HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works May 16 20001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
May 16, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara
Brenner in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
9
10
11
12
Also Present: Absent:
Marlene Dawson None
Dan McShane
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 AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.125,
FORMING THE WHATCOM COUNTY UTILITIES PLANNING AND
ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2000-177)
Brenner stated they would work out the glitches in the committee now and in
two weeks, and bring the recommendation to the final Council in two weeks for a
public hearing.
McShane agreed.
Crawford questioned why there are three Puget Sound Energy (PSE)
representatives on the proposed committee.
Brenner stated the proposal was put together from an old committee.
Tom Anderson, Public Utility District #1 Manager, stated this model was
taken from a previous committee. The reason Georgia Pacific (GP) was on the old
committee was because it was focused on water, and GP is a large water user.
There are no telecommunications people on the old committee, and there should be
now.
Brenner questioned why there are three PSE slots. Anderson stated PSE was
willing to put in staff energy, so someone allotted PSE three positions.
Brenner stated AT&T, GTE, and Cascade Natural Gas were left off.
Anderson stated Williams Pipeline was also left off the old committee.
Brenner questioned whether Williams Pipeline serves locally. Anderson
stated it doesn't, but it runs the main transmission line.
Brenner stated Williams can come in under Cascade Gas. She only wanted
local service companies on this committee. Anderson stated only Cascade serves
locally.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Brenner suggested removing GP. Anderson agreed.
Brenner stated she didn't have any problems with the ordinance itself. The
"Whereas" statements seem to fit. Exhibit A is where the beef is.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated they are formulating a
committee to offer review on proposals. One thing missing in Exhibit A is that, if
they are going to establish a committee like this, they want to empower the
committee to seek out the advice and assistance of various County departments.
Under the staffing section, there could be language providing that power. He
suggested language, “Request and obtain information from the various department 12
of the County, as required.” Departments are generally under the Executive’s
authority.
13
14
15
Brenner suggested, “The committee is authorized to request from the 16
Executive’s office information from the administrative departments as necessary.” 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
Anderson stated they’ve limited the committee to private utilities.
Brenner suggested eliminating the word “private” in section 2.125.020.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, asked if the intent is to include
all utilities or only water, sewer, and electric.
Dawson asked whom they refer to when making sure utilities stay in the
corridor. Goodwin stated there are separate corridors for gas and electric. Fiber-
optic cable is everywhere. She questioned the intent because a lot of people are
dealing with telecommunications and fiber-optic cable.
Brenner suggested adding language in section 2.125.030, "…major utility
corridors that may negatively impact residents or the environment."
Anderson questioned what they are including in major utility corridors.
Brenner stated major utility corridors are the major transmission of gas or
petroleum lines. Anderson stated they are mixing two things. In the original
discussion, they excluded Williams and Transmountain, the people who use the
corridors, to focus on the local supplier. The local supplier may not use the
corridor.
Brenner stated they want to limit positions to the local supplier. She didn’t
want to include everyone who runs through the county.
Anderson stated there is no definition of major corridor.
Goodwin suggested the proposed committee develop more detail. The
Council could leave it vague and allow the committee better define its task.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/16/2000, 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
Brenner stated this is something for which the Council needs to provide
direction. The committee would review proposals and make recommendations. A
general direction should come from the Council.
McShane stated they could come up with a list of priority items. He
suggested that the new committee go over the Public Works Committee meeting
minutes to address the concerns that come up.
Brenner stated she is not concerned about cable lines.
Anderson stated they should be concerned about cable lines.
Telecommunications is a significant rural economic development issue. Without
broadband service, which is supplied by fiber-optics and high speed cable, there is
no development. The County should worry about it.
Goodwin stated there are already groups looking at it. She would hate to see
another County committee set up to duplicate the effort, and suggested the groups
be combined or complement the other committee. Where there is the issue of
corridors, the issues should be coordinated.
Dawson stated the focus should be on environmental impact and making
sure things are in the existing corridors.
Brenner agreed. She asked if cable fiber-optic would have negative
environmental impact.
Goodwin stated fiber-optic issues relate more to the first sentence in section
2.125.030, in the function statement.
Anderson agreed.
Dawson suggested removing "telecommunications."
Anderson stated that if the County Council is interested in having its fingers
in the telecommunications issue, and being in a position to exercise some control,
they'd better leave it in. The other group, which includes the Port of Bellingham,
the Public Utility District (PUD), and the Economic Development Council (EDC), an
others, is not necessarily reporting to the County Council. The County Council is
creating this committee as a way to have input and advise specifically when those
issues come before the Council.
Brenner stated the committee could have others give presentations regarding
the telecommunications issue.
Anderson asked if it is the Council's intent to direct specific questions to this
committee about these issues. For instance, Williams Pipeline has a proposal to run
a new gas line through the county. He questioned whether it’s the Council's intent
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/16/2000, 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
to refer that proposal to the committee to assess the environmental impact and
advise the Council on the advisability of that proposal.
Brenner stated the function section should include language, "including, but
not limited to, the use of existing utility and transmission corridors."
Anderson questioned whether the Council wants the committee to ensure
that the proposal follows the existing policy.
Brenner stated that is correct. The policy exists. It is an administrative
policy that anyone who proposes any kind of utility will use existing corridors.
Anderson stated the easements for county roads are all utility corridors.
Brenner stated there is a Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) corridor, gas
pipeline corridors, and high voltage transmission corridors. Those corridors are
what she is talking about.
Goodwin stated one of the functions of the committee would be to clarify
those issues in the Comprehensive Plan and recommend amendments so that the
Comprehensive Plan is clearer.
Brenner stated the Council has to provide direction so the committee can
make it clearer. She suggested language, "County policy includes the use of
existing major utility and transmission corridors."
McShane suggested, "County policy includes the use of existing major utility 27
and transmission corridors. Any deviation from using those corridors will be 28
reviewed by this committee." 29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Anderson stated that legal land use interpretation is that roads are utility
corridors because of the way easements are written.
McShane stated that setting policy on what types of utilities should be given
approval to use all the easements could be another item the committee would look
at.
Brenner suggested they specify transmission corridors instead of distribution
corridors. That would take care of it. Anderson stated there is not a legal
definition. Some of the 115-kilovolt transmission lines are also 115-kilovolt
distribution lines.
Brenner stated that if lines are only distribution lines, they are not
transmission lines. Anderson stated lines are often both transmission and
distribution.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/16/2000, 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
Goodwin stated it would be simpler if it were clearly defined in law, and
suggested that the Council direct the committee to write policy and law instead of
writing policy and law in an ordinance that sets up this committee.
Brenner stated the Council needs to give direction. When lines are
distribution and transmission, they are located in a transmission corridor. Lines
that are distribution only are in a distribution corridor. Any line that is used for
both is in the transmission corridor. Any lines used only for distribution are not
covered.
McShane stated the proposed committee should figure it out.
Dawson stated the proposed committee should make the distinction between
the two and bring forward recommendations.
Brenner stated she wanted major utilities that can have negative impacts to
environmental or public health to use existing transmission corridors of similar
utilities. They will not go in distribution corridors.
McShane questioned why the Council would have the proposed committee
look at that when the Council is telling the committee it has to be that way.
Brenner stated they added the section about deviations, but they can't
determine a deviation until they know what existing corridors they are referring to.
Dawson stated the proposed committee needs to make that recommendation
to the Council.
McShane stated the Council could write its own definition, without the
proposed advisory committee. He has the impression they are trying to come up
with policy.
Anderson stated it sounds as if the goal is that the Council has clear review
of any new transmission lines. Transmission lines require a conditional use in the
county. The County already has that review. He questioned why they need an
advisory committee to work on it.
Goodwin stated there is not a similar policy on gas.
Brenner stated the main reason they are instituting this is for environmental
and public health reasons.
Goodwin suggested putting the transmission language in the second
sentence of the function section. Otherwise, the definition of a development project
is vague.
Brenner stated she didn't like using that word. She suggested using "utility
transmission projects."
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/16/2000, 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 questioned why they are creating the committee.
Brenner stated they are getting many inquiries about installing lines for
natural gas and power transmission lines.
Goodwin stated they are also getting inquiries from oil pipelines.
Dawson asked if oil pipelines are in the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC).
McShane stated FERC will play a role, but the County can have its say
through the conditional use process.
Goodwin stated FERC has to follow policy that is in the County's
Comprehensive Plan. They have to have policy in place before a project comes in.
Then the project has to follow that Comprehensive Plan policy. If the County has a
weakness in the Comprehensive Plan, that is where the policy should go. The
committee would have a role in developing that policy.
McShane asked if they would want any guidance on fiber-optic lines. He
questioned what the Council would want from this proposed committee. They are
getting caught up in language discussion. They have named natural gas
transmission lines, power transmission lines, and petroleum transmission lines.
Anderson stated the two petroleum lines in the County are almost 50 years
old. They will need to be replaced soon. The County will have to look at whether
to place the new lines in the same corridor or on a different route.
McShane suggested that the proposed committee could define what the
power transmission lines are.
Brenner agreed. The petroleum lines should be called transmission lines.
McShane asked if they want this committee to discuss fiber-optics and
telecommunications.
Brenner stated her concern is about public health and environment. The EDC
and other organizations deal with the economic aspect.
Goodwin stated the only benefit is if there is a major electrical or gas
transmission corridor right-of-way across the county where someone would want to
install a major fiber-optic cable route.
Brenner stated there is no environmental or public health reason not to do
that. Goodwin stated it would be good to have a policy requiring that any cross-
county transmission line also install a fiber-optic line, which would make it easier to
get fiber-optics to the east side of the County.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/16/2000, 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
Brenner stated it might not be the County's business to dictate to a business
to install a fiber-optic line.
McShane stated a business may not have to put it in, but may have to work
to make it part of the condition of their permit.
Anderson stated the business might have to coordinate it with people who
are interested.
Goodwin stated it is to the county's benefit to have economic development in
the east county, and everything is going internet. Any place the County can
promote that type of activity is to the benefit of the entire county.
Brenner stated they couldn't force a fiber-optic company to put in a line if
they are not ready. All the County can do is dictate that the fiber-optic company
uses the corridors. That would be fine. The County doesn't have the right to tell a
company it has to install a line. They don’t need to deal with telecommunications if
public safety and environment are what they are dealing with.
Dawson stated they should leave it in there in case the committee members
see a need for it.
Brenner suggested that they mention it in the ordinance, but not make it a
part of the main function of the committee.
McShane suggested language for the purpose in section 2.125.020, “…in
reviewing private utility development proposals, and in reviewing and regulating 28
29 utility services and facilities provided by other public agencies and the private
sector power transmission, natural gas transmission, telecommunication, and 30
petroleum transmission routes.” 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Brenner stated the purpose is to protect public health and safety.
Anderson stated the purpose is, “The committee is created to ensure the
protection of public health and safety and the environment when new electric,
natural gas, and petroleum transmission facilities are proposed.”
Goodwin stated they could eliminate the purpose statement as it is, and
incorporate Anderson’s language as the purpose.
McShane stated part of ensuring public health, safety, and the environment,
the proposed committee would automatically have to look at regulation, permitting,
and other issues. They don't want to forget telecommunications. It may not be
applicable to public health, safety, and the environment, but there are concerns
about whether the Council wants to play a role in telecommunications. There could
be a similar sentence.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 7
1
2
3
4
Brenner suggested, “the committee will also review telecommunications
proposals to enhance economic development in the county.”
The committee concurred that section 2.125.020, Purpose, shall be deleted
as it is and instead read, “The committee is created to ensure the protection of 5
public health and safety and the environment when new electric, natural gas, and 6
petroleum transmission facilities are proposed. The committee will also review 7
telecommunications proposals to enhance economic development in the county.” 8
9
10
Brenner suggested language at the end of the function section, “…and
environment of Whatcom County including but not limited to the use of existing 11
utility transmission corridors.” 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
Dawson stated that has to be defined.
Brenner stated Land Use Manager Roland Middleton has corridors defined.
Goodwin stated they've had a problem with that. There is an active court
case between the City of Blaine and PSE. The existing Comprehensive Plan has a
map that only says "existing facilities" and showed every transmission line that was
there the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. It never contemplated that
there would ever be new lines. There is a dispute because the City of Blaine wants
to connect Semiahmoo to the city by going around Drayton Harbor instead of under
Drayton Harbor. There is a question about whether they have the right to put in a
new line because the Comprehensive Plan doesn't say it's an existing facility. There
isn't a corridor. The only corridors in the Comprehensive Plan are where the
existing lines are located. There isn't one where they want to go.
Brenner stated they are not following an existing corridor. That is where
McShane's statement comes in about deviations from existing corridors being
reviewed by the committee.
Goodwin stated the Comprehensive Plan needs to be updated so it specifies
where new corridors should be. Right now, that is inadequate.
McShane stated the Comprehensive Plan should have an action item that
identifies new corridors.
Brenner stated McShane's language covers the issue, “any deviation from an
existing corridor will be reviewed by the committee.”
McShane stated the function needs to specify that the committee will make
recommendations and proposals to the County Council. That is the one thing that
should be in there.
Goodwin stated these are conditional use permits reviewed by the Hearing
Examiner. If the committee makes a recommendation to the County Council, but
the Hearing Examiner makes the decision, there needs to be a connection.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/16/2000, 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
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Goodwin stated she believed the meaning is that they will review all the
transmission line proposals.
Brenner questioned why they can’t set up a policy to make an applicant go to
the committee before it goes to the Hearing Examiner.
McShane stated they would be rewriting the County Code.
Brenner stated the Council does that all the time.
Goodwin stated she envisioned that the committee would help the Council
write the policy, not review applications. Once the policy is clear, the County will
not need the committee any more. The Hearing Examiner would interpret the
policy.
Brenner questioned whether Goodwin believed the committee should review
proposals as they come in. Goodwin stated it wouldn't be necessary if the policy is
clear, which it isn't. The committee may need to write better Comprehensive Plan
policy.
Brenner suggested taking back the function given to the Hearing Examiner
on major transmission facility proposals. The County Council should review and
hold the hearings instead of the Hearing Examiner.
Anderson stated that what they are asking the committee to do is make a
recommendation about how the legislation should be changed so the Council has
more direct input on major transmission facilities.
Brenner stated there are two functions of committee that includes advising
the County Council on legislation and also advising the County Council on hearings.
These are major issues. On these few items, the County Council should be the
ones making the decision, not the Hearing Examiner. Once the County Council
leaves it with the Hearing Examiner, the County Council can only tweak his
recommendations if they don't think he followed the law. The County Council
should be able to sit in judgement of the proposal directly.
The committee concurred on the language developed for the purpose
statement in section 2.125.020.
Brenner stated that if they develop a threshold, she is comfortable with the
County Council having hearings on something that is above a threshold of impact.
Dawson stated that, once the legislation is clarified and refined, they won't
need to use the Hearing Examiner.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Goodwin stated they would have to write an ordinance to change it. They
may be able to write a threshold into the conditional use permit procedure.
Brenner stated a certain threshold would trigger a hearing before the County
Council instead of a hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Goodwin stated she
would look into that, and would have to get information from legal counsel.
Brenner suggested a petitioning process included in the conditional use
permit procedure.
Goodwin stated most of the things that have a major impact are subject to
the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) and not the County Council.
Most of the projects they are talking about would be out of the County's
jurisdiction.
Brenner stated they are talking about location. Location is not out of the
County's jurisdiction.
Goodwin stated that is subject to debate. It would be in the County's
jurisdiction if there was clearer policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan, which
they don't have.
Brenner stated they need to have clear policy direction.
McShane suggested language in the function, section 2.125.030, “The 25
committee will recommend to the County Council clear policy regarding major utility 26
corridors.” 27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
The committee concurred.
Goodwin suggested they bring information to the next meeting, such as the
sections from the Comprehensive Plan that deal with this and the back up rules and
laws.
McShane stated there are probably some goals they should address. He
initially had concerns about the purpose, but that is worked out.
Goodwin stated they will also need to work out the membership. She
advised not having a lot of people, or they will never make any progress.
Brenner stated they need to include members of the different kinds of
utilities and enough citizens to balance that.
Brenner moved to amend the purpose statement, “The committee is created 44
to ensure the protection of public health and safety and the environment when new 45
electric, natural gas, and petroleum transmission facilities are proposed. The 46
committee will also review telecommunications proposals to enhance economic 47
development in Whatcom County.” 48
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 10
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
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to include only one PSE representative, remove the US West
representative, the Georgia Pacific representative, and include one representative
each from Cascade Natural Gas and GTE. Any telecommunications companies can
talk to the committee.
McShane stated that if there are any discussion about telecommunications,
those companies would be there.
Brenner suggested taking the telecommunications representatives out of the
membership because there are so many different kinds of telecommunications
companies. Any time a company goes for a permit, it will be referred by the
County staff to go before the committee for review.
Anderson recommended including Bellingham and the small cities.
Goodwin stated the committee could invite the telecommunications folks and
have one meeting specifically on telecommunications.
Crawford questioned whether there are other telecommunications groups.
Goodwin stated there are.
Brenner stated there needs to be a clause in the ordinance that says there
will be some safeguard for telecommunications companies to know about this
committee. Staff is to refer inquiries to the committee for review where
appropriate. Goodwin stated telecommunications don't require a conditional use
permit now. They must have a franchise agreement.
Brenner stated her motion has nothing to do with conditional use permits.
McShane stated they are going back to the function.
Brenner stated that County staff would refer an applicant to the committee
for all telecommunications projects requiring permitting when he or she comes in
for whatever permits or franchise is necessary. Goodwin stated they could look at
that during the next meeting. Language was added under the purpose section that
requires the committee to review telecommunication proposals.
Brenner stated the committee can't review the proposals if the companies
don't know about the committee. That is why there needs to be a statement that
the County staff will refer any inquiries to the committee for review, where
appropriate.
Brenner restated her motion that the membership include one representative
from each of the following: Public Utility District #1, Bonneville Power
Administration, Cascade Gas, Puget Sound Energy.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 11
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
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to strike membership category number two for PSE, since it
is included in the previous motion. They should also include a representative from
the small cities. The City of Bellingham would have only one representative.
Motion carried 2-0 with Dawson abstaining.
Dawson stated she didn't vote because items three and four need to be
combined.
Brenner suggested having three representatives from each Council district,
with at total of nine representatives.
Anderson recommended two from each Council district. That would make
the number of citizens equal to the number of industry representatives, including
the Bellingham and small cities representatives.
Brenner moved to have two citizen representatives from each Council
district, for a total of six citizens.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane stated the County Council would appoint the citizen committee
members.
Crawford questioned whether the County Council would appoint the members
from the industries.
McShane stated it is up to each individual company to pick its representatives
and how long those representatives will serve.
Brenner stated Bellingham will appoint its own representative and the small
cities organization will appoint its representative.
Brenner stated she wanted the term lengths to be four years instead of two
years.
McShane suggested two years. He's never done anything for more than two
years.
Brenner moved to amend the language in section 2.125.040(B), "The County
Council will appoint the citizen committee members." 44
45
46
47
48
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved that the citizen member terms be for two years.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 12
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 13
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
Motion carried unanimously.
Dawson suggested taking out the word "representatives" in reference to
citizens. They need to make a distinction between representatives and citizens.
Brenner stated the language specifies that they will be citizens.
Dawson stated the language about representatives from the City of
Bellingham is unclear about whether it refers to citizens or staff.
McShane stated it would be whomever the city wants to appoint.
Crawford questioned how often they would meet at a minimum.
Brenner stated the committee should decide how often.
McShane stated it is good to force them to meet at least a certain amount of
time.
Brenner stated they could make their own schedule. They could decide
latter. She asked about committee staffing.
Goodwin stated they can do it.
Brenner stated this will be back in committee in two weeks.
ADJOURN 29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
The meeting adjourned at 2:57 p.m.
______________________________
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
______________________________ ___________________________
Dana Brown-Davis, Council Clerk Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair