HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning May 2 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
50
51
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
May 2, 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
Absent:
None
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)
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, outlined the history of the land division
regulations in the county, the similarities and distinctions between the new proposal
and the existing Title 21 regulations, and mention a few minor changes the
Planning Division suggests. The first land division rules were adopted in 1955.
They only regulated long plats of five lots or more. The rules were replaced in 1972
with Title 8 subdivision regulations, which covered divisions of four lots or less that
are short - plats. They created exemptions that did not have to go through the
subdivision or short plat process. In 1985, Title 8 was replaced with Title 21.
These regulations added binding site plan procedure to provide more flexibility for
land divisions for commercial and industrial development. There have been minor
changes to Title 21, but no major updates, in the last 15 years. The Technical
Advisory Committee worked on this for three years. They sent it to the Planning
Commission, who held hearings over a six -month period.
Similarities between the new proposal and the existing regulations include
gift exemptions. Current code allows gift exemptions, dating back to 1972. It
allows a person to give a five -acre parcel or more to a spouse or child. The
Technical Advisory Committee JAC) recommended deletion. The Planning
Commission restored it.
Gift short plats are another procedure used to give a parcel to a relative. If it
doesn't qualify for a gift exemption, one can use a gift short plat process. The
exemption is five acres or more. If the property is less than five acres, it is a gift
short plat.
Brenner stated she thought the only difference was whom you give it to.
Aamot stated that is not correct. In a rural one dwelling per two acres (R2A) zone,
one can split off two -acre parcels.
Brenner stated they can do anywhere, as long as it goes with the underlying
zoning. Aamot stated that is correct.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/2/2000, 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
50
51
Hoag asked if the gift exemption only applies to areas of five acres or
greater. Aamot stated it does. One has to have at least ten acres.
Brenner asked if one can only do a gift short plat to a relative. Aamot stated
that is correct.
Aamot continued to state that the TAC and Planning Commission proposed to
delete the gift short plat exemption. The difficulty with the gift short plat was that
it didn't require a survey, roads, or water. When the person who was gifted the
property sold the property, he or she had to go through the short plat procedure.
It created a difficult situation that the person who received the gift didn't realize he
or she had to do that. It created small lots without surveying.
Another difference is coordination with the cities. The City of Bellingham
submitted comments and had two issues. The city wanted to be notified of land
division applications within urban growth areas (UGA), and also have city
development standards apply within the UGA. That is already in the interlocal
agreement between the County and the city. Staff formulated language for the
Planning Commission, who is recommending that language.
Water supply is also another distinction between the old and new regulations.
This relates to water for subdivisions and short plats. Currently they require public
water supply of subdivisions of five lots or more, but not normally for short plats.
The new regulations create criteria to determine when it needs regular water. Lots
have to be five acres or larger unless clustering is involved. A private water source
can't be in designated regional groundwater contamination areas. It has to be
groundwater, not surface water. If there is a public water purveyor in the area,
they have to try to work out a deal for water. If a deal can't be worked out, one
can do a private water supply. The differences are listed on packet page 89.
Hoag questioned whether the difference is if they are going to require it on
short plats that are greater than five acres. Aamot stated that one has to be five
acres or larger to get a private water supply. One -acre lots can't do individual wells
on all the lots for either a short plat or long plat. This is for dividing property.
Hoag asked how this fits in with what the state Department of Ecology (DOE)
is trying to do to get rid of six packs. Aamot stated there is a water right
exemption if one draws 5,000 gallons or less per day. DOE exempts the person
from the requirement to obtain a water right. The County's attorney determined
that one can do multiple public supplies. If one has a twelve -lot division, there can
be multiple supplies to serve the plat.
Hoag stated they want, as a matter of policy, to protect exempt wells
themselves. They are starting to lose ground on that because DOE is watching
people get around that by using exempt wells to service subdivisions. They were
trying to get rid of the six pack provision. Washington State Association of
Counties (WSAC) said to get rid of six packs but don't touch private wells for
individual users. She questioned how this ties in with that. Aamot stated it doesn't
prohibit six pack wells. Those are public supplies. He heard that the governor tried
Planning and Development Committee, 5/2/2000, 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
51
52
to limit that exemption, but it didn't go through legislature. This would not prohibit
six pack public water supplies.
Hoag questioned whether it encourages them. Aamot stated it does not. It
encourages people to go to the purveyor first, if there is a public water purveyor. If
one can't get water service from the purveyor, then he or she can create his or her
own public water supply, a group B well through the Health Department, or create
an individual well on parcels within the division.
McShane referenced section 21.05.080(2)(f)(iii), and stated it seems
arbitrary, based on whether or not the purveyor and applicant can reach an
agreement. He suggested giving one a hurdle regarding a reasonable negotiation.
If the prices are unreasonable, that would be unreasonable. He questioned
whether any thought was given to that during the discussion. Aamot stated
language comes out of Coordinated Water System Plan, which says one has to go
to the existing purveyor. If one can't reach an agreement to provide water, then
one can create a group B system. This is a little bit different. The Health
Department wanted to generally discourage that. It may be appropriate to consider
additional language there.
Paul Chudek, Environmental Health Supervisor, stated they tried to take a
parallel track between Title 21 and the Coordinated Water System Plan so they
would be similar regarding new subdivisions. In the plan, there are appeals
processes and things that are set up if the two cannot agree. Someone else can
hear that discussion and decide what is reasonable. Something similar can be put
in place. The committee tried to come up with something that was reasonable,
looking everything from cost to distance. That is difficult to put into a statute.
McShane asked if that type of review would be done anyway. Chudek stated
it would be when one creates a new public water supply inside someone else's
service area, which is what a six pack is.
Hoag asked the difference between a group B and a private water supply.
Aamot stated group B is a six pack, which is six lots with one well that serves all
lots. It would be a public supply. A private well is one well on each lot.
Hoag stated the DOE would like that even less.
McShane stated it is unattractive for large subdivisions to put in a single well
for each household. That is why six packs are so popular.
Hoag suggested language specifying reasonable negotiations.
Brenner questioned why a purveyor would be unwilling and, if someone is in
a service area, the owner is supposed to be served by that purveyor.
Pat Jones, Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) member, stated that under
state law, water districts have a duty and obligation to provide water. They also
have obligations to not to. Water district #7 is a classic example. It can take
months to only get a return phone call. The notion of unable is important. The
districts don't want to deal with it. They won't even respond to the Health
Department.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/2/2000, 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
51
52
Brenner questioned whether that is the water district that Public Utility
District (PUD) #1 Manager Tom Anderson serves on. Jones stated it is. The Health
Department spent three and a half years trying to get them to update their 1971
comprehensive plan. The district said it wouldn't do it.
Brenner stated it is a conflict of interest, if the PUD is interested in controlling
all the water, for the manager to be a board member in a district that is in direct
competition with the PUD.
Jones stated the TAC wanted water where it is available and economically
sound. That is why they proposed a half -mile. It was thought out very much.
Chudek stated that not all water systems and districts are obligated to serve
people in their service areas. There are privately owned public water supplies. It
depends on the charter when the district was put together.
Aamot discussed sewage disposal. The current regulations require public
sewer for certain land divisions, depending upon certain factors such as size,
location, and sewer availability. The new proposal requires a public sewer if the
land division doesn't qualify for an onsite sewage disposal system under the
County's health code. It brings consistency between the land division regulations
and the health code.
Aamot discussed the next issue, survey requirements. The new proposal for
survey requirements requires a survey for five -acre exemptions and boundary line
adjustments. The survey requirement is not in the current regulation. Short plats,
subdivisions, and binding site plans, which have always required surveys, will
require a survey earlier in the process so the public and Hearing Examiner have the
survey before making a decision.
Aamot discussed the Washington State Department of Transportation (DOT)
approval, which has been another item that is incorporated into the new proposal.
Exemptions were approved on the Mt. Baker Highway. The state did not want to
provide an access permit. The state wants to limit the number of accesses onto the
road. The County properly approved exemptions, and then the applicant needs
approval from the state for a building permit.
Brenner asked what the state wants.
Roland Middleton, Land Use Division Manager, stated some of the issue has
to do with location to intersections or site distances. They currently don't have that
review under exemptions. It becomes a problem when a person builds a house,
and then cannot put in a driveway.
Aamot stated those were the distinctions between the two proposals. On
packet page 128, Planning and Development Services (PDS) Department suggested
minor changes. Change number two would require that the County review and
stamp gift exemptions as approved before filing with the County auditor. That is
the way it is now. The TAC deleted it, and put back in by the Planning Commission.
Staff overlooked it and it was not put back in after the Planning Commission. The
remaining items are typos or minor changes recommended by PDS.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/2/2000, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
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
Hoag questioned whether the changes are in the pages prior to the pages
with the recommended changes. Aamot stated they are not in those pages.
Aamot stated they also discussed the water situation with Paul Chudek from
the Health Department.
Chudek referenced section 21.04.090(2)(x), Council packet page 79. They
propose the following change, "...unless smaller because of clustering. If the lots
are smaller because of clustering, the gross density of the short subdivision shall
not exceed one dwelling per five acres; and."
Brenner agreed. This is to encourage clustering without causing hardships to
people. Aamot agreed. The original language said it had to be five acres or larger.
Someone came to the Planning Commission and pointed out that would discourage
clustering.
Dawson asked about if someone who wants to cluster with eight acres in an
R2A zone. Aamot stated one would have to create a public class B system.
Dawson stated they should still be able to gift property. There are three
residences in the cluster. Aamot stated the Health Department originally suggested
five acres to the TAC, without any clustering provisions. That is where the density
issue came up. There was concern regarding multiple wells in close proximity to
each other.
Chudek stated their only change is that the gross density is five acres.
Hoag questioned whether the gross density includes the reserve tract and the
clustering. Aamot stated it does include the reserve area. For example, if one has
a twenty -acre parcel, it can be divided into four 5 -acre parcels or three 1 -acre lots
with a 17 acre reserve. The gross density of the second situation would be one
dwelling per five acres. It would include the reserve tract.
Hoag questioned whether gross density is defined. Aamot stated it is in the
zoning code.
Brenner asked if there is a limit to how small they can be, as long as there is
a reserve tract.
Hoag stated Title 20 has criteria.
Middleton stated there are also minimum lot sizes.
Brenner questioned the minimum lot sizes.
Aamot stated that in an R2A zone without public water, it is a one -acre
cluster minimum lot size. With public water it is 15,000 square feet, which is about
Y4 acre.
Jones stated that, from the TAC perspective, the fire marshal had issues on
the size of the lots and distances of buildings from property lines. The TAC
Planning and Development Committee, 5/2/2000, 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
52
established five acres because clustering didn't provide that mechanism. It may be
adequate to say it is covered under another code, but it is misleading if someone
expects cluster approval, but can't get a building permit because of the fire code.
That is not resolved. The fire marshal needs to look at that. There was an issue
before TAC.
Hoag asked if the fire marshal felt Title 20 covered it. Jones stated the TAC
also worked on fire standards at the same time. It is covered in the new fire
standards. There is a conflict with the notion of clustering and meeting fire
standards. The other standard would prevail and one could not get a building
permit. They should go out of the way to avoid creating that circumstance.
Brenner asked if they could get 1/3 -acre lots and be within the fire code.
Jones stated he couldn't recall. They left it at five acres because that is where the
TAC was comfortable. From a domestic consumption point -of -view, it is irrelevant.
From a fire protection point -of -view, it is an issue. They need to look at that. Staff
needs to follow up.
Hoag suggested cross - referencing it to Title 20 and the fire code, even
though the fire code is not done. Jones stated current regulations don't deal with
it.
Dawson stated the idea of one house per five acres concerns her. Her family
has eight acres and has subdivided the property so each son can have a half acre.
The rest of the property is in open space /timber. They will be clustered in one
area. It is a U2 zoning. They could be allowed four per acre, but that is not their
desire. It has some wetlands. They are saying that no one else in their
neighborhood can do that. If someone wants to reduce the density of an area, that
should be allowed. Jones stated this language would allow her scenario.
Dawson stated the language says that the short plat shall not exceed one
dwelling per five acres.
Hoag stated it refers to the gross density.
Jones stated it allows smaller because of clustering.
Hoag stated the language says the short subdivision shall not exceed one
dwelling per five acres.
Jones stated the TAC did not comment on that. In their minds, it was an
issue of fire protection when the Planning Commission said clustering. When the
Planning Commission said that, he was concerned they didn't take into account the
proposed fire code criteria.
Hoag asked Aamot to comment on this.
Jones stated from the standpoint of domestic water consumption, the size of
the lot doesn't matter.
Aamot stated there is an exemption regarding the proposed fire protection.
The TAC worked with fire marshal. Lots that are over one acre, and have 20 -foot
Planning and Development Committee, 5/2/2000, 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
51
52
setbacks from all the property lines, would be exempt from the fire flow
requirement. That would fit nicely with one -acre clustering.
Hoag stated the language proposed by Chudek says that if lots are smaller
because of clustering, gross density shall not exceed one dwelling per five acres.
Even if they did have 20 -foot setbacks, they can't get around that. Aamot stated
there are two issues. One is minimum lot size and one is density. There can be a
gross density of one dwelling per five acres, with one -acre lots, and a large reserve
tract.
Hoag questioned how the language limiting someone to one dwelling per five
acres, since it is not specific to an area that is zoned for five acres or greater, would
be prevented from negatively affecting areas zoned for less. Aamot stated the
landowner would have to create a class B public water supply through the Health
Department. It is allowed for in those zones. That would be the six pack.
Jones stated the notion of having an average density of five acres comes
from fire protection. In an individual lot case, it is nicely covered with a one -acre
minimum and a 20 -foot set back. An extreme example is 1,000 acres divided into
five -acre tracts. That would create a little village. Fire protection is not on a
house -by -house basis, but the overall service needs of a small community. If the
homes were clustered, it would create a village without a public water supply. The
TAC discussed five acres, but overlooked the clustering issue. Now, saying that the
average density needs to be five is consistent with needs of the fire marshal.
Dawson asked if they are saying that the average density would be five for a
class B. Chudek stated no. This is a requirement for private supplies.
Dawson stated she is comfortable with that. What they are basically saying
is one well per five acres. They need to clarify one well per five acre.
Aamot stated the technical term is gross density, as already defined in the
zoning code. They felt comfortable with that term.
Chudek stated the Health Department also proposes a change in section
(2)(b). Another qualifying criteria is that the withdraw is not from some kind of
contaminated water source. It was decided that they would call it out as an
aquifer, so the withdraw would not be from an aquifer of known regional
groundwater contamination. The Sumas /Abbottsford aquifer takes care of most of
the north part of Whatcom County. To them, it is not acceptable to require public
water for anyone who is on the aquifer. They propose that the language be
changed to, "...a-R defined portion of an aquifer of known regional... confirmed by the
Board of Health; and"
Hoag stated she is on that aquifer. There are portions of it that are highly
contaminated and portions that are just fine. It is a huge aquifer. It makes no
sense to put the entire aquifer off limits. She wanted the committee to change the
draft to incorporate the changes.
McShane moved approval of the changes brought forward by the Health
Department.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/2/2000, 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
51
52
Chudek stated the language duplicates the exact wording from section
21.05.080 for long subdivisions.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag clarified that the changes amended language on packet page 79,
section 21.04.090(2)(b) and packet page 89, section 21.05.080(2)(b).
Dawson stated she gifted land to each son. They planned on going through
the process of upgrading the roads. If they could not have gifted 1/2 acre to her
son, he would still be out in the lurch with a five -year old son and a wife paying
rent. It has taken an entire year for the state Health Department to review the
class B water system. Some of these projects can take an inordinate amount of
time. They are putting a lot of families at risk. It is up to the parents to let the
children know that they are responsible for getting the roads up to par.
Hoag stated they are not voting on the entire document. They will go
through the rest piece by piece. She questioned whether Jones, staff, and the
committee would think it is okay to cross - reference language regarding the fire
code and Title 20. Aamot stated they've already done that in a different section.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Aamot stated there is a fire protection clause on page 80 that talks about
short plats complying with the development standards and requirements of the
county fire marshal. There is a similar provision in long- plats. That is already
covered under section 21.04.110.
Hoag stated she wanted the code to be as clear as possible.
Jones stated it is there. It ought to be very explicit.
Hoag stated she also wants the code to be easy for the public and staff to
use.
McShane stated it seems clear enough. One would also have to look at the
sewage disposal.
Hoag stated it doesn't say anything in the language about clustering
requirements for Title 20. Aamot stated that language is on the approval criteria on
page 77, section (f)(2).
Hoag stated that language is pretty vague. Aamot stated there are a lot of
provisions other than clustering.
Middleton stated the subdivision has to meet all land use regulations,
including critical areas, zoning, and fire. If the Council wants to clarify that section
further, he didn't object, but he didn't want to be redundant on everything that
occurs. They don't need to state it again. It hasn't been a problem for staff in the
administration of subdivisions. A substantial problem is from the children selling
their gifted lot. The children are told right on front of the deed, and then they get
mad at the counter. That was the staff's issue with the gifted short plats.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/2/2000, 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
51
52
Jones asked if this would be rescheduled.
Hoag stated it would be scheduled in two weeks.
Jones stated the TAC strongly recommended against exemptions other than
the ones mandated to the state.
Hoag asked Jones to come back to do adequate justice to the discussion.
Jones stated he would.
Hoag asked if section 21.03.020(3) on page 59 is identical to section
21.12.030(1). Aamot stated they are not identical, but are basically the same. The
sections are the 20 -acre exemptions. In the current code, it is more convoluted.
He will provide a copy of that section.
Hoag asked for a written summary at the next meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. PRESENTATION/ DISCUSSION REGARDING HIGH VOLTAGE POWER
LINES (AB2000 -174)
Hoag stated she sent a list of questions to Puget Sound Energy (PSE).
Ron Forster, Puget Sound Energy, stated he would go over the basics.
Question five talked about how electromagnetic fields (EMF) are created. He
started with the basics of amperage, current, and voltage to develop the building
blocks about transmission lines, then come back to the other questions. There was
one question about a draft environmental impact statement (EIS). They feel that
would be better addressed to the part who wrote the EIS. His company didn't have
anything to do with that specific project. If there is an understanding question
about the EIS, he wasn't sure he could help on that.
Hoag asked him to explain the EIS from an electrical standpoint. It said that
the PSE existing line would have greater EMF than the high powered line at a
distance of 60 -feet. She asked for an electrical explanation. Forster stated he
could.
Hoag asked him to explain the questions first. They were questions she
wanted answered during the last meeting, but they ran out of time. She was afraid
they would not have time to address it again.
Forster stated the first question asks the height of a pole to accommodate
spacing and wires required to carry a 330 megawatt load on a 115 kilovolt line.
During the last meeting, he talked about the PSE brand new 115 kv line, which
would have a 1272 conductor. An average height pole on a line like that is 75 feet.
Hoag stated the 1272 conductor is the one bigger wire instead of the two
smaller wires. Forster stated that is correct. They can also build a bundled
conductor on the same height pole.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/2/2000, 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
52
Hoag questioned how far apart the connectors would have to be spaced on
the bundled connector with the wires described during the last meeting, which
sounds like one of the proposals. Forster stated they would be spaced the same
amount. At the end of his presentation, he would go over the different parameters
of designing a transmission line. There are seven different factors. He would
explain how they all interrelate with each other. Some of the factors include
conductor size, configuration, pole height, and distance between the poles. The
height can be the standard height pole. The amount of load one carries does not
change the height of the pole, necessarily.
Forster stated the second question is where the poles would be located in
terms of right -of -way. The amount of load they carry does not affect where it
would be. Typically, PSE puts it poles inside public rights -of -way so they don't have
to buy easements. They are usually between the edge of the right -of -way and the
backside of the sidewalk, depending on the type of the road.
Hoag stated some of the narrow roads in the County have poles right next to
the fog line. Someone said that, if they are carrying much of a load on those lines,
the electrical code requires that it be a certain distance back. Forster stated the
only code restriction he is aware of on a transmission line or distribution line is to
allow for an electrical clearance to the edge of the right -of -way. That would
assume a building setback up to the right -of -way line. They also have to allow for a
blowout clearance, since the wires can blow back and forth in the wind between the
poles. Adding those two factors together equals the closest distance allowed to the
edge of the right -of -way. Regarding the roadway and the fog line, that is usually a
clear zone policy or road restriction. That varies with the speed limit and many
different factors.
Hoag asked if a narrow country road that had poles carrying 12.5 kv or 7.2
kv, replacements would be put along the fog line, just like the others. Forster
stated it depends on the road and whether the initial line was in the right place to
begin with. They would have to look at the road restrictions and the clearances to
the edge of the right -of -way. If there isn't enough space, they have to purchase
rights -of -way off the roadway.
Hoag stated most of the narrow roads generally have 60 -foot rights -of -way,
yet the poles are not currently located at the outer edge of the rights -of -way. They
are located next to the road. Forster stated they are hopefully someplace in
between.
Hoag stated they are right next to the road at her house. She questioned
the road restrictions that would determine where they would place the poles.
Forster stated the restrictions depend on curves in the road and higher speeds.
Hoag asked about restrictions on straight, narrow, country roads. Forster
stated there is normally no problem on 60 -foot roadways. There is room for 115
lines or distributions.
Hoag questioned whether a newly designed 115 kv line with a heavy load,
which is replacing a current low voltage line that is right next to the fog line along a
narrow road with a 60 -foot right -of -way in the country, would be placed in the
Planning and Development Committee, 5/2/2000, 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
51
52
same location right next to a fog line or more toward the edge of the right -of -way.
Forster stated they are usually ten feet away from the edge of the right -of -way.
That would be a typical location. Another factor is the ditch. They don't place poles
in the ditch. They are placed on one side or another. That could be why, in this
case, the poles are closer to the fog line.
Hoag stated there is no ditch. She questioned where the road restriction
requirements are located. Forster stated it is the Washington State Clear Zone
policy.
Andy Swayne, Puget Sound Energy Land Use Planner, stated he has some
experience with this. They would need to meet the state clear zone requirements
on a state - designated highway. Those requirements are the physical clearance and
distances established by the state based on national standards that have to do with
how fast cars are going, if there is a curve, and a number of things. It is designed
to try to ensure an adequate standard of physical safety for a vehicle that might
leave the roadway. To his knowledge, the County doesn't have a similar set of
standards. If the County did, he expected those to be in part of the Public Works or
a similar regulation. It is possible that, in Hoag's example, the poles are located
where they are because, at the time, that was the most convenient and least
disturbing place to locate them. It might be that the poles were originally placed
where they are when there was a narrower developed or paved roadway. Over
time, the road might have been widened so that the poles are at the edge of the
pavement. If PSE was to go in and rebuild that line, they would look at a number
of things such as the physical location of the paved surface, the edge of the right -
of -way, and other development such as a ditch line or other utilities that are there.
They would look at the numbers of vehicles that pass by, travel speed, and other
items. They would look to see if there is an opportunity to strike a better balance
between having adequate electrical clearance from the edge of the right -of -way and
safety clearance for vehicles that are traveling along that right -of -way. They might
not put the poles back exactly where they are. If there is an opportunity to move
them away further from the traveled road, they might do that. They would do that
in conjunction with folks in the County who take care of the roads. There is no
fixed standard.
Hoag questioned whether that is determined by company policy, not by a
particular code they are required to follow. Swayne stated there are specific clear
zone requirements if it is a state highway. If the County has similar requirements,
they would have to meet those. Otherwise, they would look at the complete range
of factors that would govern where it would make the most sense to put the poles
to strike a balance of all the factors involved. They are not particularly happy with
poles along fog lines because people hit them.
Hoag questioned whether there is any company policy or guidelines that
dictate how to approach these situations. Swayne stated there is with respect to
electrical clearance. He wasn't sure that there is regarding physical clearance from
the edge of the roadway, for instance. He tried to find a guideline but he didn't find
one. There are design standards.
Code.
Forster stated that there are clearance tables from the National Electrical
Planning and Development Committee, 5/2/2000, Page 11
1 Hoag stated that is from the property line, not the road line.
2
3 Swayne stated there are instances in the County where the pavement
4 migrated to the edge of the poles. There have been some cases in which the
5 jurisdictions have chose to pave right up to the poles or even around the poles.
6
7 Forster stated the third question was how an EMF created by these lines with
8 this load would differ from a 50- megawatt load on a 115 kv line. He will answer
9 that in the EMF presentation.
10
11 Brenner questioned why wouldn't any new power lines follow the same
12 corridors that are there. She questioned whether the red lines on the map show
13 the location of the existing 115 kv transmission lines. She questioned why the
14 County couldn't require new lines that come in to use the same corridor.
15
16 Hoag stated that the County Code require that anything above 115 kv be in a
17 corridor. Now, 115 kv can go anywhere. When they are going from east to west,
18 the proposed power plant is splitting the power over two 115 kv lines.
19
20 Forster stated that when they talk about corridors they are talking about
21 private rights -of way off roadways. The BPA corridor is a private right -of -way
22 corridor. The red lines on the map are roadways. They could be called a corridor.
23 He calls them roadways. A second red line along a roadway means that another
24 transmission line was built on the other side of the road. Now, there are two lines,
25 one on either side of the road. No matter where they build the line, it has a visual
26 impact. Most jurisdictions feel they would rather not have two lines down the same
27 roadway because of the visual impact. Jurisdictions would rather have a new road
28 impacted by a single line than an existing road impacted by two lines.
29
30 Hoag stated that if they are talking about the power from the proposed
31 project in Sumas, it requires two lines, so they would have three 115 kv lines going
32 down that same area, which would require spacing between them. They would
33 have to go into private property.
34
35 Brenner questioned how far apart they have to be. Forster stated they would
36 talk about that in the presentation.
37
38 Swayne stated there are ways to handle electrical clearances. Power needs
39 to go where it needs to be used. In some cases, they are only talking about
40 moving power from one place to another place without trying to use the power
41 between points A and B. They try to locate the facilities where they need to serve
42 the customers. The red lines on the map do two basic functions. They move power
43 around the system from point A to point B. They also move power simultaneously
44 to other points between points A and B, where the customers are. The black dots
45 on the map represent a distribution substation. Out of that distribution substation
46 come lower voltage lines that are the distribution lines that serve customers and
47 run to homes and business. In some instances, depending on what one is trying to
48 do with the line, might be able to run it in an existing corridor from point A to point
49 B and serve the purpose. In other situations where one is serving customers, he or
50 she has to run the lines to where the customers are and put the substation near the
51 customers.
52
Planning and Development Committee, 5/2/2000, 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
52
Hoag stated that the 115 kv lines were not typically used for distribution.
They are used for transmission from substation to substation or from power plant to
substation. Swayne stated that when they talk about distribution lines, they are
typically talking about lower voltage, such as 12,500 volts, which are the typical
lines that are on shorter poles that are running around neighborhoods. There is
also a distribution function to the transmission lines, which is moving power from
the distribution station. When he uses the term distribution in that way, he means
that they are not moving strictly from point A to point B. They are moving it to the
places where it is going to be distributed to.
Hoag questioned whether any of the red lines on the map exist before they
had the original Sumas plant. Swayne stated they did. They went out to serve
distribution substations.
Hoag questioned where they ran. Forster stated they are all in the same
spot they were.
Brenner questioned whether these are new lines. Forster stated that none of
the lines around Sumas are new lines. They were all there already.
Hoag stated that there wasn't a power source in Sumas, so they just ran a
line from Sumas to the nearest substation. Forster stated the power came out of
Bellingham. The line that goes through Kendall goes back to Bellingham.
Bellingham and Custer are the two sources for the area. A long time ago Nooksack
Falls had a generating plant. That was the original source many years ago. The
original transmission line came from there, through Kendall, and back to
Bellingham.
Swayne stated that when the Sumas 1 plant was built, the two lines running
through the Sumas area were improved so they could handle the additional power
flow that came out of that plant. PSE made upgrades and improvements to those
lines. The voltage stayed the same.
Forster stated the next question was a comment about the draft impact
statement (DIS). He provided a foundation on that without going into an
interpretation of a DIS on a different project. The last question asked for an
education on EMF, amperage, current, and voltage. As they go through the
presentation, some of this will be clearer.
Hoag stated she really appreciated that they came to this meeting to provide
this information. There is a lot of political intrigue going on now.
Forster began the presentation and said he would cover the basics first. He
would talk about electricity, units of measure, Ohms Law, and how the electricity
moves from the generation to the end user. Then, he would discuss
electromagnetic fields, basic definition, and typical measurements. Finally, he
would discuss transmission pole structures. Then, he would discuss design
variables for transmission. When they discuss conductor size, pole size, and
framing, all those factors work together to finalize the design.
The units of measure are fundamental. The three building blocks for Ohms
Law are voltage, current, and resistance. Voltage is the potential difference
Planning and Development Committee, 5/2/2000, 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
between two points, measured in volts. Negative, in a power system, is a ground
plane. If one has 120 volts on one side and zero volts on the other size, the
voltmeter would read 120 volts. When they measure voltage, it is always between
one point and a ground source. Voltage is measured from a conductor on the line
to the ground beneath the pole. The job of an insulator on the pole is to keep the
voltage on the line so it doesn't try to get down to the earth. Voltage is always
trying to get to the lowest potential level, which would be the ground plane.
Hoag asked him to explain what volts are. Forster stated that, for now, it is
a unit of measure for voltage. They don't have to go any further than that.
Current is defined as the flow of electrons across a point measured in amps.
A current meter is used to measure amps, which is the flow of electrons from the
120 -volt side to the zero volt side. The amps flow through the conductor. Voltage
is measured from the conductor on one end to the other. Amps are the flow of
electrons across a point, along a conductor. The conductors are what one sees at
the top of a pole.
Resistance is the reluctance of a conductor to allow current to flow. That is
measured in Ohms. A 120 -volt line, for example, would have 60 Ohms and two
amps of current.
One could have voltage without current, a line that is energized with no
current flowing. It would still have the same voltage. Current flows through the
line when it is going some place, such as towards a load. If a line touches the
ground, it is called a short circuit. Current will flow then. If he put in a certain
amount of energy on one end of a line, he will receive less energy on the other end
of the line because of the resistance on the line, which consumes some of the
power.
Crawford questioned where the current would go if everyone turned off the
lights at the same time. Forster stated the only current flowing would be through
transformers. The way transformers are made, they have a path to the ground
inside the unit. There would be a small bit of energizing current that flows through
the transformers.
Crawford questioned whether the juice going through the power lines need to
go somewhere. Forster stated that, as people shut down the loads around the
system, other people shut down the generators to match the load. As the load
shuts off, they would shut off more generators.
Hoag questioned what happens to the power that is lost through resistance.
Forster stated it shows up in the form of heat on the conductor. If the conductor is
just sitting there with no current flowing, but there is voltage, then the conductor
would be at ambient temperature. For instance, if the air temperature were 60
degrees, then the conductor would be at 60 degrees. If current is flowing through
the conductor, then it will be warmer than the ambient temperature. On a cable
system, they are worried about that because they can't dissipate the heat quickly
enough. On an overhead system it dissipates into the air. The air around the
conductor warms up a bit.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/2/2000, 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
52
Brenner questioned whether he was saying that overhead systems were less
apt to cause EMF. Forster stated they are not talking about EMF yet.
Hoag stated they are just less likely to fail from heat because they can't cool
in the air.
Forster stated it is important to talk about the heating of a conductor
because that is what makes it sag as it gets loaded heavier and heavier. The heat
makes the conductor elongate so it saas more.
There is a relationship between current, voltage and resistance. If he knows
two of the values, he can always calculate the third. The equation is that current is
equal to voltage over resistance (current = voltage /resistance or amps) or voltage
is current times resistance (voltage = current x resistance). For instance, 120 volts
and 12 ohms of resistance would equal ten amps on a line.
Crawford questioned whether there is less resistance with a heavier wire.
Forster stated that is correct. The larger the conductor, the lower the resistance.
Hoag questioned whether the voltage or the current is changed if they
change the size of the wire. Forster stated that when they talk about Ohms Law,
they are talking about a system. It is a looped system. The resistance of the
system is the resistance of the wire and of the load. The load, such as home
appliances, are resistances to the system as well. The resistance of the wire plus
the resistance of the load equals the resistance of the system. The wire size is one
component of resistance. If they know the voltage and the current, they can know
the total resistance of the total system. He could break the resistance down
between the wire and the load. At the last meeting, he talked about 115,000 volts
(kv). If one runs five amps through each phase, there are three phases, he would
have one megawatt.
Crawford questioned whether the amperage varies. Forster stated it varies
all the time.
Crawford questioned whether the amperage varies depending on the amount
of power going in from the generator and how much people are using it along the
way. Forster stated that is correct.
Hoag stated it is within certain parameters based on what the generation is
and what the transmission is. When a line is built, it is built based on what they
think the amperage load would be. Forster stated that is correct.
Forster continued to state that once they have those three quantities, the
next logical step is to talk about power, or watts. Power is what they measure
flowing through a line. They talk about megawatts on a 115 kv line. Power is
voltage times current (power = voltage x current). That quantity is one's ability to
run loads. They rate motors in terms of horsepower. Watts is a power
measurement. In the example, 120 volts times .5 amps is 60 watts. Five amps
per phase on a 115 kv line is one megawatt of power going down the line. They
can calculate power flows on a line if they know the voltage and the amps.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Planning and Development Committee, 5/2/2000, 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
52
Forster continued to state that if they want to calculate the amps on a 230 kv
line, they could use the same formula. These are the basic building blocks.
Lastly, once they know about Ohms Law and watts, the last quantity is
energy. Energy is what they meter at a house. Kilowatt -hour is an energy
measurement. Energy is power consumed over a given unit of time. If one
consumes one kilowatt of power over one hour, one has consumed one kilowatt -
hour. They measure energy in terms of power times time (energy = power x time).
For a transmission line, they don't use energy much. It is a measure at the meters
for energy sales.
They've discussed volts, amps, ohms, watts, and energy (kilowatt- hours).
Those are the terms they use for electric systems.
Crawford questioned whether a transformer converts volts to amps or amps
to volts. Forster stated a transformer changes voltages.
Crawford questioned whether a by- product of the change in voltage would be
a change in amperage. Forster stated that is correct. A transformer does not
change the watts. A BPA of Bellingham substation would have a 230 kv
transformer to a 115 kv on either side. It transforms 230 kv down to a 115 kv.
The amperage on the high side would be half the amperage on the low side. The
watts going in would equal the watts going out minus the losses in the transformer.
Power coming in is equal to power going out.
Forster continued to state that a basic power system includes the generator
and the high - voltage transmission lines. The highest PSE lines are 230 kV, but BPA
owns up to 500 kV. Within Whatcom County, the range is 55 kV to 500 kV. There
is a fine point between sub - transmission and real transmission. The red lines on
the map are sub - transmission because it stops at the substations along the way
and goes down to the feeder level. At that point, the transmission system ends and
the distribution system begins. In the PSE system, the distribution line would be
12,500 volts. That is the level of the distribution system. Those have shorter pole
lines that go around on most streets. Every street that has a house will have an
overhead line or underground cable. That is what gets down to the last
transformer, which is the distribution transformer. That steps the voltage down to
120/240 volts. That is what is used in a house.
Brenner questioned whether every house has one of those pole- mounted
transformers. Forster stated that is correct. If it is underground, there is a green
box sitting in front of a house. Several houses can share a transformer. There is a
distance to how far they can get away from a transformer before they have to put
in another transformer. They are limited by voltage drop on the little wires.
Crawford asked if there is a practical limit on the big transmission. He
questioned whether the practical limit would be the thickness of the conductor. He
questioned why they are not pushing megavolts through these big cross - country
transmission lines. Forster stated that the limitation on the voltage is the spacing
between the conductors. They don't want the voltage to flash over between
conductors. If they raise the voltage even more, they have to make the towers
bigger and the right -of -way bigger. There are physical parameters that go along
Planning and Development Committee, 5/2/2000, 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
52
with voltage. The insulators hold the wire away from the steel structure and are
expensive. The bigger they get, the more they cost.
Hoag stated one would have to have an extremely large generator to use
more than 765 kilowatts. Forster stated that is correct. Generators generate at a
low voltage. They have to have a transformer to step it up. That would require a
transformer that is better than 765 kV. That is hard to do.
Crawford questioned whether they can re -route electricity through lines that
are undersized. Forster stated the electric system is a top -down system.
Transformers connect the different voltages. The Sumas /Kendall line is 115 kV and
it has two sources. Both ends connect back to the source in Bellingham. If there is
an outage on a portion of that line, they put in automatic switching so they can
sectionalize that outage. They isolate a piece of wire that has no load on it and
open it up. They automatically close from the other direction, which picks up
everyone's house. They don't ever feed from the lower voltage lines back into the
higher voltage lines. It is top -down. The high - voltage are always the source. The
exemption is that the generators generate at a lower voltage and usually step up
the voltage.
Crawford referred to the electrical system that loops from Bellingham to
Bellingham. He questioned whether there is less power out there because of
resistance. Forster stated it is a function of the wire size in those lines. That limits
the amount of power that can be delivered to the end of the loop. To deliver more
power, one has to put in bigger wires or higher voltage.
Crawford questioned whether the power at the far end of the loop is less than
the power downtown. Forster stated it is not. If they want a deliverable amount of
power, it is the same quality of power. The quality doesn't change. The amount of
power consumed doesn't change as long as it is available. If the voltage drops too
far, then the amount of power will go down. Power is volts times amps. If the
voltage goes down too low, there are state limits on a range of useable power at a
house. One has to be within that range. The amount of power delivered is limited
by the wire construction of the line.
Forster stated he would discuss EMF. There are electric fields and there are
magnetic fields. EMF is electromagnetic fields. Electric fields are produced by the
voltage on the line. Even if a power line has no load on the end of it and there is
no current flowing through it, they can still produce an electric field. The potential
difference of the voltage from the line to the ground is needed to produce an
electric field. Magnetic fields are controlled by the current through the line. Those
fields are measured in gauss or milligauss. Another interesting point is that voltage
shielded by conducting objects will shield electric fields. Magnetic fields tend to
travel through most materials. They are not easily shielded.
Brenner questioned whether there is anything that can shield against EMF.
Swayne stated that the only shield is distance and air. They are not insulated from
it, they are just gaining a further distance from the source. Lead won't stop it.
Only distance from the source reduces exposure to the field.
Brenner stated she was told that one could get higher EMFs from small
household items. Forster stated he would get into that.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/2/2000, 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
52
Hoag stated that the magnetic fields are produced by the current, and the
current is the amps. It is the amps that determine the magnetic field. Forster
stated that is correct.
Forster continued to state that another way to look at magnetic fields is that
they are created by winding wire around a piece of iron, which makes a magnet.
That is how electric fields work. The right hand rule is to use a thumb, point it in
the direction of the current flow, the magnetic field wraps around the direction of
the fingers. It is not critical, from a power line standpoint, which way it is rolling.
It is a circular field around the conductor that spreads out. Anytime there is a
conductor, the field exists. It can be on a hair dryer, toaster, or car battery. They
all produce magnetic fields. It is proportional to the amperage flowing through.
The magnetic field is proportional to the current. If one doubles the current, the
magnetic field is doubled.
Brenner questioned how to double the amount of current. Forster stated that
there is more load and power flowing through. A toaster might consume 200 watts
and a microwave might consume 600 watts. The microwave will give off three
times the EMF. Anything that carries a lot of current has a lot of amps flowing
through. An electric range would be one of the highest sources in the home. As
one moves away from the conductor, the magnetic field drops to the distance
squared. For instance, if he stood four feet away from the conductor, and a
magnetic field is x amount, then moving to eight feet away would drop to 1/4 as
much. It drops at an exponential rate instead of a straight rate. It is not linear.
Current and magnetic field is linear. Distance and magnetic field is exponential. It
rapidly drops off as one moves away from the conductor.
Brenner questioned the danger level of 3.5 milligauss. Forster stated he
couldn't answer that. In his example, the megawatt amount is 24.
Hoag stated that Sumas 2 power plant is proposing 330 megawatts. The
more amperage on the load, the higher the milligauss is. Forster stated that is
correct. A 48 megawatt load would be twice if everything else stayed the same.
Crawford questioned the amount of milligauss present when a person is six
feet away from a 27 -inch color television compared to the amount of milligauss
present when standing under the power line. Forster stated the range of home
appliances is around 60 and higher milligauss.
Crawford stated that people don't stand a long time in front of the oven.
They do spend a lot of time in front of the television. Also, he sleeps in a waterbed
with an electric heater underneath.
Dirk Petty stated he owns a calibrated, registered milligauss meter. It
depends on how close one is. If one has a clock radio next to the bed, the issue is
intensity and duration. Those are the key issues. If intensity is very high, the
duration should be very low. Television is very complicated because there are three
levels. Power lines are 60 cycle.
Brenner questioned a safe distance from a television. Petty stated that
further is better.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/2/2000, 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
51
52
Hoag asked Forster to compare a 50 megawatt 115 kV line to a 330
megawatt 115 kV line in terms of the electromagnetic field that would be produced
and how far it would go at the particular milligauss ranges. Forster stated the
milligauss amount depends on the structure. He hasn't gotten to that point. It is a
function of how the line is designed. The milligauss produced changes if the pole
height is raised or lowered and if the conductors are changed. There are variables
involved in the milligauss amount, depending on how the pole is built. Then, there
are variables on the current. Three hundred thirty is 6.6 times as much as fifty, so
there will be 6.6 times as much milligauss, everything else being equal. If the
designs are the same, the ratio is 6.6.
Hoag asked for a side -by -side EMF comparison of what one would typically
build for a 50- megawatt, 115 kV line and a typical 330 - megawatt, 115 kV line,
bundled connector. She asked for that information in writing. Forster stated he
didn't know because he doesn't have any parameters for height of the poles, how
many poles per mile, or anything.
Hoag stated she specified how it would be done typically. Forster stated
there is no typical formula for that.
Hoag stated she narrowed it dow
line generally used if doing the two -per
the magnetic field very much.
i for him quite a bit. She provided the size
phase. Forster stated that wouldn't change
Hoag stated he had an idea of what she is looking for. She asked for a
comparison in writing. She is concerned about the proposed 330 - megawatt line.
She suggested that he check in the proposal. Forster stated that he initially told
her that any questions about the EIS for that project need to be given to the people
who wrote the EIS. PSE doesn't want to try to mimic their design and come up
with an amount. She should go to the people who designed the project.
Hoag stated that when she was at the EFSEC scoping meeting, it was a PSE
person who described it. Forster stated that person no longer works for PSE. He
wasn't a PSE employee at that time. His name was Jerry Nash.
Hoag stated that was not who she was referring to. There was a PSE person
who commented on the entire thing. She asked questions of both of those people.
The reason she is asking is because she's tried repeatedly to get the answers to
these questions from the consultants. She is not getting the answers. She needs
to know from someone who works in the energy field who knows what these look
like and how they are typically built because she didn't know who would build them
at this point. Forster stated that his information and the formulas tell her the
typical answer. What she is asking for is a specific project design.
Kathy Larsen, Puget Sound Energy, stated that she is not an electrical
engineer. Mr. Forster is not the designer of the Sumas Energy 2 lines in that
project. He can take something that PSE has built and forecast some of that
information, but he couldn't do it for the other.
Hoag stated PSE doesn't have anything that is 330 megawatts. Forster
stated the formula doesn't change, whether or not they have a facility.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/2/2000, 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
Hoag questioned whether Forster is saying that he cannot take the
information from that application that describes how the lines are proposed to be
built and tell her what kind of an electromagnetic field they can expect to see
generated under that written proposal. Forster stated it would be better for
Councilmember Hoag to go back to the resource that generated the design.
Hoag stated she tried, but she didn't get the answer to her question.
Hoag questioned whether Forster was saying that her request puts him in an
uncomfortable position. Forster stated he is providing her all the building blocks to
do it herself. The current ratio is 6.6 times. It is a 115 kV line loaded to 24
megawatts with 3.5 milligauss. They can use that as a ratio to go up and down the
megawatt scale, as long as she doesn't change around the spacing and height of
the pole. The height of the pole and spacing is a function of how many poles there
are per mile. That is not a bounded problem.
Hoag thanked him for his time and for educating them on the issue.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:20 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 5/2/2000, Page 20