HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole September 11 20121
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
Committee Of The Whole
September 11, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(3 :04:36 PM)
Present: Carl Weimer, Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Bill Knutzen, Kathy Kershner
and Pete Kremen.
Absent: Sam Crawford.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION ON AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.14, WIND
ENERGY SYSTEMS (AB2011 -223A)
Wain Harrison, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff update.
Since the last work session, there has been suggested language regarding wildlife
conservation. Wind energy systems are subject to review under the critical areas ordinance
(CAO). If the CAO is sufficient to address their concerns, don't repeat language. Instead,
cross - reference the CAO.
Alex Cleanthus, Planning and Development Services Department, answered
questions.
Kremen asked and there was discussion of whether they can just adopt the federal
guidelines.
Mann stated the onerous regulations they put in the ordinance were because they
thought these systems might be in rural forestry or locations where they may interact with
people. Now that the systems are only allowed in the high impact industrial (HII) zone and
there is a one -mile setback, the regulations seem unnecessary. He questions the reason for
the regulations about ice flow, blade throw, flicker analysis, sound measurement, and
maybe the sound modeling.
Kershner stated in the HII zone, if neighboring agricultural land, the setback must be
one mile. That seems overdone. There are no urban growth areas next to high impact
industrial land. The mile for Birch Bay may be reasonable.
Brenner stated she also agrees. Consider small systems not being above 50 or 75
feet high.
Committee of the Whole, 9/11/2012, 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
53
(3:15:30 PM)
Mann stated the original ordinance was only about the large systems.
Brenner stated if they reduce the height on the residential -sized systems, they can
take out most of the regulations for the other systems. She'd never really focused much on
the height of the smaller systems. A hundred feet is high in a more suburban or urban
area. There was discussion on how tall a system can fit on various -sized urban lots. She
would like to get feedback about this from councilmembers.
Kremen moved to prohibit any systems, including 50 kilowatt (kw) and less, within
and 1,000 feet beyond the Lake Whatcom watershed boundary. He asked Mr. Harrison to
develop language to reflect his motion. It's consistent with the County's efforts to protect
Lake Whatcom. There is a place for wind energy generation, but it shouldn't be in or within
1,000 feet of the Lake Whatcom watershed boundary. It would be a general prohibition.
Weimer stated he also doesn't want to encourage road building and more
development, but they could create language that allows a small wind energy system that
doesn't promote development, such as a rooftop or backyard system.
Kremen stated he is concerned about the hydraulic fluids essential to the operation
of these systems. A secondary concern is about visual pollution. They are trying to reduce
motor vehicle traffic in the watershed. There are risks associated with systems, even small
systems, failing and emitting contaminants into the watershed.
Mann stated allow the smaller units that would be on the roof of a house, providing
for just the house. The motion goes too far. Create some kind of tolerable limit.
Kershner stated she doesn't support a complete ban in the watershed, but she could
support a limit on a system that would impact views. She doesn't want to ban a small
system meant for one house. For example, wind turbines would be disallowed within 1,000
feet of the ridge top.
Kremen stated eliminate any system taller than 50 feet and no greater than 50
kilowatts within and 1,000 feet from the Lake Whatcom watershed boundary.
William Cox stated Alpha Technologies has a 7.5 kW wind turbine that is 100 feet
high. The Department of Energy guidelines indicate a five to 15 kilowatt installation is
generally required for a normal residence, assuming there is a constant 14 miles per hour
wind all year. The point is moot in the watershed because the wind won't be sufficient. A
50 kW wind turbine tower comes in three general sizes: 100 feet, 120 feet, 140 feet. There
is more benefit to limit the height than the kilowatts. The County's responsibility is to
discourage future development in the watershed, as opposed to encouraging it with wind
turbines. He does not support wind turbines in the watershed because they are a form of
development. He doesn't care about personal, rooftop systems. Those are alright.
Mann suggested a friendly amendment to ban all except rooftop systems in the
watershed.
Kremen accepted the friendly amendment.
There was discussion of where to locate a personal system on a property and how
high a rooftop system would be allowed.
Committee of the Whole, 9/11/2012, 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
Terry Meyer stated rooftop systems are typically close to the roof. A turbine must be
taller than the trees. If the Council decides that looking at turbines is more of an impact to
the community than people who generate their own power, then ban the systems outright.
Allowing only the smallest turbines encourages people to become disappointed by spending
money on a system that really doesn't do anything. He's not heard of any rooftop system
that produces a significant amount of energy. Wind in Whatcom County is located on top of
tall towers and ridgelines. If the Council doesn't want systems in those places, be honest
and ban them.
Brenner stated she disagrees. Small systems aren't pointless. It may be better for
those in the business of the bigger systems. She researched it. The little rooftop systems
take businesses and people off the grid. People should have a choice.
Kremen amended his motion and moved to prohibit all wind energy systems
within and 1,000 feet beyond the Lake Whatcom watershed boundary.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen (1)
Nays: Brenner, Mann, Knutzen, Kershner and Weimer (5)
Absent: Crawford (1)
Brenner moved to allow personal wind energy systems that are no higher than five
feet above the highest peak of the roof.
Kershner suggested a friendly amendment to allow wind energy systems no
higher than 50 feet from the ground, within and 1,000 feet beyond the Lake Whatcom
watershed boundary.
Brenner accepted the friendly amendment.
Weimer stated he is opposed to the motion. This comes down to visual reasons.
He's not sure of the rationale for only doing this in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Kremen stated don't ignore the concern about the hydraulic fluids these systems
use. The County already banned two - stroke motors on Lake Whatcom because of the
pollution they create.
Mann stated wind technology evolves and adapts. Don't make it impossible for a
backyard hobbyist to have one on the roof.
Brenner stated that would be a reason for the Council to make amendments.
Mann stated he prefers a height limit that is five feet from the top of the roof. The
motion allows towers that require concrete foundations. A rooftop system would not create
more impervious surfaces.
Brenner amended her motion and moved to allow personal wind energy systems
that are no higher than five feet above the highest peak of the roof within the Lake
Whatcom watershed and 1,000 feet beyond the recognized boundary of the watershed.
Committee of the Whole, 9/11/2012, 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
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Kershner and Kremen (4)
Nays: Weimer (1)
Absent: Crawford and Knutzen (2)
Mann moved to delete 20.14.074. The setback is now a mile, and they don't need
it.
Kershner asked and there was discussion of whether ice throw can go more than a
mile and impact other property owners.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Kershner and Kremen (4)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Crawford, Knutzen and Weimer (3)
Mann moved to delete 20.14.076. He amended his motion and moved to
amend section 20.14.052, the setback to one mile from the nearest non -HII property line.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Kershner and Kremen (4)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Crawford, Knutzen and Weimer (3)
Kershner moved to delete 20.14.076 regarding flicker analysis.
Kremen asked if this is only germane to the industrial zone. If that is true, he
supports the amendment.
Brenner stated she will support the motion, but she would like input from the HII
property owners.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Kershner and Kremen (4)
Nays: None (0)
Abstain: Knutzen (1)
Absent: Crawford and Weimer (2)
Mann moved to delete 20.14.080 regarding sound modeling and measurement.
Kershner asked and there was discussion of whether they are removing all the
conditions to be considered in the conditional use permit process.
Mann stated a windmill still has to meet performance standards. The owners won't
be obligated to provide a report in advance or a 12 -month operational report. They still
have to conform to the sound requirements.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Knutzen, Kershner and Kremen (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Crawford and Weimer (2)
Committee of the Whole, 9/11/2012, 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
49
50
51
52
53
Kershner stated they are removing all these things for wind energy systems (WES),
but it applies to the small wind energy systems (SWES) as well. Today, the Council is
talking about systems that are greater than 50 kW. She asked if they are exempting the
systems that are over 50 kW. Harrison stated none of these things apply to SWES.
Mann stated flicker analysis is the most compelling issue. They may want to
reinstate that section for SWES.
Knutzen moved to reinstate 20.14.076 for SWES only, instead of WES, and change
the setback to five times the tower height.
Mann stated this is the one thing that can really affect people. They should get the
language right. Harrison stated he will do more research. He suspects 1,000 feet will be
reasonable. There was discussion of the possibility of affects from flicker.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes:
Mann, Knutzen and Kremen (3)
Nays:
Brenner and Kershner (2)
Abstain:
None (0)
Absent:
Crawford and Weimer (2)
Cleanthus stated every tower of any size will have to be reviewed under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). There must be a SEPA checklist.
Kershner asked and there was discussion of whether it makes sense to make an
owner hire a wildlife biologist if the SEPA checklist looks at that.
Mann asked staff to suggest options for reinstating 20.14.076 and find out if there
has been any flicker analysis for the 100 -foot SWES.
Kershner moved to remove the requirements for removing the below ground
improvements in 20.14.102(1) for just the WES, "Remove all wind turbines, above - ground
improvements, and outdoor storage." That is the one place they were
going to allow the reuse of foundations. This applies just to the WES. WES in the HII zone
should not have to remove their below - ground improvements if the system is
decommissioned.
Mann stated they should rename the SWES so it doesn't get confused with WES.
Kershner stated they could be clear about which sections apply to both size systems
or just one or the other.
Brenner stated consider dividing SWES into two different sizes. If they can get
people to generate their own electricity and get off the grid, it will be positive.
Kershner restated the motion to remove the requirements for removing the below
ground improvements in 20.14.102(1) for just the WES, 'Remove all wind turbines, above-
ground and belew gFeund improvements, and outdoor storage." That is the one place they
were going to allow the reuse of foundations. This applies just to the WES. WES in the HII
zone should not have to remove their below - ground improvements if the system is
decommissioned.
Committee of the Whole, 9/11/2012, 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
r
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Knutzen, Kershner and Kremen (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Crawford and Weimer (2)
Kershner referenced the permit table in section 20.14.041. She asked and there was
discussion of whether these can all be permitted administratively.
Kershner stated the Council would hold this item in Committee of the Whole to the
first meeting in October.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:48 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on October 23, 2012.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council &o.w hatcom .wa.us
Committee of the Whole, 9/11/2012, Page 6