HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works October 13 20151
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee
October 13, 2015
CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner and Ken Mann
Absent: Pete Kremen
Also Present: Barry Buchanan, Rud Browne, and Satpal Sidhu
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. UPDATE ON PUGET SOUND ENERGY'S BATTERY STORAGE PROJECT IN
GLACIER (AB2015 -297)
Lynn Murphy, Puget Sound Energy (PSE), submitted and read from a presentation
(on file). They are installing a very large battery in Glacier as a pilot project to understand
how to manage the peak power load. It will also provide about two hours of backup power
in the event of an outage at main public facilities, such as a grocery.
Shane Richards, Puget Sound Energy Project Manager, continued and concluded the
presentation. He described the permitting, shipping, site, and construction plans.
Brenner asked if the battery won't be extra power for everyone, but for the main
facilities, such as the restaurants, so people can get things they need. Richards stated
there is an island of area that will have service in case of outages. The idea is to provide
essential functions and give people a few extra hours to get prepared.
Brenner asked if they don't lose power up there any more than the rest of the
county. Murphy stated that's correct. They have an average of five outages per year. A
small committee of community leaders is aware of the project limitations and is forgiving
because it is a pilot project. They understand the purpose of the project and have been
supportive of it.
Sidhu asked if they plan to provide more service over time. Richards stated PSE is
rolling out more distribution automation. It would be outside the scope of this project.
Sidhu asked if they will use the battery power all the time and if they use the grid to
power the batteries. Richards stated the batteries are charged from the grid. The question
is how long these batteries will last. They have state of charge (SOC) management in the
controller to control the amount of charge in the battery. It's early to know how it will be
used on a daily basis.
Sidhu asked how long it takes to charge the battery. When they need to be
recharged, the grid would be off. He asked about hydro or solar recharging options.
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/13/2015, 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
49
50
51
52
Richards stated it takes two and a half hours to charge it. They could incorporate hydro or
solar charging. Adding different functionalities would require system protection measures.
Mann asked if they are putting any electrical vehicle charging stations at this facility.
Richards stated they do not have plans to do so at this time.
Murphy stated they don't install those stations. They will work with the County to
own and purchase a car charging station.
Buchanan asked the estimate of the overall service life of the system. Richards
stated the estimate is 20 years. Part of the pilot is to learn how long it will last.
Buchanan asked if there are other systems in place and what is their history of
success. Richards stated the learning curve is still steep. They are learning from other
projects. Implementation issues have made them challenging. They've had good
experience with the contractor on other projects.
Browne asked if this would provide power to do a cold restart of the Nooksack hydro
to put power into the grid. Richards stated it would not. There are system protection
issues. Theoretically it could work.
Murphy stated the two pieces of equipment are different, so they would have to
develop and find the right equipment to connect the two.
Browne stated he appreciates the update. He likes the idea of powering the critical
infrastructure in the community. He asked if PSE will require those businesses to upgrade
to low energy consumption. Murphy stated they can't require it of those businesses, but
they will offer and encourage it as much as they can.
Browne asked if the containers are spaced far enough away from each other to not
be a fire hazard. Richards stated they are.
Browne stated Diamond Pier is a system for creatinq a foundation that may prove to
be a better alternative for the foundation.
Sidhu stated a project in Germany put a distribution box in every appliance in an
apartment building. The computer recognized every use pattern and ran every machine,
such as washing machines, in a sequence. That's a big savings in energy. He asked if PSE
is looking at things like that. Murphy stated a company in Canada has asked to do a pilot
project in the City of Bellingham, but PSE had to decline due to time. It is a similar project
that would identify and record when appliances are being used. It provides a report of
energy use.
Sidhu stated a homeowner's spare freezer in the garage is a huge energy user that
can be reduced if it is lowered just a couple of degrees.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WHATCOM
COUNTY 2016 ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (AB2015 -305)
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/13/2015, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
G
7
S
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 stated the original program that came out mistakenly did not include the
Parkstone project.
Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, referenced packet page 152, the beginning of
the annual construction program that they'll vote on. He submitted and gave a staff report
on a revised annual construction program (on file) and a revised project narrative for the
Lakeway Drive crosswalk (on file). Staff is struggling with the Lakeway Drive crosswalk
project. They have looked for a place that meets warrants. Every place they look, they find
that it's not even close to meeting warrants. The recommendation is to not install a
crosswalk there. The recommendation and reasons for the recommendation are not a
surprise.
Brenner stated they have in the past supported and approved items that did not
meet warrants. Pedestrian safety is a higher priority than warrants. She encourages
councilmembers to visit the area with the Public Works Director.
Mann referenced Council packet page 178. Rutan stated that's the wrong project,
which is the corridor project.
Mann stated he likes that project. Rutan stated it is on the six -year plan, not annual
plan, because it doesn't have any funding.
Mann stated he likes that solution better than the substitute. The $400,000 solution
is for the pedestrian activated crosswalk. Staff is recommending against it. If it remains in
the plan, it will be built next year. He asked if doing the pedestrian activated crosswalk
would prevent the project on page 178 or make them undo the pedestrian project to do this
project. Rutan stated they try to account for it as much as they can, especially with bulb -
outs and right -of -way acquisition required for curb ramps. That's what will cost a lot. They
will do their best to make sure they won't have to relocate the poles or anything they
construct in the future.
Mann asked if they've talked to the Bike and Pedestrian Committee about this.
Rutan stated they have. The Committee supports the corridor study because it includes
bike facilities. They didn't comment on the crosswalk project.
Brenner asked if the Council can add this without taking away the other corridor
study project, and know that whatever is done with the crosswalk project wouldn't have to
be redone. Rutan stated he won't know the scope of the corridor study yet.
Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department Director, stated they have not yet done the
corridor study. They don't know where the infrastructure improvements will go. As a
result, they cannot make commitments about the influence of the crosswalk proposal on the
location of those future infrastructure improvements. They don't know the implications of
this crosswalk for the larger corridor project. There are competing interests along the
corridor, including bicyclists, transit, and traffic accident concerns. None of the competing
interests have been dealt with. They have focused solely on the crosswalk.
Brenner stated that if they don't do the projects together, a center lane may make it
more difficult to allow someone to cross the street. Hutchings stated he is not suggesting
that it can't be done. They will do their best to make sure the infrastructures don't conflict.
Brenner stated she's getting tired of the Council being pushed to remove the
pedestrian project. They don't need to keep hearing it. Hutchings stated staff does not
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/13/2015, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2.1
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
have direction from the Council at this point. When staff does have Council direction, they
will move forward the capital program in 2016, in any form the Council creates, as long as
there are no terribly acute threats to public safety.
Mann stated $100,000 is allocated to non - motorized transportation improvements at
various locations. As a pedestrian and biking advocate, that amount seems low. He asked
if it is low because of the $400,000 they allocated for the Lakeway crossing project. Rutan
stated that yearly project is money that allows them to respond to citizen complaints. It is
a little bit of money to do repairs. Most projects have a pedestrian element. Most grants
require multimodal designs.
Buchanan asked if they have the capacity and time to do the corridor study and
crosswalk design in the same year. Rutan stated they will look at it.
Buchanan stated they can start that work immediately. Rutan stated that's correct.
Browne stated he is undecided on this decision. They need to be aware of usage
warrants, safety warrants, and ability to fund it. Rutan stated the warrants are for safety.
If warrants aren't met, it is safer to not put in a crosswalk.
Browne stated they have agreed to install stop signs in areas that didn't meet
warrants, and he understands they didn't decrease safety. Rutan stated that's correct. It
decreased efficiency level of service.
Browne stated they didn't create a hazardous condition by going outside the
guidelines. He's concerned about putting in another crosswalk that will decrease safety and
will increase the possibility of a fatality when people are lulled into a false sense of safety.
Brenner stated that when the Council has done this in the past, it was said that it
would be less safe, and the Council still did the four -way stop. The word "safety" was used.
That was told to the Council. The discussion back then was that it would be less safe. It
still seemed like a good idea, and they did it. This is getting too political for her.
Sidhu asked what percent of the warrants it meets. Rutan stated staff tried very
hard to make the project meet warrants, but the projects meets only about ten or 20
percent of the warrant.
Sidhu asked if warrants could be met in a couple of years. Rutan stated the
standards set the bar very low. He referenced the study in the Council packet.
Brenner stated there is great site distance at Parkstone. The traffic seemed to go
much faster than the 35 mile per hour speed limit. Rutan stated that if installed, it would
require advanced warnings for drivers, which is why this is so expensive.
Browne asked if Mr. Rutan has a proposal that he could approve as a professional
engineer to put in a safe crosswalk at Parkstone, or if he will decline and put that
responsibility on the Council. Rutan stated there is no place available to recommend a
crosswalk without risking his license. His job as County engineer is to give the information
on the numbers. That's what the numbers say. If he could find a place where he could
make the warrants work, he would.
Browne asked if Mr. Rutan is unable to sign -off on the demand or the safety. Rutan
stated he could not recommend this project. If he recommended this project, and was
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/13/2015, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
7.8
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
called to a judge after an accident, he would have to give his recommendation, which has to
be based on data. The project is not justified in terms of use, and the data shows that if the
County installs a crosswalk, the situation will be made more dangerous for all users, not just
pedestrians.
Mann stated it was political to dedicate staff time to investigate this issue. It's great
for the community to make a request of the Council when they have a good cause or claim.
No one is voting on this for political favoritism. It's not political. People are trying to make
a good decision here. He was happy to spend some resources investigating it. He's not
happy about spending resources to implement the project at this time, based on
professional guidance and other things. He asked if they need to do the corridor study or
design on the corridor at this time. Rutan stated they need to do some preliminary
engineering.
Mann asked where the Lakeway Drive corridor preliminary engineering design is on
the six year program. Rutan stated it is a place holder project with $5,000 allocated in year
three. They will survey the area, and can start looking for funding sources. They will start
programming it into the workload in three years.
Mann asked if they can do that in 2016 if the Council removes the crosswalk. Rutan
stated he can recommend that. He recommends doing the corridor study in the next five
yea rs.
Mann asked if they could possibly do an entire corridor project in 2017 if they got the
preliminary engineering study done in 2016, depending on the result. Rutan stated it
potentially could be done. However, this project could easily become a drainage project.
They will be very careful to keep it a re- channelization project, and not completely rebuild
the storm drainage system on Lakeway.
Mann moved to recommend introduction with two amendments:
1. Include project R32, the Lakeway corridor improvements preliminary engineering
study project, on the annual construction program, in the amount of $100,000, and
2. Remove Lakeway crosswalk project R31.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann (1)
Nays: Brenner (1)
Absent: Kremen (1)
Mann moved to recommend introduction with one amendments to include project
R32, the Lakeway corridor improvements preliminary engineering study project, on the
annual construction program, in the amount of $100,000.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Mann (2)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen (1)
Eileen Kadish stated that when this Lakeway crosswalk project came up and was
approved by the Council last year, the cost was $300,000, not $400,000. Mike Donahue
talked about the crosswalk cost being $250,000. The cost keeps inflating. The corridor
study cost should come out of the $400,000 amount. The neighborhood doesn't oppose the
corridor study. It would be a good thing. Regarding the issue about a false sense of
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/13/2015, Page 5
I security, that logic makes it seem like any crosswalk would provide a false sense of security.
2 It's not about the number of people using the crosswalk that makes it more or less safe.
3 This request is reasonable, low cost compared to other road projects, and not a radical idea.
4 The project provides added safety for today's and future residents. The project was
5 approved, but not implemented, in 2015. Show people that participating in the government
6 process works, and that councilmembers listen.
7
8 Clayton Petree spoke about the design of the actuated crosswalk. Pedestrians using
9 the crosswalk can't tell if the lights respond when the actuating button is pushed, creating a
10 safety hazard. When installing a crosswalk, make sure pedestrians have a visual cue that
11 the lights are working.
12
13 Lynn Frazey stated the Parkstone residents are isolated. The study provided by the
14 City indicated it comes down to engineering judgment. There is data, but use common
15 sense, too. Don't add more lanes without a crosswalk. The existing crosswalk on Lakeway
16 Drive by the pizza place works and doesn't slow down traffic. Left -turn lanes will not help
17 with the volume of traffic.
18
19 Browne stated he wants the residents to have the safest opportunity possible, but he
20 doesn't want the County to install something that actually results in a decrease in safety
21 because it's not up to the national standards for safety.
22
23 Brenner stated the crosswalk north of the intersection at Birchwood and Northwest
24 gets her attention. She can't understand that kind of light making it less safe for people to
25 cross the road.
26
27 (Clerk's Note: Discussion continued later in the meeting.)
28
29
30 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
31
32 1. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF CONSIDERING A VACATION FOR THE
33 REALIGNMENT OF AN UNNAMED ALLEY WITHIN THE BIRCH BAY WEST END
34 ESTATES PLAT (AB2015 -304)
35
36 Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, gave a staff report and described the project.
37 This will allow the trail to be in the right -of -way, as it should be. Staff worked with all the
38 neighbors, and everyone agrees on this solution. He recommends this solution.
39
40 Mann asked the location of the original right -of -way. Rutan described the original
41 and proposed trails and rights -of -way.
42
43 Mann moved to authorize the County Engineer to conduct the County Engineer's
44 report.
45
46 The motion carried by the following vote:
47 Ayes: Brenner and Mann (2)
48 Nays: None (0)
49 Absent: Kremen (1)
50
51
52
53
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/13/2015, 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
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WHATCOM
COUNTY 2016 ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (AB2015 -305)
(Clerk's Note: Discussion continued from earlier in the meeting.)
Mann stated there will only be four councilmembers at the evening Council meeting.
There may be proposed amendments that won't get four votes. He asked what to do.
Rutan stated the program does not need to be passed tonight. It can be postponed
to the next meeting.
Brenner moved to hold in committee and introduce in two weeks.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner (1)
Nays: Mann (1)
Absent: Kremen (1)
Mann stated this is scheduled for introduction at the evening meeting. He doesn't
want to hold it in committee, but he wants to make changes before introducing it. He will
leave it the way it is for now.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
ATTEST -" M�,T i:' ` •�[��r;
O
0
Dana.BroWFI o I rji �Cr3urlcil G rk
��j���l 1 111111 ll
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/13/2015, Page 7