighborhood goes to that effort and engages in good
fundraising, she's not opposed to also using some road fund money.
Steve Tuckerman stated he supports a quiet zone at Yacht Club Road.
Jeremy Carol stated he supports a quiet zone. It's a quality of life issue. He asked
the Council to consider that the trains affect property values negatively.
Michael Newslight, Chuckanut Bay Community Association, stated the train whistle is
blown right next to his house. The citizens in the neighborhood are taking initiative to
improve their lives and find financing. Don't throw up artificial, bureaucratic barriers such
as prioritizing the entire county. Get Burlington Northern to come to the area and tell them
what needs to be done, so they can analyze the cost and make a decision about moving
forward.
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 3/17/2015, 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
49
50
51.
52
Ron Welding stated his house is for sale. The train noise is becoming a negative
factor that impacts his ability to sell his house. He supports a quiet zone.
Bob Earl stated he just moved into the area, but bought the property in 1995 when
trains were infrequent. The train traffic has now increased. The residents are willing to
contribute money to improve their quality of life.
Karen Eckdahl stated she appreciates an opportunity to find out what the
neighborhood can do to improve their quality of life. The train whistles are loud, and there
has been an increase in the number of trains.
Browne stated he supports the Council asking BNSF to look at this crossing.
Mann moved to recommend that the Council request the administration to engage
the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company to determine what the necessary safety
improvements are and develop a preliminary cost estimate for developing a process to
create a quiet zone at the Yacht Club Road crossing.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Mann (2)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen (1)
Browne asked for an assessment of the number of railroad crossings and criteria for
evaluating them when going forward. Rutan stated the County needs to understand the
BNSF system and how it works with the County road system.
2. DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY
CODE 24.13, DECONTAMINATION OF ILLEGAL DRUG MANUFACTURING OR
STORAGE SITES (AB2015 -069)
Brenner stated there is a substitute exhibit.
John Wolpers, Health Department, stated he is available for questions.
Mann stated there is no distinction between a suspected use site and an actual use
site. Designating a site illegal just because it is suspected may not be appropriate.
Brenner asked if the Health Department tests suspected sites that law enforcement
identifies. Wolpers stated the Health Department can test sites, but law enforcement are
trained to do their own testing. The Health Department has trained law enforcement to
take their own samples.
Mann stated change the definition of an illegal use site to remove language that says
"a law enforcement agency believes a person has used a controlled substance."
Brenner stated also include language that indicates law enforcement can take its own
samples, and they are tested at the same lab as the Health Department tests, so people can
know the testing is the same.
Jeff Hegedus, Health Department, stated the language in the definitions about law
enforcement believing there may be contamination makes a warrant for entry required and
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 3/17/2015, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11.
12
13
14
15
1.6
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
49
50
51
52
53
allows the law enforcement or the Health Department to investigate whether there is
contamination. They never go into a house without having legal access first.
Mann stated that makes him feel much better about his concern. His language
proposals will clean up the language and make that clear.
Hegedus stated an illegal use site is a place where they have a determination of
contamination, where they have confirmed that the contamination is above the cleanup
standard.
Mann moved to recommend adoption of the ordinance with the substitute exhibit.
He moved to amend the title of section 24.13.065, "Determination of contamination of
Illegal Use Sites."
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Mann (2)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen (1)
Mann moved to amend section 24.13.040, "This chapter ... and as defined in this
section, to any suspected illegal use site when a law enforcement agency...."
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Mann (2)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen (1)
Mann moved to amend section 20.13.050 (I), "...where a person illegally
manufactures or illegally stores a controlled substance, or a law enforcement ageney or the
bsta
Hegedus stated that definition is from the State Department of Health, Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 246 -205. The law is what is applicable for manufacturing sites.
Amending the language wouldn't be relevant, because it's still State law.
Wolpers stated the substitute Exhibit A includes the word "distribution" in that
section.
Brenner asked what happens if a criminal justice officer suspects a place is a
production facility, but finds that it isn't. Hegedus stated that it wouldn't be an illegal site.
Brenner stated the State language doesn't make sense. A location becomes an
illegal site only after it is investigated with a warrant, tested in a lab, and determined to be
contaminated. Wolpers stated the County adopted these regulations in 2005. They were
modeled after the State regulation, which was for manufacturing and storage sites. Then
the County also included language that allows them to pursue use sites. Whatcom County
is one of two counties in the state that does this.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Mann (2)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen (1)
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 3/17/2015, 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
49
50
51
52
Browne asked how this definition is used. He asked what consequence is triggered if
something is defined as an illegal drug manufacturing, distribution, or use site. It sounds
like it triggers a determination of contamination, and that it doesn't have any other impact.
Wolpers stated that's correct.
Brenner stated someone may suspect a site and find that nothing is there. The
language says "determined," not "alleged."
Browne stated law enforcement may suspect contamination in someone's home and
write it up as a suspected site. He asked what is the process for taking away that blemish
on the property. Hegedus stated there is no blemish against the property unless there is a
determination of contamination. There will be a police report that someone can do a public
records request for, but it will show that the site was not a production facility.
Mann moved to amend section 24.13.050(0) to delete language, "Illegal Use Site
means any property where a4a nf� z-agefle�- iieves a person or persons illegally
used a controlled substance."
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Mann (2)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen (1)
Mann moved to amend section 24.13.060(A), "Within one working day of
notification ... agency of petential suspected contamination, the director shall...."
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Mann (2)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen (1)
Mann moved to amend section 24.13.065(A), "
use site..."
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Mann (2)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen (1)
investigate aft a suspected illegal
Wolpers stated the substitute version of the exhibit includes language that defines
when a site is determined to be contaminated. In addition, include the full code citation in
24.13.065(A).
Mann moved to amend section 24.13.065(A), "...set forth in WCC section
24.13.070."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Mann (2)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen (1)
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 3/17/2015, Page 6
1 Dick Conoboy stated consider how to best protect the people who live in these units.
2 There is no evidence that the existing ordinance is onerous. Consider the ordinance from
3 the point of view of the person who is living in a contaminated location and is getting sick,
4 regardless of what type of contamination there is.
5
6 Brenner asked if the limit doesn't depend on whether it's a manufacturing site or a
7 use site. Wolpers stated that is correct. It doesn't matter. The limit is a detection limit.
8 The State raised the limit to 1.5.
9
10 Brenner asked if the risk assessment considers impacts to children. She asked if the
11 limits are being raised. Wolpers stated the risk assessment does consider children. Saying
12 that any risk is too much was not appropriate. The State of California did a study that
13 Washington State now uses, and adopted the same regulations.
14
15 Brenner asked if there is no risk to anyone below that level. Wolpers stated there is
16 less risk for children and individuals.
17
18 Brenner stated she is concerned that some children or people are more sensitive to
1:9 toxic substances. Hegedus referenced the State of California risk assessment document and
20 stated the document answers all those questions about exposure, pathway, toxicity, and
21 other items. It's a very comprehensive risk assessment. The State Department of Health
22 moved from 0.1 micrograms to 1.5 micrograms based on risk. The .1 micrograms was a
23 policy level decision, when people said they didn't know what level was bad, so they set the
24 limit at whatever the lab could detect. Things have evolved since then. He appreciates Mr.
25 Conoboy's comments, but the difference between the two limits clouds the issue. It doesn't
26 matter how the meth got on the walls or carpet. The Health Department wants it cleaned
27 up. In 2005, Whatcom County become one of only five places in the entire country that has
28 any kind of law to cleanup illegal use sites.
29
30 Brenner asked if the limit is the same, regardless of whether the site is a
31 manufacturing, storage, distribution, or use site. Hegedus stated that's correct. The
32 contamination level is based on risk assessment.
33
34 Browne asked the high, low, and average level of contamination in sites found in
35 Whatcom county. Hegedus stated the highest he's seen is 150 micrograms. Generally,
36 they get a range from seven to 26 micrograms. Selling sites are usually in the upper 20s.
37
38 Brenner asked if they're confident it won't be the cause of someone getting sick from
39 it. Hegedus stated that's correct.
40
41 Brenner asked what is the responsibility if someone purchases a place, checks it out,
42 and finds a level of 1.2 or 1.3 micrograms. Hegedus stated he gets calls from renters who
43 want to test potential rentals. They can buy a kit online and test it themselves. If there is
44 contamination, the Landlord Tenant Act applies. It's not a habitable occupancy if the level
45 tests at 1.5 micrograms. The Health Department will work with the landlord to clean it up.
46 More and more home buyers are also testing potential purchases. This amendment is to
47 remove the disincentives for owners to call the Health Department and get technical
48 assistance. They want to see a lot more renters and property buyers doing testing and
49 asking how to clean up a site.
50
51 Conoboy stated don't treat a meth use site differently from a meth production site,
52 even if they both test out above 1.5 micrograms. This new proposal treats them differently.
53
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 3/17/2015, 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
49
50
51
52
53
Brenner asked if they are treated the same or differently. Wolpers stated that in the
manufacturing sites, there is not just the actual methamphetamine. There are many other
precursors and chemicals.
Mann asked how they determine whether a site is a use, storage, or manufacturing
site. Wolpers stated that is determined by law enforcement. They will not hear from a
property owner about a manufacturing or production site. Information on those sites
always comes from law enforcement.
Weimer stated he still doesn't understand the answer to Mr. Conoboy's concern.
However, he wants to make sure staff reviews the changes made to the definitions today.
He doesn't know if they change the ability for people to look at suspected sites. Wolpers
stated the amendments should include a definition that distinguishes between suspected
sites and illegal sites. Include the sentence that the committee eliminated in the definition
of a suspected site.
Mann moved to hold the amended version of the substitute in committee until the
next meeting.
Browne stated he would like information on how a citizen determines if a place is
contaminated, in terms of resources, and if that information is available on the County
website. Hegedus stated people call him when they suspect their residence may be
contaminated. He will do one of three things, which include telling them they can go online
and buy a test kit for $25 to swab their own walls or sending out a Health Department staff
person to do sampling if there are mitigating circumstances.
Browne asked that staff send him links to whatever information there is, and make
sure that information is on the County website, also.
Brian Hendricks, City of Bellingham, thanked the Health Department for working with
the City on adding distribution uses. He's curious about how language regarding law
enforcement evolves. Don't hinder their ability.
Mann stated he is interested in Mr. Hendricks contributing to how the language will
change.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Mann (2)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen (1)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION APPROVING A CHANGE TO THE COLOR OF ROAD NAME SIGNS
(AB2015 -096)
Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, gave a staff report, showed examples of the
current County road name signs, and described the new sign requirements. The County will
begin printing signs that are black lettering on a white reflective background. Signs will be
replaced only when the old signs wear out or if damaged, and they will change all the signs
in an intersection at the same time.
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 3/17/2015, 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
Browne asked what happens to the old signs. Rutan stated they can be reused.
Mann moved to recommend approval of the resolution to the full Council and
change the signs to black lettering on white backgrounds.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Mann (2)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen (1)
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:07 p.m.
ATTEST:
's
f.
Dana Brown-Davis, IQounc Clerk
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 3/17/2015, Page 9