Meeting of
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
COMMISSIONERS
PRESENT: Rick Colgan, Frank Kaminski, David Lynde,
ABSENT: None.
STAFF: Heather
Haueter, Tamra Mabbott, Carol Johnson.
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE
MEETING. HOWEVER, A RECORDING OF THE
MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Gary Rhinhart called the meeting to order at
An introductory statement was read.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Standley moved
approval of the minutes of the meeting of
NEW HEARING:
Conditional Use Permit #C-1137-08 and Land Use Decision
#LUD-083-08. Applicant is PacifiCorp. Request is to construct and operate a new
230 kV transmission line from the McNary substation to the Oregon/Washington
border. The segment in
For the segment of the proposed line located within the
Umatilla UGB, the application is subject to the following standards found in
the 1972 County Development Code, specifically, sections 3.102, 3.024, 3.026,
3.113, 3.114, 3.116, Article 7, 7.010-7.040.
For the segment of the proposed line located in the county
Commissioner Rhinhart called for abstentions or objections. Commissioner Colgan noted he would abstain from voting due to employer involvement.
Staff Report:
Planning Director, Tamra Mabbott presented the staff report. She referred to the original and revised proposed routes on an overhead map, and noted that the Planning Commission would be making a decision for the portion of the line outside of the city limits only.
Ms. Mabbott pointed out that there are two landowners who
have not granted authorization for the line to cross their property. With the
Ms. Mabbott explained a couple of recommended changes to the findings. The bonding requirement doesn’t apply to transmission lines, so she suggested striking the sentence on page seven of the findings referring to bonding requirements.
Condition 5 currently reads “Submit written easement for use of all private properties.” This language is not very clear and the intent is that the applicant either owns the property or has verification of a legal easement or authorization for construction of the transmission line. Ms. Mabbott proposed language that reads, “Submit written verification of ownership and easement, or authorization to construct the transmission line, for use of all private properties.”
Ms. Mabbott proposed striking condition 13, as it is duplicative of condition 9.
Ms. Mabbott displayed a map that was not included in the Planning Commission packets of the fire district boundaries for Umatilla Rural Fire District and Hermiston Rural Fire District. The majority of the transmission line to the east is outside of a fire protection district, but the conditions are written to require submission of a fire prevention plan and an emergency response plan, and the County Emergency Manager is comfortable with that. He will consult with Pacific Power about how to address those plans.
Commissioner Reeder asked if it would be feasible to mow under the line where it is outside of a fire district boundary. Commissioner Colgan noted that the applicant is required to have a vegetation management plan through the Public Utility Commission (PUC). Ms. Mabbott added that the county has a standard for a weed control plan as a condition of approval. Emergency Manager, Jim Stearns will also be making a recommendation that the area be kept free of highly flammable materials.
Commissioner Rhinhart asked how many new roads would need to be constructed for access. Ms. Mabbott replied that it was her understanding that they would be using existing roads, and any new roads would be for the construction period only.
Applicant/Proponent Testimony:
Brian Fritz, project manager with Pacific Power testified,
noting that the line will follow existing BPA and Pacific Power lines into
Mr. Fritz explained that PacifiCorp wants to operate a safe, reliable, cost effective transmission system. The project was developed based on information gathered through regional power planning studies to determine where there are restraints on the system, or where there is or will be new development.
Mr. Fritz went through the specifications of the line
construction. The line will go from
A guest asked about access roads being placed every three miles. Mr. Fritz explained that they look at existing roads and use them as much as possible, but the distance between roads depends on terrain and is determined in the design process. When the project is complete, any roads that were widened or built are put back as close to original condition as possible. Also, because they are following an existing line, they already have access along their own route.
Commissioner Rhinhart noted that the right-of-ways would be
adjacent to each other and would result in a total 250 foot right-of-way. He wondered if it was possible to put the
lines closer together. Mr. Fritz
explained that the closest they can be is right-of-way against right-of-way. There is a section between Wallula and McNary
where they could put in load shedding skeins that would allow them to site the
line next to the existing line, but from Wallula to
Commissioner Rhinhart asked about adding the line to the existing poles. Mr. Fritz replied that they could, but it would mean a long term outage, and it is expensive.
Commissioner Reeder asked if the parallel lines would also provide a backup system. Mr. Fritz agreed that it would provide reliability, up to the point where both lines are needed to serve the load.
Commissioner Lynde asked it they were designing the line with future build out in mind. Mr. Fritz replied that they are, but they don’t see the need for an additional 230 kv line. There is a wind development area to the east and if it really takes off the 230 line isn’t really the answer. They would need a 500 kv line, but the way the system is connected, there is still need for the underlying 230 to support the load.
Commissioner Reeder wondered if PacifiCorp had an idea for a corridor, in case the wind area develops, to link that power into the grid. Mr. Fritz explained that, by federal law, they must allow access to their system, but the wind development would have to get to the line. If the system is maxed out, cost becomes too much for developers to put in the system to connect.
Mr. Fritz noted that it is not just PacifiCorp doing this
planning. All of the regional
transmission owners are part of a coordinated upgrade of the western
The total cost of the project will be around $90,000,000.00,
with the portion located in
Mr. Fritz went through a timeline of how the route was selected
between 2007 and the present. He noted
that the City of
Commissioner Colgan asked about the two alternatives. Mr. Fritz referred to the original route and
the new route, which is preferred by the City of
Commissioner Lynde asked what would happen if they don’t get approval from the two landowners who have still not agreed to have the line cross their property. Commissioner Colgan relied through eminent domain.
Commissioner Rhinhart asked if there are any permit requirements from DEQ for stormwater runoff. Mr. Fritz responded that there are only requirements during the construction stage.
Commissioner Colgan asked about the wetland study
summary. Carrie Konkol, consultant with
CH2M Hill explained that they surveyed a 300 foot corridor and submitted an
application with the Department of State Lands (
Commissioner Colgan asked if that included construction roads that are necessary, but may impact wetlands. Ms. Konkol replied that they included all wetlands involving construction access.
Umatilla City Manager, Larry Clucas explained why the route
change was requested. The original route
crossed a piece of land owned by Anacapa, which is within the urban growth
boundary of the City of
Opponent Testimony:
Bill Kik testified that he is not really an opponent, but was not aware of the amended route. He suggested another alternative.
Chuck Little testified that he was neutral. He just wanted to make sure that it was done right and was something that all citizens can live with.
Tonya Langley testified on behalf on Rick and Kyla Latham. They want to know if the line can be moved closer to the road because the current proposed line would cross their actively farmed land and would force them to move their center pivots. Ms. Mabbott explained that the County included a condition in their findings that before final approval the applicant will be required to document that the landowners have given approval of line placement.
Greg Jarrett testified that he didn’t grant approval for the line on his land because he doesn’t want it to appear like everyone agrees with the line. He mortgaged his home to purchase this land with the understanding that he would be able to sell it if need be, but with a line crossing through the middle of it, it would lose value. He expressed frustration with the number of power lines in the area.
Agency Testimony:
None
Ms. Mabbott noted that she had received phone calls from property owners, Bernard and Delores Lind, explaining why they did not agree to sign the authorization. They expressed that they are willing to talk with Pacific Power, but they have made an investment in the property and don’t want the line to cross it as long as they are the owners. The property is currently on the market.
Rebuttal Testimony:
Brian Fritz explained that the reason for moving the line to the north is because they have to stay within 500 feet of existing transmission. Mr. Kik argued that it made more sense to him to take the line across the south of his property and followed the property line. Mr. Fritz replied that part of the reason they moved the line north on his property was because they are not sure they can cross the existing BPA line because the tower in the vicinity of Mr. Kik’s property is very short. They are required to go under BPA lines, but the short height of this tower would not allow that. PacifiCorp felt that their alternative would be less impacting to the Kik property because there would be no jog in middle of the property requiring guy wires, etc.
Commissioner Standley asked about extra expense to raise the tower. Mr. Fritz explained that raising one tower would require raising several others down the line. Each tower raise would be approximately $500,000.00 to $800,000.00.
Commissioner Colgan asked why they have to stay within 500 feet of the BPA line. Mr. Fritz replied that EFSC prefers use of existing corridors and allows them to go through the County process if using corridors.
Commissioner Lynde asked why they can’t connect to the BPA towers. Mr. Fritz explained that every tower would have to be rebuilt and they couldn’t afford to take those lines out of service because it is BPA’s monumental 500 KV line. They don’t feel there will be need for another line after this, so they are building for the future.
Ms. Mabbott asked about moving the proposed line around Umatilla further to the west or south. Mr. Fritz explained that they have to cross BPA line and there is a certain point were the BPA tower is tall enough for them to cross under. Otherwise they’re getting outside the existing corridor.
Commissioner Williams asked about condemnation. Mr. Fritz explained that they always negotiate first. The eminent domain process is their last option.
Commissioner Standley asked about moving the line to the east in one area. Mr. Fritz replied that it would be outside of the 500 foot corridor. Ms. Mabbott commented that it is not really a physical limitation, but rather, a regulatory jurisdiction that PacifiCorp wishes to avoid. Mr. Fritz explained that EFSC prefers that a corridor be used if possible. Mr. Clucas noted that the city would object if they moved further east in that area because it would be even more impacting than the original route.
Mr. Fritz addressed the Latham property question, noting that they are aware of potential impacts, and they don’t like to cross crop circles if they don’t have to. The will work with the landowner to determine the value of the crop and compensate for damages.
Commissioner Reeder asked for more information about the BPA
line and its significance in the region.
Mr. Fritz explained that the BPA line is a main feed from the
BPA is difficult to work with and they are also very protective of their system. PacifiCorp would no doubt be told no if they were to request a double circuit. It would require a 4-6 month outage and the value of the resource is too great.
Ms. Mabbott noted that it helped her to look at a copy the
Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC) illustration of major utilities in
the
Commissioner Wysocki asked if there is a way to get around the jurisdictional issue and go outside of the corridor. Mr. Fritz replied that there is not. In talking to EFSC and experience with other lines that PacifiCorp has permitted, being next to an existing line is generally less impacting. They understand the impacts to landowners and try to minimize those.
Commissioner Wysocki asked what happens if individual landowners cannot get their issues resolved. Ms. Mabbott replied that the county won’t issue final approval, and if they can’t come to terms then they can take it to a court of law. Any utility also has authority to condemn.
Commissioner Wysocki asked Mr. Jarrett to give his response to Mr. Fritz’s testimony. Mr. Jarrett replied that it is apparent that the proposed is the easiest route, but he would still prefer that it go to the south. He probably still won’t sign an authorization. Mr. Fritz noted that he had made numerous attempts to contact Mr. Jarrett to work with him. PacifiCorp is not opposed to purchasing the property if it were offered for a reasonable price or fair market value. They are willing to enter into negotiations, but not until they have a permit because they may not end up needing to put the line on his property.
Ms. Mabbott noted that they might receive preliminary approval from the Planning Commission, but they can’t get final approval until they receive the landowner’s authorization. Mr. Fritz replied that if they receive approval they could negotiate because at that point the route is agreed upon.
Commissioner Williams asked if the amount PacifiCorp offers the landowner has anything to do with avoiding going through the EFSC process. Mr. Fritz replied that the only extra cost to go through EFSC is some additional time for review. The reason is because existing land use and topography require the line to go in a certain location.
Commissioner Williams clarified that her concern was that the property owners are adequately compensated. Mr. Fritz replied that they are required to get appraisals, and the landowner can get their own appraisal if they choose. They compare prices and negotiate from there.
Commissioner Rhinhart called for requests for a continuance or to keep the record open. There were none.
Hearing Closed; Deliberation and Decision:
Commissioner Colgan stated that he understood the concerns of property owners, but moving the line from their backyard to someone else’s is not a resolution. There will always be some conflict, but the conditions established by staff, and oversight by PUC and other regulatory agencies cover how the line is operated and reported on. This application is on a different playing field that it would be with a private developer. He did not think going through the EFSC process would result in a different outcome.
Commissioner Williams asked for Commissioner Reeder’s thoughts on the corridor that the proposed line would follow. Commissioner Reeder replied that he is more concerned with corridors for lines that feed in from wind turbines.
Commissioner Colgan commented that the county needs a
Commissioner Standley moved to approve Conditional Use Request #C-1137-08 and Land Use Decision Request #LUD-083-08, approving the findings and conditions #1-19, with the proposed changes to #5, and deletion of #13. Commissioner Reeder amended the motion to say #5 as proposed by the director, deleting #13, and deleting the reference to the bonding requirement on page 7. Commissioner Reeder seconded. Question called. Motion carried 8:0.
NEW HEARING:
Land Use Decision #LUD-092-09 & Conditional Use
Request #C-1145-09. Applicant is
Commissioner Rhinhart called for abstentions or objections to the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Standley declared that he is an affected property owner and a member of the Cooperative. Commissioner Rhinhart also declared that he is an affected property owner and member of Cooperative. Both commissioners felt they could still make an unbiased decision.
Staff Report:
Tamra Mabbott, Planning Director presented the staff report, explaining the importance of the project for the south part of the county. It is simply replacing an existing 65 Kv line, but it must still go through the required analysis.
Ms. Mabbott referred to the line on a map, and noted that
the City of
The engineering study is already complete, and they have
land use authorization from landowners, although because it is a replacement of
an existing line,
Ms. Mabbott explained that she had reviewed the preliminary findings with Henry Lorenzen, attorney for the applicant, and Mr. Lorenzen proposed a change to condition #2 to read, “…to the extent work will be performed within the right-of-way”. He also suggested condition #3 be changed to “obtain crossing permit”.
The applicant is working with the Emergency Manager on a Fire Protection Plan. All of the proposed line lies within a fire protection area.
Commissioner Wysocki asked if replacement of the existing
line was increasing capacity. The applicant replied that they are replacing the
existing line with a bigger wire, which will be capable of greater ampage, but
the line will be operated at the current voltage. Although the City of
Commissioner Standley asked if they’d looked into how wind power would play in and affect increases to energy generation. The applicant replied that they hadn’t really looked into that because their line pretty much ends at Pilot Rock and the existing 69 Kv line there would create a bottleneck. Commissioner Standley suggested that Columbia Power consider a substation to offload and feed their facilites.
Commissioner Colgan noted that a physical description of the length of the line should be added to the findings. Staff noted this.
Applicant/Proponent Testimony:
Henry Lorenzen, general counsel for the Cooperative explained that the purpose of the project was to replace an aging, unreliable line between Ukiah and Pilot Rock. An example of why it needs replaced would be last year when freezing fog damaged the line and disrupted service to Ukiah. Fortunately their distribution system was able to hold up and provide a back feed, but it was very problematic. A new line will also greatly improve safety.
Mr. Lorenzen noted that they had not yet provided the cultural resource survey. It had not been provided previously because they were under the belief that the survey was highly confidential, but they will provide that document to staff tomorrow.
There was discussion regarding preparation for future upgrades to the line to accommodate wind energy. The applicant explained that they did propose the line for 115 Kv with operation at 69 Kv. Then if PacifiCorp ever upgraded their system it would be ready. But the project is a cooperative between Columbia Power and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), and BPA recommended 69 Kv. Inquiries to PacifiCorp revealed that they have no plans to upgrade their system to 115 Kv, so the position of BPA is that there is no reason to build a 115 Kv line on the end of a 69 Kv system at a 5% extra cost.
The line will, however, be composed of a much heavier conductor so it will be capable of wheeling much more power. It would be possible to increase to 115 Kv by changing the insulators in the future.
Commissioner Rhinhart asked about transmission construction. The applicant explained that in some sections the new line would be build next to the existing line, but in several areas the existing line is already in a good location so the new line will be constructed in the same location.
Commissioner Colgan asked how the applicant would deal with vegetation management. The applicant replied that Oregon PUC has requirements they must follow.
Commissioner Colgan asked the applicant what their experience was as a cooperative with the issue of wheeling power for wind power. Mr. Lorenzen explained that there are a lot of things that can be done to prepare for future need, but it costs money. The question is whether the PUC will allow regulated utilities to rate base the costs. He suggested that Planning Commissions may want to take this issue up with the PUC, recognizing that it is important to put some of these cost up front. Commissioner Colgan asked if Mr. Lorenzen would be willing to address the Planning Commission in a work session about the issue. Mr. Lorenzen agreed. Discussion.
Ms. Mabbott note that she had a draft proposal to develop a corridor study, to give us some planning tools addressing some of the issues the Planning Commission is concerned about. The study would help determine incentives or co-location options. Commissioner Colgan added that it would be helpful to understand more thoroughly the PUC’s role. Discussion.
Commissioner Lynde asked about pole construction. The applicant explained that the line would be single pole, but a few sections in longer stretches will be H-frame. There will be down guys and storm guys installed to provide stopping points in case there were to be a downed pole.
Opponent Testimony:
None
Agency Testimony:
None
Rebuttal Testimony:
None
Commissioner Rhinhart called for requests for continuance or to keep the record open. There were none.
Hearing Closed; Deliberation and Decision:
Commissioner Colgan asked that condition #3 be clarified that it is a crossing permit. The language in #2 would be changed to “…to the extent work would be performed within the right-of-way.” There was discussion about whether condition #7, requiring a decommissioning plan, was necessary. It was decided that it would not be removed. Ms. Mabbott noted that a reference to the PUC requirement for a decommissioning plan should be sufficient to satisfy compliance with that condition.
Commissioner Reeder moved approval of Land Use Decision Request #LUD-092-09 and Conditional Use Request #C-1145-09 consistent with the application; with amendments to conditions #2, 3, 7, and accepting the findings. Commissioner Colgan seconded. Question called. Motion carried 6:0 with abstentions by Commissioner Standley and Commissioner Rhinhart.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Update on
Senior Planner, Carol Johnson provided an update on the EFSC
amendment to the Stateline
The request for input from the county came in December, 2008. A draft order was completed last week based on all comments received, and the comment period ends March 23rd. There will probably then be an actual counsel hearing. Once the actual order is complete, the county will issue a Conditional Use Permit. There is no other public process.
Ms. Mabbott noted that the amendment would normally have been referred to the Planning Commission, but because there was only a 1-2 week turnaround time to provide comments to EFSC it was not possible to schedule a Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. Johnson noted that she and Ms. Mabbott have a tentative
meeting with Gaelectric next week to look at their proposed project in the
Commissioner Colgan commented that it would take a very effective, competent attorney to represent against EFSC, and there must be extremely strong arguments. If an application is contested against EFSC it goes to the Supreme Court, and could take a lot of time and money.
Commissioner Reeder wondered what kind of insight the county could provide. Ms. Mabbott explained that after a company files a Notice of Intent with the State, EFSC requests a list of applicable substantive criteria. If the county feels the need to provide insight into how we interpret those criteria we can. EFSC has a scenic value, but it has not been tested.
Commissioner Reeder asked about the
LUBA Update on
Flying J:
Ms. Mabbott explained that LUBA had remanded the Flying J decision back to the county on road agreement and fencing requirement issues.
Miscellaneous:
Ms. Mabbott noted she had visited with consultants who specialize in transmission lines and power projects. She let them know that the Umatilla County Planning Commission would really like to put together a transmission corridor plan. She recently received a draft proposal, which she could share with the Planning Commission.
Boardman to Hemingway Project: –
The recommendation of the Planning Commission to move the line further south was heeded. It will run south of Pilot Rock, much closer to proposed projects down there.
Ms. Johnson visited Monday with representatives from another project to the west of Pilot Rock. The company, called Eural Wind is a private Spanish family owned company proposing a 65 mw line to Pilot Rock.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,
Heather Haueter
Secretary