HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning May 16 20001
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
May 16, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Connie
Hoag in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Dan McShane
OTHER BUSINESS
Absent:
None
RESOLUTION CREATING A LAKE SAMISH CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE FOR
WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2000 -176A)
Crawford questioned where the suggested committee membership came
from.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated it was discussed at
Planning Commission. This is what the Planning Commission recommended. This
is being brought forward now because there is a community meeting at the Lake
Samish Fire Hall this evening. One of her staff will attend. There has been much
talk about this citizen's committee at Planning Commission for the last few months.
If the Council is willing to think about this committee, they can let the citizens know
that this is coming up before the Council. That is why she asked for direction now.
Brenner asked for a definition of the Concerned Neighbors of Lake Samish
and Lake Samish Association. Goodwin stated the Concerned Neighbors is a group
of people that banded together, took up a collection, and brought in this petition for
a water resource overlay zone.
Brenner questioned whether they are the same people that are on the Lake
Samish Association. Goodwin stated the Lake Samish Association has about 400
members. It is a large property owner's association. The Concerned Neighbors
include about 20 people that were specifically involved in this issue. There may be
some people who belong to both.
Brenner questioned whether a member of the Concerned Neighbors could fill
one of the members -at -large position on the committee. Goodwin stated they
could, and include it to seven people.
Hoag stated she preferred that the Concerned Neighbor representative stay
on the list because they went to the trouble to bring the issue forward. They could
reduce the number of members -at -large from two to one.
Brenner suggested an amendment, "8. Two members at large, including a
member from the Concerned Neighbors of Lake Samish."
Planning and Development Committee, 5/16/2000, 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
Hoag stated that if the at -large positions have to include a Concerned
Neighbor, they should just specify them as a member.
Brenner stated that would be an even number of members.
Hoag suggested that they recommend that Council introduce it. That way, it
will go into the next Council packet, and people can speak to it. She would
schedule it for the Planning Committee again in two weeks.
McShane moved to introduce the resolution at the evening's meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING NEW WHATCOM COUNTY LAND DIVISION
REGULATIONS (TITLE 21), REPEALING THE EXISTING WHATCOM
COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (TITLE 21), AND MAKING
MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO TITLE 2 AND TITLE 20 (AB2000 -160)
Hoag stated the Health Department suggested a recommendation for a
change regarding the water supply, section 21.04.090.
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated there was an attachment to the staff
report regarding the Title 21 changes from Planning and Development Committee
through May 2. The language approved by the committee was included in that
version of the document.
Hoag questioned whether Chapter 21.01, regarding General Provisions, was
new. Aamot stated it is new. He underlined the sections that the Planning
Committee changed. Section 21.01.040 was picked by the Planning Commission
from an existing regulation. It is similar to what they have now. The entire
Planning Commission recommendation was included without strikeouts and
underlines because it was so different from the existing Title 21. It would have
been very confusing. In section 21.01.040, the first paragraph is new. After that,
it is all the same except for one word in subsection (2). The term "land division"
was added. Old lots are not exempt from today's zoning regulations and other
types of critical area regulations.
Crawford questioned whether subsection (2) should say "regulation" instead
of "resolution." Aamot stated the land division rules at that time were adopted by
resolution. It might be appropriate to leave that. He suggested minor changes,
outlined on packet page 202. The reason for change #1 on packet page 202 is
because subdivisions are defined as being five lots or more. However, these
provisions also apply to short plats and other types of land divisions. This
suggestion is both the packet and the staff report.
Planning and Development 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
49
50
Hoag suggested that they deal first with the version Title 21 as updated with
the May 2 amendments. He questioned whether the rest of the language in section
21.01.040 was new. Aamot stated it is all the same existing language. He
underlined and crossed out the language that the staff recommends be changed
from what the Planning Commission adopted.
Hoag questioned whether it is just section 21.01.040 that is used out of the
old regulations. Aamot stated it is all new, except that section.
Hoag stated that if something already works and doesn't cause a problem,
she doesn't look at it as carefully as proposed new language. She questioned
section 21.01.080. The sentence structure in the middle of the paragraph is
awkward. She suggested an amendment, "...divisions having appropriate expertise
including, but a-r-e not limited to:...." Aamot agreed.
Hoag referenced section 21.01.100 regarding the exempt land divisions. She
questioned whether the items are defined. Aamot stated some are defined.
Exemptions, for example, are set forth in chapter 21.03. There is an actual
definition of exemptions in chapter 21.10.
Hoag stated she wanted to ensure that each of these items are identified and
defined. Aamot stated they are all defined, with the possible exception of a
boundary line adjustment. Section 21.03.060 talks about what a boundary line
adjustment is for, which it to adjust a lot line between two parcels.
Crawford stated it is self- defined.
Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, stated it is further defined by state
law. All of these have come out of the state regulations.
Hoag suggested that they begin on the first page and work through the
substitute document page by page.
Pat Jones, Technical Advisory Committee and Jones Engineers, Inc., stated
he and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) went through the document and
had comments. He discussed the comments with staff, and some of them may
already be incorporated. He hasn't looked at the current version.
He would speak in two capacities. One capacity is as a representative of the
TAC. The other capacity is as a representative of himself, as a professional land
surveyor and engineer. When making his recommendations, he would identify
under which capacity he would make the recommendation.
The first comment is on exemptions. The TAC's position is that there should
be no exemptions. They could find no technical reason for exemptions. Second,
they had reports from the staff that exemptions took a great deal of staff time and
postured a lot of projects behind schedule. The Planning Commission considered
the TAC's comments, but were inclined to allow some exemptions. The Planning
Commission questioned what exemptions the TAC would be inclined to recommend
in connection with those exemptions. There is a letter from the TAC to the Planning
Planning and Development 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
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Commission. The Planning Commission, for the most part, rejected the constraints
that the TAC recommended for the exemptions.
Aamot stated the TAC letter is in the Council Office file, not in the packet.
Jones submitted a copy of the letter (on file). From the TAC's point of view,
exemptions allow for largely unregulated subdivision and do not provide
opportunities for rational transportation and land use planning. However, they
recognize that they live in an imperfect world and that decision will be social and
political. From a technical point of view, they could find no basis to support
exemptions. Their recommendation was that they not be allowed.
Crawford asked for the recommendation from Jones Engineering. Jones
stated he would allow exemptions in hardship cases to deal with hardship issues.
Staff reported to them that it represented about three percent of all the exemptions
that were allowed. It boils down to a political and social decision.
Hoag questioned whether they should go over the exemption language now
or make a note for later. Jones suggested that he would try to respond to
questions.
Hoag questioned whether he could recommend any criteria for the hardship
cases. Jones stated he would be generous with it. It is convenient for some people
to do it that way because it gets around the land use transportation and the County
planning process.
Hoag questioned whether a problem would arise in that everything would
become a "hardship." Jones stated they could pass a law and someone would
always find a way to abuse it. They don't want to try and write laws that are
perfect or hire 1,000 more bureaucrats to police it. They live with a certain
generous failure rate.
Dawson questioned why they chose a five -acre limit. Jones stated the five -
acre limit is a number that as already there. The subject of the size for an
exemption was never raised. From his point of view, they didn't consider the size.
Aamot stated that the state subdivision law says that the exemptions have to
be a minimum of five acres, they can't go less than that.
Hoag stated she would prefer to look at the exemptions and have feedback.
Paul Isaacson, Shallow Shores Road, stated he attended every Planning
Commission meeting. Mr. Jones wasn't at all of them. There was a lot of
discussion on exemptions. He has used exemptions. They worked for his
application and what they were intended for. There is a five -year prohibition on the
sale of the parcel. He did not consider them to be viable for abuse. There is one
road - frontage exemption that could be used to circumvent the subdivision process.
Even though the TAC is against this, there are members on the TAC that struggled
with it. It was not a unanimous decision. The Planning Commission, after many
hours, unanimously decided to include them all as written. There are several
Planning and Development 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
49
50
51
reasons to use exemptions. Because of the short amount of time, he would like to
submit a written reply. He supported the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Hoag stated gift exemptions are in section 21.03.020(6) on page 10 of the
substitute ordinance.
Crawford stated someone suggested the idea that they eliminate the gift
exemption, and raise exemptions to 20 acres, and reduce the cost of short platting.
Page 17, section 21.04.030(2)(c) discusses submitted drawings. He understood
that the section means one could submit the drawing and have the short plat done
in 30 days. He hears from developers that it is not the case. Middleton stated they
are discussing the mylar that is filed for record. Once the mylar is turned in, they
have to sign it within 30 days.
Hoag questioned whether that is turned in after all the other requirements
are met. Middleton stated that was correct.
Hoag suggested an amendment, "When After all the requirements are met..."
The wording is confusing as it is.
Crawford stated if the cost of the short plats were reduced and the length of
time it takes to do a short plat was reduced, then they might be able to eliminate
the exemptions because the process is working for those who want to do it.
Isaacson stated they always assume that land is going to be built on. That is
the first thing they assume. In his case, he may gift some acreage to his children
to hold in forestry uses. When one does a short plat, they make an immediate
assumption that the parcels will be developed. He recently did two short plats.
They were built fast. It took 19 months and $200,000 for two short plats. If the
County makes everyone short plat under these criteria, while assuming that all
parcels would be developed, they would have to ask about the utilization of the
short plat. If he gave five acres in the watershed to his daughter, the Engineering
Division would make him build a road.
Hoag stated that when it is short platted, he is able to do those things on it,
unless they made an exemption for short plats that are deed - restricted against
development. Isaacson stated they are deed restricted. He is prohibited for five
years against doing anything.
Hoag stated that is not the same thing. Isaacson stated that five acres he
could be given or receive isn't necessarily buildable. They always assume that a
parcel is buildable.
Hoag stated that a short plat breaks a larger piece down, and it enables
development, so development should be assumed unless there is a good reason to
assume otherwise. Isaacson stated there are many cases where there is a good
reason to assume otherwise. He fundamentally disagreed. There are several more
cases that support why they would not want to build the infrastructure. One is not
going to do an exemption to develop in six years. Second, that makes the
assumption that every time they subdivide, they are building and need the
infrastructure. Effectively, they are bringing on the request of development when
Planning and Development 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
49
50
51
an individual short plats because he or she has to have the wherewithal to do so.
They are pushing people into development. The more in -depth the regulation, the
more cost there is. The TAC is a group of professional engineers and surveyors. It
is in their best interest to make sure there is an in -depth regulatory process. There
are several cases where it isn't applicable. Another example for an exemption is to
separate from a very large parcel several acres that need to be environmentally
protected.
Hoag questioned whether they could create an exemption for conservation.
Isaacson stated there are many things they could do for conservation. There are
other reasons, including forestry. They have exemption criteria that have worked
for many years.
Hoag asked for Mr. Isaacson's response to the staff's comments, the TAC's
comments, and the Planning Commission's comments about people who take
advantage of exemptions, which creates a new owner who doesn't realize he or she
does not have something that is ready to sell. The County repeatedly ends up in a
bind due to exemptions. Isaacson stated he didn't see that the County is in any
bind. The County doesn't assure anyone of their land when they buy it. He didn't
agree that there is a problem. The Planning Commission went through a very
lengthy process and their recommendation is to stay with it as it is.
Hoag stated that only gift exemptions stay the same. They get rid of the gift
short plat. Isaacson stated that the gift exemption stays, the above 20 acre
segregation stays, the 300 -foot road frontage exemption stays, and other
exemptions stay. He has not heard one individual at the Planning Commission who
wanted to remove any of them.
Jones stated the comment that the TAC members have a vested interest is
offensive. He's served on the TAC for a number of years. He's watched the
members stand on their head to not make work. That committee consists of one
land surveyor, one geo- technical engineer, two civil engineers, an attorney, a
biologist, and an architect. One of the concerns is about taking a 40 -acre parcel
and doing five -acre gift exemptions, which would be eight new parcels of ground.
After six years, one could short plat each of those parcels. One could make four
lots on each parcel. There is now a development with 32 lots that haven't had to
provide for the infrastructure that a long plat would have to have. If it was more
than four lots in the county, a long plat is required. That is real. It is true that a
family member may wish to gift to another family member. There is merit in that
notion.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Jones stated that in a few years it could be sold. The person that is buying
the lot is likely to anticipate a current residential use. It is probably that a person
would buy it for that purpose. Laws and regulations that create special classes of
people offend him. This sets up a special class of people. He is a father of four
kids. He has grandchildren. He is for families, but this sets up a special class.
There may be someone who doesn't have a family, but wants to gift exempt it to a
friend. It is bad public policy to set up special classes of people.
Planning and Development 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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Isaacson stated everyone is a special class of people because everyone with
a child has an exemption under the federal code. There are exemptions that take
place every day. Everyone has special situations.
Hoag suggested one change in wording on page 17, "When After all
requirements of the notice ... are satisfied, The DiFeetei= shall sign the eFigi
drawing ef the shei=t plat within 30 days ef receiving said eFiginal dFawing an
original drawing of the short plat shall be submitted and signed within 30 days by
the Director...." That makes it clear when the 30 -day time clock starts. She
questioned whether that would work. Middleton stated he understood they are
talking about the mylar. He was concerned that his successor understands it is the
mylar. They actually get an original drawing right up front. It is called a check
print. They need to specify what they are actually signing.
Aamot stated they discussed that at the TAC. There are other mediums that
could be used.
Jones stated it is not unlikely that in five years it is submitted on a computer
disk.
Hoag stated they need wording to make it clear that it is the item that is
currently a mylar. Middleton suggested, "the original that is submitted for
recording."
Jones stated that if it was for recording purposes, it wouldn't matter what
format it was in.
Hoag amended her suggestion to amend language, "When After all
requirements of the notice ... are satisfied, The DireCteF shall sign the eFigi
drawing ef the shert plat within 30 days ef reeeiving said eFiginal dFaWing an
original drawing for recording shall be submitted and signed within 30 days by the
Director...."
Aamot stated there is a definition for "original drawing" on page 50. He
suggested that they add language, "for recording with the County Auditor."
Hoag stated that gives a person another place they have to look. Aamot
stated that the term "original drawing" occurs throughout the document. If it is in
the definition, it might be helpful for the other places in the document.
Jones stated the 30 -day timeline is triggered at the completion of the
conditions. It is not unusual for the applicant to present the final mylar prior to
that reality. It speeds up the process. The triggering device is the completion of
the conditions, whatever they are. One condition is submitting the final mylar,
which could be done early. They wouldn't want to tie it to that. The
recommendation is 30 days after meeting the conditions of approval.
Hoag suggested that the 30 -day timeline begin when the conditions have
been met and when the original drawing has been submitted for recording.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/16/2000, 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
Jones stated that when the final document has been reviewed and everything
has been built, it ought to take 15 minutes to sign it, not 30 days.
Hoag stated the Director might be on vacation. She compared the proposed
gift exemption language, section 21.03.020(6)(a) through 21.03.020(6)(d), and the
language in the letter from the TAC committee. Jones stated that the TAC was
opposed to all non - mandatory state exemptions. They were asked by the Planning
Commission to comment on subsections (4) and (6). The language in the TAC
letter was what they would recommend if they had to live with it.
Hoag questioned the difference between the Planning Commission
recommendation and the TAC recommendation for section 21.03.020(6)(b).
Crawford stated it sounds as if the TAC only wants one lot created.
Jones stated it was to address the notion of an emergency crisis or
circumstance so the little old lady wouldn't be left without a cash flow.
Hoag stated that is a problem for someone who has children and wants to
gift to more than one child.
Jones stated the short plat process isn't as onerous as a lot of people think
unless there is a real problem issue such as wetland or hazardous slope. That is
why it takes so long and is complex. A number of complex issues with short plats
and long plats are avoided in this process and the complex issues don't get dealt
with. It is nice for a developer to be able to have, but it avoids the planning and
public process.
Aamot stated the essential distinction is that the Planning Commission did
not limit the number of gift exemptions per parcel. Staff can envision a middle
ground being reached, such as a maximum number.
Jones stated four lots are the maximum numbers of lots in the county that
can be short platted. In the city limits, it is nine.
Hoag stated four lots make sense, because it gets into creating subdivisions.
She questioned whether the four lots could be divided again into another four lots.
Jones stated they could after five years and if the zoning allowed for it.
Isaacson stated this is only applicable to lots five acres and larger.
Jones stated the short plat process is between the staff and applicant. There
are no public hearings or involvement of a Hearing Examiner or the Council unless
there is an appeal. A long subdivision or binding site plan or planned unit
development has public review.
McShane moved to drop the exemptions.
Crawford stated he wouldn't vote in favor of that motion.
Planning and Development 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
49
50
Hoag recommended that page on page 10, subsection (6)(b), the language
be amended to, "A maximum of four lots may be created by gift exemption and the
new lots must be created from a legal lot of record...."
Aamot stated that language in subsection (4) might be good language.
Crawford asked how Mr. Isaacson felt.
Isaacson stated he was fine with that language. From the forestry
standpoint, it would be a nightmare to entirely remove exemptions, even twenty -
acre exemptions. A person could not divide a very large parcel of 1,000 acres.
Jones stated the subdivision regulations already exempt the 20 -acre parcels
at the state level. He was talking about all non -state mandated exemptions. The
County doesn't have the authority to change state mandated exemptions. The
state mandates that 20 -acre parcels can be randomly subdivided with zero control.
If a guy owns 1,000 acres, he has 50 parcels that he doesn't have to talk to anyone
about. That is a non - issue. It is when the acreage is under 20 acres and down to
five acres. A 20 -acre parcel is not subject to platting regulations.
Isaacson stated Island County has a 10 -acre minimum exemption. Whatcom
County has a 20 -acre minimum exemption. Skagit County has an 80 -acre
minimum exemption.
Hoag asked if legal counsel was familiar with the state regulation.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the state opted out of
regulating subdivisions over 20 acres. That doesn't say that the County can't
regulate parcels over 20 acres. It gives a county some leeway to experiment.
Skagit and other counties do it. Mr. Jones is correct. The state pre -empts a lot of
this field. Once the subdivision reaches a certain threshold size, then the state
steps back and lets the counties regulate them as they so choose. He couldn't
remember if the threshold was five acres or 20 acres.
Jones stated it is 20 acres. The state legislation categorically exempts over
parcels 20 acres. King County tried to fight that and control subdivisions over 20
acres, and they couldn't do it. Parcels over 20 acres are not subject to the state's
platting law.
Hoag questioned whether the County code addresses it.
Jones stated the County has options between five and 20 acres. Under the
state's subdivision act, parcels larger than 20 acres in size are exempt. For parcels
under five acres, a person would have to short plat or long plat, depending on the
number of lots.
(Clerk's Note: McShane's motion was not voted on.)
Hoag moved to add language in section 21.03.020(6), "(a) Divisions of land
shall be into no more than four lots." Jones stated that those four lots may be
Planning and Development 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
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
subdivided again into four parcels by a short plat at the end of six years, creating a
16 -lot subdivision without benefit of the process.
Crawford questioned where the six -year limitation is located in the code.
Middleton stated there isn't one for gift exemptions.
Jones stated that if he subdivided that 20 acres into 16 lots, he would have
to do a long plat.
Hoag questioned whether one needs to provide infrastructure when one goes
through the short plat process. Jones stated the infrastructure requirements for
short plats are materially less than the infrastructure requirements for long plats.
They are significantly less.
McShane suggested amending language to subsection (6)(c), "...shall go
through the appropriate long subdivision, sheFt s..b,. ivisien, or binding site plan..."
and make the person do a long division.
Hoag restated her motion to include the language into section 21.03.020(6),
"A gift of land between grandparents, parents, spouses, and children, divisions of
land into no more than four lots, provided that..."
Crawford questioned where the time limitation exists. Middleton stated there
isn't one for gifts.
Hoag stated there is one for subsection (4).
Crawford stated that the day a person gets a division approved, he or she
could go ahead and apply for a short plat.
Motion carried unanimously.
Isaacson stated the intent was to have the five -year prohibition for item (6)
as well as for item (4), but it was left out.
Jones stated it should be long subdivision.
Hoag questioned what would happen if they remove the short subdivision
provision from subsection (6)(c). Jones stated it would solve the problem.
Hoag questioned whether that would conflict with other rules. Isaacson
stated that creates a big problem from the Planning Commission's standpoint. That
would penalize one of the gift receivers by making him or her do a long subdivision
in ten years, for example.
Hoag stated the land was given as a gift, so it would be a penalty. Isaacson
stated it is not the recipient's fault. He questioned why a gift recipient should have
to go through the long process because of what the gift giver did many years ago.
McShane stated the giver should think about short platting from the get -go.
Planning and Development 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
49
50
Middleton stated staff runs into this problem under the current code. The gift
exemption is the most difficult to deal with because they are very emotional.
Grandpa gave the grandchild a parcel, who has to do something else with it just to
subdivide it. The County also revoked the original gifts and did a short plat on top
of it. If the owner wants to do a short plat, then he or she should just do a short
plat.
Hoag questioned whether an owner would be able to have an exemption
revoked, reconsolidate, and short plat if they amended the language to remove the
short subdivision provision. Middleton stated they could if the original conveyors
are still around.
Hoag stated the five -year time limit should be in there. It should not be
allowed the day after one gets an exemption.
McShane stated the exemptions create nightmares. They are a problem. He
wanted to get rid of them. The County wouldn't be struggling with this. If people
want to have land to give to their kids, then they should short plat it. Get rid of the
problems before they happen.
Hoag stated she didn't know where she would be on the issue. She has
mixed feelings. The County Council has mixed opinions on the matter. She
preferred to make the language as agreeable as possible, and then make the
motion to strike it if they want to.
Brenner stated one of her problems with getting rid of that exemption was
that some people don't want to short plat a piece of property, but instead only pull
off one lot. A person would be forced to develop the whole thing as a short plat.
More land could be left open and in large space.
Hoag questioned whether a short plat required division into four pieces. One
could still leave a larger piece.
Brenner stated that if a person is going to pay to short plat, the cost is so
prohibitively expensive that the person has to do all the lots to afford to do only
one lot. Middleton stated they are right. If a person has 20 acres and wants to
give five acres to a child, then he or she could do that. If they are required to do a
short plat, many people do the entire thing to sell one of the five -acre pieces off
because the road, survey, wells, and septic have to be paid for. Sometimes the
road accesses are extremely expensive. Sometimes it requires a person to actually
develop the property.
Isaacson stated the County would be creating development.
Hoag suggested that staff, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Isaacson look at the language
and bring recommendations to the next meeting.
Jones recommended that they strike the provision for short subdivisions in
subsection (6)(c). That provides the mechanism for achieving what they want.
Planning and Development 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
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
McShane moved to amend language to subsection (6)(c), "...shall go through
the appropriate long subdivision, sheFt subdivisien, or binding site plan..."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
Hoag questioned whether they need to incorporate the five -year language
into this. Aamot stated they don't need it. An owner can long plat it anyway after
day one.
Brenner stated they should consider adding enough requirements to do the
protections they need, instead of removing "short subdivisions." Unless one is
going to do a big development, short plats are appropriate for the level of road
development and services. They could solve the problem by putting specific
requirements on a short plat.
Hoag asked Councilmember Brenner to bring those recommendations to the
next meeting. They still need to put in the five -year time limit language. This is an
exemption. This is saying the person doesn't need to go through the platting
processes. If they can turn around right after the exemption and subdivide, then
they are getting around the law. She moved to add language to a new subsection
(6)(e), "(e) No lots sold, leased, or transferred using this exemption shall be re-
divided within five years of the date of exemption certification except by long
subdivision."
Issacson stated the ability to do the long subdivision offers a way for a
person to get out of it. There would be no loss to the public.
Jones stated they shouldn't have to go back and rescind the thing. They
ought to be able to do a long subdivision.
Aamot stated that either subsection (6)(c) or subsection (4)(g) should be
adopted for section (6), but not both. The way subsection (c) is, one needs to get
a long subdivision, regardless of the length of time later.
Hoag stated they need the language in section (6)(c).
Brenner stated they would end up with 16 lots no matter what they do here,
if it is allowed. It is a question of how they get there, not a question of whether or
not there will be 16 lots.
Hoag stated they want the 16 lots to get there in a way that allows for proper
planning and services. She amended her motion to add language to subsection
(6)(c), "...from either of the lots. Any fuFtheF division of the lot that was given as a
gift eF the I �1 I luil lilig lot shall go threugh the appropriate long subdivision, shE)Ft,
subdivisien, eF binding site . No lots sold, leased, or transferred using this
exemption shall be re- divided within five years of the date of exemption
certification except by long subdivision."
Crawford stated they need to leave section (6)(c) with its language intact
except for "short subdivision" or section (4)(g), but not both.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 12
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
Hoag stated both would work.
Jones stated that if (6)(c) was amended to delete the short subdivision, it
would preclude any of the gift lots from ever being subdivided.
Hoag agreed that the five years doesn't matter.
Middleton asked what Councilmember Hoag wanted, in her own words.
Hoag stated she wanted someone to not be able to have any more
exemptions beyond the first, and then anything after that has to go through the
proper platting process at any time after that.
Isaacson stated that the public who has purchased those lots would not have
any right to do a short plat in 40 years.
Hoag stated the public would have bought it through an exemption. If they
want to get rid of the problem, then they should get rid of the exemption. This is
trying to give people the flexibility. She withdrew her motion. The previous motion
accomplishes what they would like to do.
Aamot questioned whether the language regarding short platting on page 17
should be included in the next draft.
Hoag stated yes.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
OTHER BUSINESS
1. PRESENTATION/ DISCUSSION REGARDING HIGH VOLTAGE POWER
LINES (AB2000 -174)
Dirk Petty, citizen, stated he is a citizen that enjoys living in Whatcom
County. He questioned the committee's main interest in electromagnetic fields
(EMF). It is a very broad subject that would take a long time to cover.
Hoag asked him to discuss EMF from power lines and health effects from EMF
exposure in general.
Petty stated Puget Sound Energy, during previous meetings, described the
fundamentals of electricity and how it is moved through conductors. With that
information in place, he would discuss the field that is generated by the power
moving through the power lines. That is how the field is created.
Hoag stated that during the last meeting, the Puget Sound Energy
representative corrected her when she talked about the EMF field. He told her it
was just the magnetic field. She questioned whether there is a difference between
the two. Petty stated there is a difference.
Planning and Development 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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Hoag asked him to clarify the difference. Petty stated one could have an
electric field without moving the power through the lines. If one is not asking for a
load on the other end, then they are creating an electric field. As one asks for a
load, it becomes an electromagnetic field.
Brenner questioned whether an electric field affects health. Petty stated he
couldn't comment on that.
Hoag stated they are concerned about electromagnetic fields, which are
created as the current runs through the conductor. Petty stated that is correct.
The conductor has to be energized and the load has to be on the other end.
Petty continued to state that power is generally created at 20 kV, and is
stepped up to move through transmission lines. That is done through a series of
transformers. It is stepped down again to make it useable to consumers. It moves
through a process of generation, step up to transmission, and step down for use. A
field is created. The amount of power moved through a line is directly
proportionate to the electromagnetic field's strength. If there is a small amount of
power going through the line, there is a small field.
Hoag questioned whether it is the amount of amperage, not voltage. Petty
stated voltage is a term used to describe the power. Amperage is how much power
is put through the line.
Hoag stated that when he made the comment that the power transferred is
directly related to the size of the field, he is talking about the amperage, not
voltage. Petty stated that is correct. That can be measured in milligauss. It is a
term that is a measurement. He owns a milligauss meter. He has done many
measurements in homes and under power lines. It is a service he provides, unpaid,
for people who are concerned about electromagnetic fielding. His meter is
calibrated and registered. When he goes into homes, he talks to people about field
strengths. They always end up measuring the bedroom, because that is where the
majority of time is spent. Distance is the only barrier between electromagnetic
field. It goes through concrete, wood, lead, and anything.
Brenner stated that if it goes through the walls, the only safe place in the
bedroom would be away from the walls. Petty stated that the closer one moves to
the field strength, the more intense the field would be. It drops off exponentially
with distance.
Hoag questioned what he typically looks for in someone's bedroom. Petty
stated he typically does not look for high voltage transmission lines. He moves
clocks away from people's heads. That is typically what he does. He tells people to
dump the electric blanket or put it on a timer so it warms the bed up, and then is
off when a person is in it. If an electric blanket is right against a person, he or she
is in the highest field strength. When he uses the meter and moves it around the
clock, he can find where the electromagnetic field is strongest. If it is moved ten
feet away, the person is in background fields.
Hoag questioned whether the electrical line going to the clock gives off any
milligauss of any significance. Petty stated that household cords and wiring have
Planning and Development Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 14
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
very low fields. The transformers that are reducing the amount of power that they
need is bleeding off a field that is very high.
Petty continued to discuss epidemiological studies. Generally, power
companies do health - related reports, which is like the cigarette companies saying
that cigarettes cause cancer. They are probably not going to do that. They are
going to say that the way people use cigarettes cause cancer.
Hoag questioned how far away the clock is moved for it to be safe, generally.
Petty stated the further away, the better.
Brenner stated that is why they have to buy a battery- operated clock.
Petty stated that if a baby's crib is on the other side of the wall, it goes right
through the wall. When he measured household appliances, he shows them the
field strength in relation to the beds.
Hoag questioned whether the battery operated clocks give off the
electromagnetic field. Petty stated they don't. They are not receiving alternating
current. It is direct current. The voltage they are required to use is very low.
When there are 110 volts, even with small amperage, the amount that bleeds off is
very large just to make the clock motor work.
Petty continued to discuss exposure to electromagnetic fields. This is a
highly- debated issue. If he said they would cause cancer right now, there would be
a lot of dispute. He can say that intensity and duration directly correlate to the
exposure. If the intensity is very high, the duration should be very low. When they
are talking about high - voltage transmission lines, and going by someplace that
cannot change, then the intensity is extremely high and the duration is something
they cannot change.
Brenner asked about high voltage with low amperage.
Hoag stated that would create a smaller field.
Brenner stated it is confusing.
Petty stated it is the efficiency of the conductor that lowers the
electromagnetic field. If a proper voltage is used, and then it drops the amperage
in half, then the exposure is reduced.
Brenner questioned the proper amount of voltage. Petty stated it depends
on how the line is used. That is something they never know once transmission lines
are put up because of how people use power. There are many ways to conserve.
Generally, when people get up in the morning, things turn on. That is happening
everywhere. There is a big spike in the morning. Then it comes off. There is
another gigantic spike in the evening. If they conditioned themselves to not use so
much power in the morning or evening, it would take a lifestyle change.
Brenner stated that those times are for a short duration. Petty stated they
are a longer duration as it is related to high - voltage transmission lines because all
Planning and Development Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 15
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
that power has to be moved to the consumers. The individual event that is
occurring is not the problem. It is moving the power to all those small events that
occur at one time.
Brenner questioned whether the distribution lines are as big a problem as the
transmission lines. Petty stated they could be just as much of a problem. There
are many forks in the river that come down to the main branch. He is trying to
relate this to transmission lines because it is something they cannot affect once
they are erected on the property near the home.
Brenner stated that they all have lines running by their homes. She asked
for the difference between transmission and distribution lines. Petty stated there is
a big difference. The power is generated at 20 kV for transmission. When the
power is transmitted and moved through the lines at a higher voltage, provided
that the conductors are properly sized, then it has to be broken down to distribution
lines to make it useable.
Hoag stated the basic question is the difference in the magnetic field, if there
is a high power transmission line running past a house compared to a distribution
line that is supplying power to the house and neighbor's houses. Petty stated the
difference is the distance. Distance is the only thing that brings one out of an
electromagnetic field.
Brenner questioned the difference in magnetic fields between two houses,
one with a transmission line and one with a distribution line, both at an equal
distance from those lines. Petty stated it depends on how each of the lines are
used.
Brenner stated that everyone, even if they stopped major transmission lines,
could be exposed in other ways.
Hoag stated that the amperage going down the line determines the size of
the magnetic field. A high voltage line carries more amperage on it than a
distribution line, so the fields that are created are larger. Petty stated that is
correct.
Brenner stated a transmission line has larger EMF than a distribution line.
Petty stated that is not necessarily true.
Hoag questioned why not. Petty stated it depends on how the lines are
configured, how the lines are being used, and the use at a particular time. When
he does a measurement, he gets a snapshot of what is occurring at that particular
moment. He couldn't determine what is done with the power line once he is not
measuring it.
Brenner questioned why they even try to stop transmission lines if the small
distribution lines can do the same thing. No one complains about the distribution
line. Petty stated transmission lines move power so that it can be used. They are
always moving power, whereas distribution lines are not always moving it.
Andy Swayne, Puget Sound Energy, stated that is not correct.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 16
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
Brenner stated it would seem that distribution lines always move the power
until it gets to people's houses. Petty stated it is about how the lines are being
used at a particular time.
Brenner questioned why they are picking out high - powered transmission
lines to worry about if that is the case. Petty stated they are talking about EMF. It
is a much broader subject than just transmission lines. It is about exposure in
general. If a clock is by the bed, it can be moved or turned off. There is no way to
turn off a high - powered transmission line.
Brenner stated they couldn't turn off a distribution line either.
Hoag stated they are trying to find out the difference between having a
distribution line and a high - powered transmission line run past a house. She
understood that loads vary. She questioned how the two compare, generally
speaking. Petty stated it depends on how the line is being used. He can tell if the
planning in an area is poor or good, when he takes a measurement.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated it seems that Mr. Petty is
saying that size or the impact of the strength of an EMF emanating from a line is
predicated on the efficiency of the line itself, the amount of voltage that is involved,
and the amperage. He questioned whether he was correct that it is a collection of
all three factors. Petty stated use is also a factor.
Grant stated that if the load increases and the voltage remains consistent,
then the amperage that is getting pulled through the line might be increased and
the electromagnetic field might increase. They could reduce the EMF for that level
of amperage if they put in a bigger wire that would have a less resistance.
Brenner stated that a bigger wire is a bigger voltage.
Grant stated it is not.
Petty stated the other factor is how it is being used.
Hoag stated that how it is being used is part of the amperage. The amps
don't move unless there is use. That is already covered under the amperage factor.
She questioned whether the use was already covered under amperage. She
questioned whether the use determines the amps. Petty stated the use does not
determine the amps.
Swayne stated he wouldn't disagree fundamentally with Mr. Petty. When he
spoke up to say no, the question was whether there is a difference in what happens
with transmission and distribution. That is what he objected to. The difference is
that, as a general rule, they use transmission lines at high voltage to move large
quantities of power.
Brenner questioned whether that was more amperage. Swayne stated it is
not necessarily more power. The higher the voltage, as a general rule, the higher
the efficiency of the line, given the amount of power that is moved over it.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 17
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
Brenner questioned whether high voltage lines could be more efficient and
produce less EMF than distribution lines. Swayne stated that is correct.
Hoag stated this was explained at the previous committee meeting.
Brenner stated it was. She didn't understand that either.
Swayne stated that when Mr. Petty talks about use, the power company talks
about loads. There is a variety of different uses for electrical power, which is
expressed in loads. Current is measured in amperage. It is not the load on the
current. It is the load on the line. Mr. Petty explained that there was a higher use
of electricity in the morning. All of that use added together is the total electrical
load, measured as amps. In the morning, there is a larger electrical load, which is
more amps flowing over the lines, than at midday.
Hoag stated there is also a greater EMF field at that time. Swayne stated
that is correct.
Brenner stated that is true for distribution lines as well as transmission lines.
Swayne stated that magnetic fields, with respect to electric utilities, are a
function of two primary things: the voltage of the line that is being used and the
amount of current that is flowing over that line at that voltage. It is possible that a
heavily loaded distribution line operating at 12,500 volts could have a higher
magnetic field strength than a transmission line with a much higher voltage that is
carrying a much lower amperage. The only way they know is to go out and assess
the situation. Each measurement is always just a snapshot in time. As soon as the
load on a line changes, as soon as the amount of current flowing through the line
changes, the field changes.
Hoag stated the distribution lines fluctuate greatly depending on people's
usage in the home. She questioned whether the transmission lines have the same
amount of variability as the distribution lines. Swayne stated that if he looked at a
transmission line that goes from a source, and has three distribution substations
connected to it, the function of the distribution substations is to lower the voltage of
the power at those substations. Power leaves the substations on distribution lines
to the homes and businesses. If he has a certain amount of load on the distribution
lines coming out of the substations, that has a direct relationship to the load on the
transmission line. In the morning, for instance, when lots of power is being used,
there is a lot of electrical load at the substations so there is a lot of electrical load
on the transmission line. In the middle of the night when the electrical load on
those same distribution lines is very low, then it is correspondingly lower on the
transmission line, as a general rule.
Hoag stated the transmission line is only to service the substations for
distribution. Swayne stated that is correct in this example.
Hoag stated that is not what most of the transmission lines are doing around
here. Swayne stated it is what most of the 115 kV transmission lines do around
here. Now there is a second piece of that. There are other lines that don't serve
Planning and Development Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 18
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
that function. They are typically a higher voltage that is instead serving the
primary function of moving the power from the source to another area some
distance away.
Hoag questioned how variable are those lines. Swayne stated that variability
depends on the load at the end of that line and, to some extent, the amount of
power being generated and put on that line. Most utilities talk about three kinds of
lines. Transmission lines move large amounts of power from point A to point B.
Sub - transmission lines connect distribution substations to that electrical system.
Hoag stated that is what 115 kV has typically been used for. Swayne stated
that is correct. Many years ago, they used 55 kV because that was adequate at the
time. As the loads grew, they needed greater efficiency in those lines, so they
moved to a higher voltage.
Brenner asked what lines are 115 kV. Swayne stated the 115 kV lines are
the typical transmission lines used today.
Brenner stated a lot of them are distribution lines.
Hoag stated there are no 115 kV distribution lines.
Brenner stated the line going by her house is 115 kV and it is a distribution
line.
Hoag stated the distribution lines are the lines that take the power from the
substation to the house. They transform the power down to lower voltages at the
substation.
Dawson questioned whether it is better to have the lines in the ground.
Petty stated no.
Hoag stated the three types of lines are transmission, sub - transmission, and
distribution. Swayne stated that, for the Puget Sound Energy system, the
distribution lines are 12,500 volts, or 12.5 kV.
Brenner questioned whether 115 kV lines are transmission lines only or also
sub - transmission lines. Swayne stated they use 115 kV for both. In the Puget
Sound Energy system, the majority of lines used to connect the distribution
substations to sources of power are typically 115 W. They also use the same
voltage for a smaller number of direct transmission lines.
Hoag stated those are the lines that came in once Puget Sound Energy got
the new power plants in the area. Swayne stated he didn't believe that Whatcom
County had any 115 kV lines that do not have, at some point along the line, a
distribution substation attached.
Hoag stated the 115 kV here are essentially functioning as sub - transmission
lines. Swayne stated that is correct.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 19
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
Brenner stated there are 115 kV sub - transmission lines. Swayne stated that
is correct, but it is different than distribution lines.
Hoag stated they are not distribution lines. It is like connecting a substation
to a substation.
Brenner stated they saw a map that showed the transmission lines. She
questioned whether the map included the sub - transmission lines. Swayne stated it
did.
Hoag stated the map showed the lines by color, according to their voltages.
Swayne stated that map did not show any distribution lines.
Brenner stated someone said that the line going by her house was 115 kV,
but when she looked on the map, it wasn't a transmission line.
Hoag stated that Councilmember Brenner needed to check to see if the line
going past her house is really a 115 kV line.
Swayne stated he would get an answer to that question for Councilmember
Brenner. It is possible that a distribution line could be a voltage other than 12.5
kV, but that is typically what they use.
Robin Hitz, 4243 Hannegan Road, stated her family lives 13 feet away from
the Public Utility District's proposed line. She was very concerned about the health
implications. She has spoken with PUD Manager Tom Anderson. She asked Mr.
Anderson for EMF information, but he hasn't provided that information because
they haven't decided on the line's configuration.
Hoag stated that makes a difference.
Hitz stated she is left without any information on what to expect. Georgia -
Pacific (GP) and Bellingham Cold Storage are high power users. She thought there
would be a lot of amperage associated with that. Because her family works at that
location, they are there often. They will have a high duration and a high intensity.
Hoag stated they would take this up again in two weeks. The load was what
they referred to when they talked about the amount of the magnetic field. The PUD
has said that Bellingham Cold Storage and GP would be the current customers, they
want to add more customers, which will increase the load and the magnetic fields.
When Mrs. Hitz discusses this with the PUD, she needs to determine the PUD's total
capacity that they plan to serve. The PUD told the Council that they anticipate a
use of 60 megawatts on that line at this time. However, they are looking at adding
a greater load later.
Hitz stated she asked Mr. Anderson that question, and he told her it could
potentially double.
Brenner stated she is amazed that a transmission line could go 13 feet from
someone's house. Hitz stated her house is old. She is now in the Citv of
Planning and Development Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 20
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
Bellingham. One of her neighbors is in the county. She is not hooking on to this
line. This line would go past her house. She would have to move. She questioned
whether anyone would want that thing 13 feet from the house and so near the
children. Her children sleep upstairs, which puts them even closer to the lines.
Hoag suggested that Mrs. Hitz talked to Mr. Petty after the meeting.
Swayne stated it is an individual choice for each person. There is a lot of
scientific data.
Brenner questioned whether Mr. Swayne would want his children 13 feet
away from a transmission line. Swayne stated he has read a lot of this literature.
He personally doesn't have a problem with it. He grew up under a 55 kV
transmission line that was 15 feet from his home.
Hoag questioned the amount of load it carried. Swayne stated he didn't
know the answer to that, but it was one of the lines moving bulk amounts of power
from place to place.
Hoag stated she contacted a professor in Colorado that researches this
information when she looked into dealing with this. That professor stated that the
newer studies indicate a relationship between traffic volumes and high powered
transmission lines. They found that the traffic volume, without the transmission
line, had a lower level of cancer. High - powered lines without traffic also had a
certain amount of cancer rates. When the two were combined, the cancer rate rose
five to six times. They are speculating on the reason. Transmission lines interact
with other situations.
Hitz questioned whether the EMF is cumulative. Across the street from her
house is a Puget Sound Energy transmission line. She would have transmission
lines on both sides of her street if the PUD lines go in.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Swayne stated it depends on how the power lines are arranged, relative to
each other, there could be an additive effect or a cancellation effect. One won't
know until he or she looks at the specific situation. That can be assessed. There is
a model that can be used. If a design, location, and an estimated power flow and
voltage are assumed, then one could run a model that would indicate what the
predicted field strengths are. It looks a lot like a bell curve. One could get an idea
of what the field strength might be, given a set of assumptions. That could change
dramatically depending on what the assumptions are. There is not a more
straightforward answer because it is very situation - dependent.
Hitz stated she felt like she was not being told what the configuration would
be. People ask her if she is for or against it. She doesn't have the information to
make that decision. She hoped the Council would find out whether or not they are
taking care of the small people like her, to make sure that the configuration or
cumulative effects are not going to make it unhealthy.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 21
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
Hoag stated that application has already been vested. The Council proposed
a moratorium prior to that, and it failed.
McShane stated the project might come before the County Council anyway.
Brenner stated the County Council has a say on the location.
Karen Lee, Puget Sound Energy, stated the Council would act because the
PUD would have to get a franchise or consent agreement from the County. She
believed the PUD also needed a County permit.
Petty brought up topic of the Sumas Energy 2 project.
(Clerk's Note: McShane left the meeting.)
Petty stated the plant could, for instance, generate 660 megawatts of
energy. The plant costs in excess of $400 million. It is a major commercial
venture. They know there is a viable use for the energy that would flow from the
plant 24 hours per day. They also know that the 660 megawatts of energy is more
than the total consumption of Whatcom County, including almost all of Intalco. All
of Intalco's power comes from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). The 470
megawatts produced locally services the need of 370 megawatts.
Hoag stated that 675 megawatts are produced locally. Intalco uses 470
megawatts. Petty stated the county produces more than it consumes. They know
the added 660 megawatts would exit Whatcom County. It is not going north.
Canada has a surplus of electrical energy. He questioned the effect of all that
power being moved on underrated 115 kV over -amped lines away from that plant.
Swayne stated he was not an engineer. He was not sure one could correctly
describe lines discussed in the environmental impact statement as "underrated" or
"overused," although they don't typically operate lines with 300 to 330 amps on
115 kV lines. They don't experience that amount of load on the transmission lines.
The way their system is built today, no line typically has to carry that amount of
load.
Brenner questioned whether or not that was efficient. Swayne stated the
primary reason is because the system has a certain amount of redundancy in it so
that if one piece of the system fails, another piece of the system can pick up the
load that was on that failed piece. Many of their lines could carry higher loads, but
they typically don't because they don't have to. He read the draft EIS for the
Sumas Energy 2 project, so he knew a bit about the lines that are talked about.
Those lines would be to serve only one purpose, to move a large amount of power
from the Sumas plant to points in the existing transmission system, including
Custer and Bellingham. Building those lines with that relatively high amount of
power flowing on them, in and of themselves, won't have an impact to the electrical
system. All the rest of the transmission system into which that power is injected
would have to be fortified to be able to accommodate that.
Hoag questioned what one would typically chose to transport power if one
typically connected to a 660 megawatt source of power, transmitted that power,
Planning and Development Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 22
1 and tied it into the transmission system. Swayne stated that if Puget Sound Energy
2 was going to do it, it would probably look at a voltage like 230 kV because it would
3 be more efficient. They could build one line that would have adequate capacity to
4 move all of that power. In the long run, there would be fewer impacts. A 115 kV
5 line could be built that would move that power. The real question is whether it is
6 efficient to do that. Puget Sound Energy would not choose to build lines like that
7 because it doesn't make much economical sense to them. For instance, if anyone
8 built a 230 kV line along either of the proposed routes, then the other route
9 wouldn't be needed. That cuts the number of miles of transmission line in half.
10
11 Hoag stated a 115 kV line may have 330 megawatts, which is a heavy load
12 for a 115 kV line. Swayne stated it is not typical for their lines.
13
14 Hoag stated the EMF are related to the amperage, and the amperage for 330
15 megawatts on a 115 kV line is twice as much as the amperage for that same load
16 on the 230 kV line. Swayne stated his understanding was that is correct.
17
18 Hoag stated the EMF would be half as small. Her point was not that she
19 wanted 230 kV lines running through Whatcom County. Her point is that there was
20 an initiative passed by the people of Whatcom County to restrict 230 kV to existing
21 corridors and to industrial areas because they wanted those kinds of loads limited
22 to those areas. Now they are talking about taking a load that is intended to be run
23 on 230 kV lines and getting around that ordinance by running a 115 kV line,
24 thereby creating a worse situation than what the initiative was aimed at preventing
25 in the first place. She questioned whether Mr. Swayne agreed with that. Swayne
26 stated he would agree that there are better choices of lines and voltages to move
27 the amount of power coming out of the proposed plant.
28
29 Hoag stated they would take this up in two weeks. She thanked Puget
30 Sound Energy and also Dirk Petty for attending.
31
32
33
34
35
36 ADJOURN
37
38 The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:30 p.m.
39
40
41
42 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 23