HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council April 17 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
Special County Council
April 17, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 10:37 a.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Robert Imhof
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Sam Crawford
Absent:
Dan McShane
RESOLUTION REQUESTING INTERVENOR STATUS IN THE ENERGY FACILITY
SITE EVALUATION COUNCIL (EFSEC) PROCEEDINGS REGARDING THE
SUMAS ENERGY 2 PROJECT (AB2000 -125A)
Hoag moved approval of the resolution.
Crawford suggested amending the third paragraph to delete language,
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED... regarding Sumas Energy 2, to
represent its censtituents in the following areas:
S;Wwa l ■ �
Crawford further suggested replacing the deleted language with, "...to ensure
state requirements are followed regarding flood water, noise, and air impacts. Any
position or comment from the County Council will be affirmed by majority vote of all
councilmembers, and our legal counsel will be the Council's sole spokesperson
through the EFSEC process."
Hoag stated she amended her motion to accept the second portion of
Crawford's suggestion, "...Any position or comment from the County Council will be
affirmed by majority vote of all councilmembers, and our legal counsel will be the
Council's sole spokesperson through the EFSEC process." However, the first portion
of the suggestion takes away constituent representation and says that state
Special County Council Meeting, 4/17/2000, Page 1
- - -- -
- - -
: KM
Crawford further suggested replacing the deleted language with, "...to ensure
state requirements are followed regarding flood water, noise, and air impacts. Any
position or comment from the County Council will be affirmed by majority vote of all
councilmembers, and our legal counsel will be the Council's sole spokesperson
through the EFSEC process."
Hoag stated she amended her motion to accept the second portion of
Crawford's suggestion, "...Any position or comment from the County Council will be
affirmed by majority vote of all councilmembers, and our legal counsel will be the
Council's sole spokesperson through the EFSEC process." However, the first portion
of the suggestion takes away constituent representation and says that state
Special County Council Meeting, 4/17/2000, 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
requirements will be followed. She doesn't want to delegate this to the state. They
are elected to represent the local constituency. They have concerns that require
intervention, which is why she is bringing this forward. That wording is not
appropriate. The wording she has listed is because of the councilmembers who said
they would support intervention on the basis of very specific items they wanted to
see addressed. That is why those items are listed. If they are going to be more
general, she preferred generalities that express representation of their
constituency. Saying that any action must meet state standards does not represent
her constituents.
Brenner suggested a general statement. She supported having the attorney
be their spokesperson and that any Council position must be affirmed. To say any
action is to ensure that state requirements are followed implies that the Council
supports action if state requirements are followed. She doesn't support it. She
would like it to say that the EFSEC position is in the best interest of Whatcom
County. That would cover everyone's concerns. It keeps it simple. She can't
support the suggested amendment.
Nelson stated he understood the idea of keeping the comments limited. He
questioned whether the Council would intervene on behalf of the County regarding
County requirements instead of state requirements.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the Council would have to
intervene on a combination of both State and County requirements. They would
focus on the parameters in which EFSEC is focusing on.
Nelson questioned whether there are County concerns regarding flood
displacement and protecting citizens outside of this area that may be impacted by
this. He questioned whether there are guidelines from the County Planning and
Development Services Department. Grant stated there are County regulations for
this project.
Nelson questioned whether that would be the Council's concern, as
interveners. Grant stated it would be, in part.
Nelson stated he is trying to find language that makes sense. If EFSEC is
working on this, they are concerned about state requirements. It would seem
superfluous that the County Council would intervene on something they would
address anyway. EFSEC may not address the concerns of the constituency within
Whatcom County. Grant stated the County ordinance, regarding construction, may
not perfectly dovetail with the state's perspective on what they would like to see.
Nelson stated that is his concern.
Grant stated the County would try to protect the integrity of its local
ordinances regarding noise, water, and air. The EFSEC duty and purpose is to look
at state laws.
Special County Council Meeting, 4/17/2000, 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
Brenner stated being an intervener means that the County has an interest.
It doesn't mean they are in charge of state requirements or any other
requirements. As elected officials, they are supposed to protect the interest of the
county's constituents. They should intervene on state, federal, and local
requirements.
Brenner moved to amend language in the third paragraph, "...regarding
Sumas Energy 2, to ensure that the EFSEC position is in the best interest of
Whatcom County. Any position or comment from the County Council will be
affirmed by majority vote of all councilmembers, and the County's legal counsel will
be the sole spokesperson throughout the EFSEC process."
Nelson questioned whose best interest is being defined.
Brenner stated it is what the Council sees as the best interest. The way the
proposal is, she won't support it. She wanted to come up with something that
everyone would support, which would be a majority rule on the County's position of
what is in the County's best interest. The way it is written now, they are only
concerned with following requirements.
Grant stated it would be safer to say they want to ensure state and County
requirements. If the County doesn't believe that EFSEC is going to meet their state
requirements, then the County will be obligated to try and rectify that also. The
County wants to be in a position to argue both.
Brenner amended her amendment, "...regarding Sumas Energy 2, to ensure
that State and County requirements are followed and that the EFSEC position is in
the best interest of Whatcom County. Any position or comment from the County
Council will be affirmed by majority vote of all councilmembers, and the County's
legal counsel will be the sole spokesperson throughout the EFSEC process."
Imhof suggested limiting it to flood, noise, and air impacts. Otherwise, it
gets too big.
Hoag stated the general language is quite vague. Councilmember Imhof's
suggestion to list some of the impacts is a good suggestion. The items that are
currently listed are very legitimate and specific things on which the Council should
represent its constituents. She suggested an amendment to Brenner's amendment,
" "...regarding Sumas Energy 2, to ensure that State and County requirements are
followed, including but not limited to, floodwater, noise, and air impacts, and that
the EFSEC position is in the best interest of Whatcom County. Any position or
comment from the County Council will be affirmed by majority vote of all
councilmembers, and the County's legal counsel will be the sole spokesperson
throughout the EFSEC process."
Brenner questioned whether the language needs to be more specific. She
will accept the suggested amendment to her proposed amendment if they do have
to be more specific.
Special County Council Meeting, 4/17/2000, 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
Nelson stated they don't need to, but it makes Mr. Grant's job easier to
understand the Council's intent.
Brenner accepted Hoag's amendment to her amendment.
Grant stated they should also not get so specific that he is hamstrung.
Hoag stated that is why she included the language, "including, but not
limited to." Mr. Grant can come back to the Council regarding something new that
comes up.
Brenner agreed.
Hoag stated this project is not in County jurisdiction. It is in the jurisdiction
of Sumas. If they say that the County requirements are followed on fill, it doesn't
apply. If they say that the impacts from floodwater displaced by fill are addressed,
then the County can make sure the fill in the jurisdiction of Sumas is not going to
impact the constituents in the County's jurisdiction.
Brenner agreed to include the items as listed in her proposed amendment.
Crawford stated he would vote no on that. He didn't agree with items one
through three. They are too specific and are very agenda- driven. They are talking
about an industrial area. Item number two is not specific. They shouldn't be
specific. They need to ensure that state and County requirements are followed
regarding floodwater, noise, and air impacts to the good of Whatcom County.
Nelson stated he would not be that concerned about it. They are talking
about these issues, regarding State and County requirements. In other words,
there are noise levels for industrial areas. They understand what levels are
appropriate. This is to assure that there would be mitigation to handle impacts if
this site produces higher levels than what the County allows.
Hoag stated the language "interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment
of a person's property" comes from state law. The industrial area is within the City
of Sumas. However, the noise can travel to residential and agricultural areas
beyond the jurisdiction of Sumas. There are levels that are set. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) says that one cannot exceed 55 decibels, night or day,
where quiet is a basis of use. They define residential areas as an area where quiet
is a basis of use. It is one of the things she wants to ensure is addressed. She
wanted to use Councilmember Brenner's language, but also wanted to say that it
"includes, but is not limited to, the following." That will make certain that these
items are addressed. One other item came up over the weekend regarding the
farmers' wells in the area. She questioned whether the Council would approve
adding a fourth item, "4. Mitigation would be required if neighboring wells were
adversely affected." If a neighboring well is run dry, they would be required to do
something about it.
Grant suggested adding instead a concern about impacts to area aquifers.
Special County Council Meeting, 4/17/2000, 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
Brenner approved adding that language to her proposed amendment. If the
City of Sumas takes actions that result in negative impacts outside of the city, the
County does have jurisdiction. The fact that the County is not Sumas government
does not preclude the County from requiring the City of Sumas and other areas
from not violating County laws.
Brenner questioned whether they need to reference medical and scientific
studies.
Hoag stated they do.
Dawson questioned whether they have to have it very specific to adopt this.
Grant stated the air quality gives him direction.
Nelson stated he would not include the language regarding the medical
scientific studies. He could bring in studies from both sides.
Hoag stated that is fine. The draft environmental impact study did not look
at medical scientific studies. It only looked at the modeling and whether it met the
standard.
Grant stated if they get in, he can raise that issue.
Hoag stated that is why she wanted to add that language.
Brenner stated it should say air quality impacts.
Hoag agreed.
Hoag suggested the language, "...regarding Sumas Energy 2, to represent its
constituents, including but not limited to (items one through four). To ensure that
all State and County requirements are met and ensure the EFSEC decision is in the
best interest of Whatcom County." That language flows more smoothly.
Brenner stated she did not agree with the language, "to represent our
constituents." That is exactly what they are doing by intervening.
Hoag suggested the language, "...regarding Sumas Energy 2, including but
not limited to (items one through four). To ensure that all state and County
requirements are met and ensure the EFSEC decision is in the best interest of
Whatcom County."
David Davidson, City of Sumas, spoke regarding the aquifer protection issue.
That issue opens a can of worms because it is the City of Sumas that would be
withdrawing the water, not the plant that would withdraw the water. EFSEC could
not impose a condition on the plant regarding area aquifers. All it could do is
discuss the issue with the City.
Special County Council Meeting, 4/17/2000, 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
Dawson stated EFSEC could ensure mitigation takes place in case there is
damage.
Davidson stated EFSEC doesn't have the ability to tell the city not to
withdraw water, pursuant to its water right.
Brenner stated EFSEC does have the ability to say area aquifers will not be
contaminated by the plant.
Hoag stated EFSEC could also require that the plant mitigate for any wells
that go dry.
Brenner restated her motion to amend the language in the resolution, "NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED... regarding Sumas Energy 2, to
ensure that state and local requirements are
followed regarding floodwater, noise, and air quality impacts, including, but not
limited to:
1. Impacts from floodwater displaced by fill.
2. Impacts of noise that would interfere with the reasonable use and
enjoyment of a person's property.
3. Air: We would like to be assured that medical scientific studies are
used to assure that negative health impacts are not received by
Whatcom County residents, and that the modeling includes all current
sources of air emissions in the area, and Chilliwack, B.C. air quality
data.
4. Impacts to area aquifers
Furthermore, to ensure that the EFSEC decision is in the best interest of
Whatcom County. Any position or comment from the County Council will be
affirmed by majority vote of all councilmembers. The County Council's legal
counsel will be its sole spokesperson throughout the EFSEC process."
Nelson questioned what the statement, "to ensure that the EFSEC decision is
in the best interest of Whatcom County" means to Mr. Grant. Grant stated it
means just what it says. Throughout this process, he will come back to the Council
for direction.
Brenner stated it is the Council's majority vote on what the best interest is.
Mary Petty, 1695 Mt. Baker Highway, stated her concern is that all the
mitigation done after the plant is built is beside the point. The point is that the
plant is being built to provide electricity for another state. They've claimed they are
going to send it through Canada. Canada said that isn't so. There is going to be a
lot of air and water pollution and a lot of water use.
Special County Council Meeting, 4/17/2000, 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
Dawson asked Mrs. Petty to discuss the resolution specifically.
Petty stated the Council represents her and works for her. They are not
working for each other.
Dawson stated there is a resolution that they are discussing to adopt or not
adopt. Any comments for suggestion regarding the resolution are fine.
Petty stated her suggestion was that the Council ask them not to approve the
plant.
Brenner stated that is not what they are doing as interveners. Being an
intervener means that the Council will take a position to be involved. When the
Council decides what it will do, it will happen as they are involved. That is why she
wanted that language in the resolution, to ensure that the EFSEC decision is in the
best interest of Whatcom County. That does address what Mrs. Petty talks about.
Hoag stated she supported the motion to amend. She questioned the last
portion regarding any position or comment from the Council being affirmed by a
majority vote of all councilmembers. She wanted assurance that she, as an
individual councilmember, can still comment on this as long as it is clearly
understood that it represents her position as an individual councilmember.
Brenner stated the language does not preclude that ability. The language
only talks about the Council's position.
Hoag stated she wants to make sure that is clearly understood.
Dawson stated it is understood.
Brenner stated that is always the way they do things.
Hoag questioned whether a position of the full Council is what
Councilmember Crawford intended with his suggested language. She is still, as an
individual councilmember, able to freely comment on this plant.
Dawson stated the Council can't legally stop Councilmember Hoag from
commenting.
Hoag stated she wanted to know what Mr. Crawford intended with the
suggestion.
Brenner stated it is clear that Council positions are made from the majority of
the Council, but individual councilmembers cannot go around making positions that
represent the Council.
Special County Council Meeting, 4/17/2000, 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
Hoag suggested the language, "...any position or comment from the full
Council will be affirmed by majority vote...." That will make it clear that it is the
entire Council they are talking about.
Brenner stated that is the law. The current motion is how they usually word
it.
Grant suggested added language that Dawson read into the record,
"WHEREAS there is now pending before the Washington Energy Site Evaluation
Council an application numbered 99 -1, submitted by Sumas Energy 2, for
permission to construct and operate a natural gas fired electrical energy generation
plant within the City of Sumas, in Whatcom County; and WHEREAS certain
environmental land use and natural resource concerns have been raised to the
Whatcom County Council regarding the construction and operation of said energy
facility."
Hoag added Grant's suggested language to her motion to approve the
resolution.
Motion to approve Brenner's amendment carried 4 -2 with Imhof and
Crawford opposed.
Motion to accept Mr. Grant's suggested language carried unanimously.
Motion to approve the resolution with the two amendments carried 4 -2 with
Crawford and Imhof opposed.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on May 2 , 2000.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Special County Council Meeting, 4/17/2000, Page 8