UMATILLA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Meeting of August 27, 2008

10:00 a.m., Room 114, County Courthouse, 216 SE 4^th St,

Pendleton, Oregon

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

Bill Hansell (Chair), Dennis Doherty, Larry Givens

PLANNING STAFF PRESENT:

Tamra Mabbott, Heather Haueter

COUNTY COUNSEL PRESENT:

Doug Olsen

GUESTS PRESENT:

Dixie Echeverria, Doug Bennett, Gladys Bennett, Carleen Hottendorf, Frank Mueller, Phyllis Bennett, Donald Bennett, Lori Timmons, Robert Klein, Bob Guertin, John Pinkstaff

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE MEETING. HOWEVER, A TAPE OF THE MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE.

CALL TO ORDER:

Commissioner Hansell called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.

CONTINUED HEARING:

• APPEAL OF LAND USE DECISION: #LUD-072-08; Oregon Windfarms, LLC, applicant. Landowners include Kent & Shannon Madison, Umatilla County, Oregon Department of Transportation, JR Simplot Company, Wesley Walker.

HEARING is an APPEAL of Planning Commission approval to construct and operate approximately 9 miles of 69 Kv power transmission line over private and public property. The transmission line will begin on property owned by Kent & Shannon Madison 6 miles south of Interstate 84, then travel east across county right of way, then northerly along State Highway 207 right of way, then across Interstate 84, then continuing north along State Highway 207 to land owned by JR Simplot Company to the PacifiCorp power substation.

Criteria for approval include: UCDC Section 152.766 (Appeals); 152.617(II) (7) (Utility Facilities Necessary for Public Service in EFU zone); 152.324 (Design Review in HI zone); 152.283(D) (Conditional Use in RTC zone); 152.610 through 152.615 and 152.616(CCC) (Utility Facility in RTC zone).

Commissioner Hansell explained that testimony was closed at the last meeting. Also at that time a request was made for continuance and the Board granted final written testimony.

Exhibit numbers were assigned to materials received since the last meeting:

• Exhibit #28 – August 21, 2008 letter from the appellant, Dixie Echeverria
• Exhibit #29 – Packet of materials from Dixie Echeverria, rec’d August 21, 2008
• Exhibit #30 – Oversized ODOT maps, rec’d August 21, 2008
• Exhibit #31 – August 25, 2008 letter of response from Oregon Windfarms

Motion:

Commissioner Doherty moved to add Exhibits #28-31 to the record. Commissioner Givens seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

Commissioner Hansell noted that it appeared from her letter that Ms. Echeverria was requesting another continuance and asked for clarification. Ms. Echeverria replied that she had not had time to review the materials submitted by Oregon Windfarms in response to Exhibit #29, so yes, she was requesting a continuance to review new evidence.

Planning Director Tamra Mabbott stated that staff had reviewed the letter submitted by Oregon Windfarms and the nature of the letter was simply response to Ms. Echeverria’s letter.

Motion:

Commissioner Doherty moved to deny the request for further continuation. Commissioner Givens seconded.

Commissioner Doherty explained that the parameters were set at the August 14^th meeting, and additional continuation was unnecessary at this point. The Board had reviewed all materials and concludes that submittals did not contain new evidence.

Commissioner Givens and Commissioner Hansell agreed.

Motion carried unanimously.

Hearing Closed; Deliberation and Decision:

Commissioner Doherty stated that this issue was important to the Board and the County. This case demonstrates that facts, policy, opinion, and other matters must be sorted and weighed. It has been before both the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners, and there is no way to please all, but is the County’s job to weigh and balance per the Code and other legal provisions to arrive at a decision.

One factor that is different in this case is the inter-jurisdictional aspect because if falls partly in Morrow County and partly in Umatilla County. Morrow County has already approved the application for the portion in their county. This needs to be considered, but is not a determining factor. The principal would be to give deference to Morrow County’s decision, but also look beyond it.

Other factors are clearly federal, state and local interest; need; and support for alternative energy sources. Every record in this case indicates that almost all testifying recognize the need for alternative energy. A transmission line poses a different situation. Mr. Ikemoto’s statement that “wind is good, transmission lines are bad” was correct, but also as he said “we can’t have one without other.”

We need to encourage development of alternatives. Umatilla County has been found to have more potential than most counties in the state, so this is not likely to be the only time that a transmission issue will be before the Board. Commissioner Doherty also noted that the line that Idaho Power wants to put in will be a lot bigger and will present more issues than this, and there are others in the line up. This is all because of the more needs for power and this has to be weighed too.

Commissioner Doherty thought the appellants made a strong, able argument, but he felt the Board should adopt and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission for the following reasons:

• The application has been approved by the Planning Commission of both Morrow and Umatilla County, and he was not convinced that they’d heard anything new. They have to give deference to the decision of Planning Commission and if the Board is to reverse that decision they must have a strong reason.
• It appears that the issue is more the route than anything, so he looked closely at that issue. It appears the applicant looked into other routes and ran into property owner opposition. That opposition is what forced them into this route, and determined the route before the Board. The record supports that this route has the least impact. Opponents have argued that other routes are available or shown that rights-of-way could be acquired, but have not satisfactorily shown that the proposed route does not have the least impact.
• Since the Planning Commission decision was unanimous he would tend to defer to them. Their decision led to additional conditions to mitigate issues presented. Commissioner Doherty was satisfied with those conditions and felt they were considered thoughtfully.

The only exception Commissioner Doherty found was the public safety issues raised. His approval would be based upon the assumption that the public safety condition would be strengthened in the manner discussed in the August 14, 2008 hearing. He understood that the developers had agreed to all of the conditions, including the change he referenced, and he would support a motion to adopt the findings with that change.

There was discussion among the Board and County Counsel to clarify that the public safety condition, which requires a plan addressing the ability to respond to downed lines, etc., would be made precedent instead of subsequent.

Commissioner Givens concurred with Commissioner Doherty’s comments. He noted that the main issue in the appellant’s case was the alternate routes. Those routes appear to have been fully explored by the applicant; however, because of time issues and being pushed against a wall, a decision had to be made.

He was bothered by the appellant’s talk about fair price for the land. He believed that everyone should have a fair price for their land, but it seemed that a lot of issues in this case, and others, boil down to what can be achieved economically out of the land.

Commissioner Givens felt the Board should uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, and the issues had been thoroughly vetted. He noted that citizens want services from the County, but when it comes to development, they don’t want those side effects. However, to have a thriving community we cannot stifle development, and in this case the applicants have done what has been required to find an alterative route and have the least impact.

Commissioner Givens agreed with Commissioner Doherty’s comments regarding safety issues, and noted that there are other parts of the county where there are already much greater safety issues existing than what the proposed route may cause.

Commissioner Givens supported the Planning Commission decision.

Commissioner Hansell stated that Commissioner Doherty’s comments captured the situation that the Board often finds themselves in, where, by the time an issue gets to the Board level, there are two sides with strong feelings. The Board’s job is to weigh and balance these feelings with what the law says, and inevitably people feel that they have lost. The Board approaches these decisions very seriously.

Commissioner Hansell pointed out that the development of wind power will be, almost without exception, on EFU land. It is where it has to be. His concern was that impacts be kept to a minimum and he believed this project does that. Every question raised had been answered to his satisfaction.

He was supportive of the Planning Commission decision and would support denial of the appeal and adopting the findings, with the changes to the findings to make it clear that we are dealing with the part of the project under Umatilla County’s jurisdiction, and the change of condition #20 to a precedent condition.

Motion:

Commissoner Doherty moved to deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Land Use Decision #LUD-072-08, subject to conditions outlined by the Planning Commission; and further subject to clarification of condition #20 to precedent, and that the that proponents develop final paperwork for staff. Commissioner Givens seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Heather Haueter

Secretary