HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole October 9 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
Special Committee Of The Whole
October 9, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam
Mann, Carl Weimer and
Absent: None.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken
Pete Kremen.
1. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE
20.14, WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS (AB2011 -223A) (9:32:46 AM)
Wain Harrison, Planning and Development Services Department, referenced his
memo dated September 24, 2012.
Brenner stated the Council never had a blanket moratorium on wind energy systems.
It had a partial moratorium in certain zones. In section 20.14.030(2), they should define
the term significant' in the phrase "significantly increases its output." Harrison stated
determining a significant increase is a judgment of the administrator. If making
modifications or repairs to certain parts, it would not be significant unless they are changing
the height, unit, or upgrading the kilowatt output.
Brenner stated it should be defined. She referenced section 20.14..061(1), "no
infrasound ... adjacent to HII zones." The sentence should be, "within HII zones," not
adjacent to heavy impact industrial (HII) zones. Harrison stated this was discussed in
earlier work sessions. Activities within HII zones may produce more infrasound than would
be warranted to evaluate a system.
Crawford stated this is for zones outside HII for small systems. They are not
required to do studies.
Mann referenced section 20.14.052(1), the section greater than 50 kW in the table.
Make it a mile from any property line of any property in a non -HII zone, whether or not the
neighboring property is in the HII zone. The use of the word "unless" will cause confusion.
He moved to amend 20.14.052(1), "...a non -HII zone;. Unless If the neighboring property
is an HII zone, in which ease the setback from that property line is 1.2 times...."
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/9/2012, 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
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Crawford stated have a less restrictive setback in HII zone, because the rural
properties around there are sparse and not as impacted. They've really shut down an
opportunity for wind energy systems (WES) to only several square miles of places they can
go. They hug the coastline at Cherry Point because of the mile setback. Have a one -half or
one - quarter mile setback from the outer boundary of the HII zone. The proponents of wind
energy stated this is a burgeoning industry. Give them every opportunity to do this in those
areas. A one -mile setback is excessive.
Brenner asked if there are setbacks in heavy industrial zones.
Alex Cleanthus, Planning and Development Services Department, stated setbacks are
based on road types. He's not sure about other uses without looking at the code.
Crawford moved to amend the setback in 20.14.052(1), for greater than 50 kW to
one - quarter mile, " One - quarter mile from a property line...."
Brenner stated she would abstain because she can't visualize it.
Weimer stated he supports the motion. However, they're starting to set preferential
treatment on where WES are located, first at Lake Whatcom and now at Point Whitehorn
where there are residences. It doesn't seem to be based on science.
Crawford stated they are playing favorites because it's a heavy impact industrial
zone. The residents who live there are already near the heavy impact industrial zone. They
already allow industrial impacts in those areas. That's the nature of the HII zone for those
residences.
Kremen stated he supports the motion for reasons Councilmember Crawford stated.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: None (0)
Abstains: Brenner (1)
Brenner referenced section 20.14.071(2) and moved to amend, "...such as baff+e
fencing, equipment cabinetry, or similar barriers..." for grammatical purposes.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Knutzen referenced section 20.14.075(2) and moved to amend per a suggestion
from Wendy Harris, Other species:
eperatien plan shall be designed te ffevent WES freng having a signifieanVadveFse in9paet,
The WES project shall be sited, designed, operated and
monitored to prevent significant /adverse impact on County wildlife, including migratory
birds, raptors and bats."
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/9/2012, 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
Brenner stated the reference to county wildlife could include all kinds of things,
including things they don't care about. Specify just migratory birds, raptors, and bats
instead of county wildlife. Wildlife could refer to anything.
Kershner asked if the measures in place would protect raptors and bats. Harrison
stated they would. The County would submit any large WES project plans to the
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to review and meet their
standards, beyond just the critical areas ordinance (CAO). The WDFW has wind energy
system standards already in place.
Kremen asked why subsection 20.14.075(2) is in the ordinance if WDFW does a
review. Harrison stated it's so the County can ask for a study if necessary.
Kremen stated the motion makes sense and clarifies language. He supports it.
Kershner asked if the language refers to burrowing county wildlife. She asked if the
language is designed to stop any project. She's interested in protecting bats and raptors,
but not earthworms, for instance. She asked if that kind of language is in any other
ordinance. Harrison stated it is not. If a particular ground - dwelling species becomes
threatened, it would be protected by the CAO and WDFW.
Brenner suggested an amendment, "...designed to prevent significantf,adverse
impact on County migratory birds, raptors, and bats." She doesn't like specifying county
wildlife.
Knutzen stated they have to determine if it will affect other things besides migratory
birds. There are other things to take into account.
Brenner stated that is covered in section 20.14.075(1).
Harrison stated if they are going to evaluate a project under a proposal that broad,
they have to know on what to base the criteria and proposal. They have to know how to
determine the limits. That would be difficult to administer.
Kremen suggested a friendly amendment, "...designed to prevent
significant /,adverse impact on traditionally - protected Ceunty wildlife."
Harrison stated staff would use the list of endangered and protected species. There
is no other list.
Knutzen accepted the friendly amendment, even though it's covered in item one.
Weimer asked if they traditionally protect bats. If not, they're eliminated from
protection again. He prefers getting rid of the reference to wildlife and using migratory
birds, raptors, and bats.
Knutzen accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment. He restated the
motion, Other species:
bird speei ^ The WES project shall be sited, designed, operated and monitored to prevent
significant /adverse impact on Geunty wildlife, ineluding migratory birds, raptors and bats."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/9/2012, 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
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Brenner stated correct a grammatical error in section 20.14.102, "When a SWES
(fie with a total height that exceeds the height of the underlying zone) or a WES is
scheduled...."
Harrison stated that at the last work session, the Council asked staff to work on
flicker. He referenced page two of his memo. In other jurisdictions, flicker is generally
evaluated on a case -by -case basis. An evaluation requires sophisticated software the
County doesn't own. He suggests an alternative, as shown in his memo, °If a SWES owner
receives a complaint... when flicker affects any building." If an adjacent property owner
reports a nuisance, the WES owner needs to provide an analysis. If the nuisance is
demonstrated, the WES owner must adjust the system to meet requirements or adjust the
system to a degree that is satisfactory to the neighbor, whichever is less.
Knutzen stated a concern with a complaint- driven process is if this happens late in
the process rather than studied before installation. Harrison stated there is some reason to
be concerned, but mitigation measures can be done to the system based on time of
operation, such as the reduction of time of operation, that would potentially and in most
cases mitigate a flicker problem. There are ways to mitigate the problem once a system is
installed. His intent is to limit installation costs when installing a SWES. There wasn't much
information on flicker nuisance with SWES because SWES produce less of an nuisance.
Most software is designed for large scale and wind farm applications, where most instances
of nuisance arise.
Crawford asked the blade size on a small system of 50 kW. Harrison stated it is
about 27 feet.
Crawford stated that is compared to 150 -foot blades on a large WES. The long blade
of a WES causes that flicker to a much greater degree than a 27 -foot blade. It's not
surprising there wasn't much information on flicker analysis. It isn't a problem. Encourage
SWES. He prefers to not have this language. Those issues should be vetted in the
permitting process.
Kremen stated he agrees with Councilmember Crawford. If it becomes a problem
regarding the SWES, the Council can revise the code. For the time being, don't include the
language.
Brenner stated that if someone experiences a genuine flicker of any size for more
than 30 hours per year, they would feel an impact. The ordinance ought to have something
for protection. Flicker is a big- enough issue to have a protection. She moved to amend
the ordinance, "20.14.076 If an SWES causes flicker on an neighboring residence for more
than 30 hours per year, there must be mitigation to bring it to 30 or fewer hours per year."
Mann stated he wants to be more permissive overall, but this is the one medical
claim he found to be persuasive, regardless of WES size. He supports the motion.
Crawford asked the setback on SWES. Harrison stated the setback is 1.2 times the
tower height, to a maximum of 120 feet. One hundred feet is the total height.
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/9/2012, 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
Crawford stated he disagrees this is a problem. Write the language so any impacts
are reviewed at the time of permitting. One can get an SWES as permitted, without going
through a conditional use process. Regardless, 120 feet is sufficient.
Mann stated just call it at 30 hours, and it's up to the owner to perform to the
standard. It's a little bit of protection for the neighbors.
Brenner stated that if Councilmember Crawford is right, this section isn't needed and
there is no big deal with including it.
Crawford stated that rule should be studied at the time of the permit, not after.
Harrison stated that at some point staff could ask for a study if that language is included.
Brenner stated a property with a SWES north of the neighbor won't produce a flicker.
Don't require a study when it's not necessary.
Mann asked if they require noise studies. Harrison stated they don't, but the system
has to meet the requirements and the complaint process.
Mann stated flicker is the same as noise.
Knutzen stated include language for flicker that is similar to the noise language. It
would be simpler, and it's the way they handle the noise. Harrison stated it's appropriate to
amend the complaint process to include flicker, so that concern is addressed.
Brenner stated if only one neighbor is to the southwest, there shouldn't have to be
two complaints.
Kershner stated there has not been a moratorium on SWES. She asked if Whatcom
County has ever received a complaint about flicker.
Brenner stated there are only two SWES in the County.
Harrison stated he is unaware of any complaints.
Kershner stated this hasn't been a problem or concern so far, and this concern came
from a discussion about separating WES and SWES. They don't need to start meddling at
this point. She doesn't support the motion.
Crawford asked the size of the system at Alpha Tech. Harrison stated it is 7.5 kW
and may be close to a height of 100 feet.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Knutzen and Mann (3)
Nays: Crawford, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (4)
Crawford moved to add 20.14.074 as presented in the previous version and as
deleted at the last meeting, '20.14.074 Flicker Analysis for WES 1. A flicker analysis is
required for all WES. The analysis shall include the duration and location of flicker potential
for all buildings and for roadways within a one (1) mile radius of each turbine within a
project. The applicant shall provide a site map identifying the locations of shadow flicker
that may be caused by the project and the expected durations of the flicker at these
locations from sunrise to sunset over the course of a year. The analysis shall account for
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/9/2012, 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
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
topography but not for obstacles such as accessory structures and trees. Flicker at any
building shall not exceed thirty (30) hours per year within the analysis area. Flicker in
excess of the limits established in this ordnance shall be grounds for the County or his /her
designee to order operational adjustments, which may include mitigation measures
requiring cessation of operation during periods when flicker effects any building, for all non-
compliant WES." Flicker has shown to be a problem with large WES, and it's appropriate for
WES.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann and Kremen (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Weimer (out of the room) (1)
Mann stated he would not vote for this ordinance as it is. The ordinance fails to
meet his intent. It lacks vision, leadership, and principles. They have deferred to flimsy
medical claims and aesthetic concerns instead of standing up for alternative energy
potential and entrepreneurial investments. It's too restrictive. They eliminated larger wind
turbines in much of the county. It's disappointing. He hopes that as wind energy
technology improves, the Council revisits the ordinance. They eliminated the potential
completely from agriculture and commercial forestry zones.
Kershner moved to introduce as amended.
Brenner asked about upper limit on noise. At some point, have different upper limits
for noise in different zones for large SWES.
Kershner stated those will all be in HII zones.
Harrison stated he recommends not introducing this ordinance until the Council is
done with it.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen and Kremen (5)
Nays: Mann and Weimer (2)
2. REQUEST CLARIFICATION OF A MOTION APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 25,
2012, REGARDING THE LAKE WHATCOM RECONVEYANCE AND DISCUSSION
OF FUTURE SCHEDULING (AB2012 -066D) (10:42:38 AM)
Jack Louws, County Executive, referenced his memo and stated the administration
suggests the Council and administration have three meetings to discuss: 1. the Parks and
Recreation Plan, 2. a forest management plan and Councilmember Crawford's suggestion on
a property swap, and 3. a budget. During those meetings, review the work done over the
years by the Parks Department, Park and Recreation Commission, and community. He
hopes to achieve a Council consensus to move forward a vote. It doesn't matter whether
those meetings occur in a specific committee or Committee of the Whole (COTW).
Crawford asked the timeframe of the three meetings. Louws stated it would be late
November or December, after they get through the budget.
Crawford stated have the first of the three meetings in December, then the others in
January, to be done at the end of January.
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/9/2012, 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
49
50
51
52
53
Brenner stated discuss it in COTW. This issue is controversial, and all
councilmembers should be part of the discussion.
Crawford stated meeting in COTW is fine with him.
Kershner stated the Council concurs on scheduling the meetings in COTW.
Weimer asked if the first meeting to talk about the Parks Plan would actually amend
the plan, or just produce input from the Council about what the Council wants for this
property, which could change with a different Council. Louws stated bring forward the plan
that was vetted three years ago. If the Council agrees with the plan, there would be no
amendments. He wants to revisit the parameters in which the plan was written. Ask to
what degree recreation would exist on that property, and where it would exist. Give the
administration an idea of the Council's direction. He understands this Council can't put
anything in place to prohibit decisions of future Councils, but they need a way to start
planning.
Brenner stated this meeting is about clarifying the motion the Council approved at
the last meeting. This discussion wasn't advertised.
Mann asked if the Council would review the plan for that potential park or all county
parks. Louws stated review the plan for the potential reconveyance property.
Knutzen moved to discuss it in COTW for three meetings, as Executive Louws
proposes.
Karen Brown asked where a land swap comes into the picture, and if the public can
speak during the three meetings.
Louws stated they would discuss Councilmember Crawford's proposal for land swap
at the second meeting. He would like to have a discussion with the Council, based on
community testimony. It's up to the Council whether the public would participate in the
three meetings.
Brenner stated don't say there will be three meetings only, but approve a minimum
of three meetings. At some point, she would like to hear the County Executive's
recommendation.
Knutzen asked if a forest management discussion will include geologic and stability
concerns.
Louws stated it's up to the Council.
Clayton Petree stated the original motion included analyses of the no- action
alternative and State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) recreation plan alternative.
He asked when a catastrophic risk assessment for the park or other use related to landslides
would be done. Something like that can take a long time.
Kershner stated the first meeting about the park plan should include a conversation
about requesting a DNR recreational easement. The second meeting about timber
management could include information about other natural resource issues such as
landslides.
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/9/2012, 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
Ellen Baker stated the Council never initiated the request for the park to begin with.
The former Executive and Parks Department initiated the request. It doesn't make sense
for the Council to define a need for the park. It is the Executive's responsibility and the
Parks Department's responsibility to say the need exists. A need for the park or its future
has never been quantified. She doesn't know why the Council would do the Executive's job
or Parks Department job. She's concerned the process has been backwards. This was an
Executive - driven project from the beginning.
Kershner stated they are creating a mechanism to consider public dialog received on
September 11. This is one of several good approaches to talk about this at the Council
level.
Baker stated another approach is to go through the strict planning process.
Kershner stated the Council will talk about that process during its discussion.
Shane Roth stated this should not die in committee. The Council should fix a point
when there will be an official vote at a Council meeting. If there is an unlimited number of
meetings, it suggests the clock is being run out. They've had five years to get this
information.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
The Council approved these minutes on November 7, 2012.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council4o.w hatcom .wa.us
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/9/2012, Page 8