Loading...
1991-18111-Minutes for Meeting June 11,1991 Recorded 6/20/199191-811 0106 1736 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES J,~~;•Of"MED PACIFICORP APPEAL OF DECISION ON SP-90-135 ^~i1 JUNE 11, 1991 Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 9 a., $oard members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop, and nncy -Pope Schlangen. Also present were Bruce White, Assistant Legaa-",o sel _ orp Before the Board was a public hearing on an appeal by P fi- of the Hearings Officer's decision for SP-90-135, a Site%n-for an electric transmission line in an RR-10 and F-2 zong.r-, They appealed mainly to get a clarification of certain requirement§`'in the Hearings Officer's decision. and Paul Blikstad, Planner. C.'D Paul Blikstad gave the staff report. He said the proposed transmission line ran from Rocking Horse Road across the Deschutes to an existing line on the west side of the river. The Site Plan was submitted following approval of CU-90-125 which the Board heard in November of 1990. The hearing on the site plan request was held February 19, 1991, continued for written comments until March 8, a decision was rendered by Denise Frisbee on April 11, 1991, and the appeal was submitted on April 22, 1991. The river crossing with within both the State and Federal Scenic Waterways and was on land which was administered by the U.S. Forest Service on both sides of the river. The Forest Service had determined that if this crossing was allowed, PacifiCorp would have to do an Environmental Impact Statement. Bruce White clarified that the Board had already decided where the crossing would be located in their decision on the conditional use application last year and, therefore, it was not an issue for this hearing. In the former decision, it was not clear where the line would come up on the west side of the river, and the map used at the hearing was not included in the record. The Board was being asked to clarify its November decision concerning where the line would go on the western side of the river, and the configuration of the crossing. Should the Board want to approve the site plan, they could do so based upon the Hearings Officer's decision with some minor language changes and the addition of a map. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing. He asked if any of the Board members had had any contacts with the parties regarding this issue. All Board members indicated they had not. Chairman Maudlin announced that issues not brought up at this hearing could not be appealed later to LUBA. He asked if the conditional use permit approved by the Board was currently being appealed. Bruce White said it had been appealed to LUBA, but he understood that the appellants were now satisfied with the latest route the line was taking. r1 PAGE 1 MINUTES: 6/11/91 a~,~ ' 010 6 1'737 Steven Pfeiffer, attorney for Pacific, 900 SW 5th, Portland, testified that they had raised three issues in their appeal: (1) on page 21 of the Hearings Officer's decision, paragraph 3, the second sentence read, "A single pole horizontal crossing should be used if feasible with respect to relocation of the crossing." Later in the same paragraph, the same statement was used again. The problem presented by the language was that they only had two options at the crossing: (a) a three pole crossing which allowed a horizontal profile of the lines, or (b) a single pole crossing which could not support a horizontal configuration of the wires. One pole would require a vertical placement of the seven wires. He asked that the Board substitute the phrase "a single pole horizontal," with the phrase "a three pole crossing" in the second sentence of the paragraph; and substitute "A single pole, level, horizontal river crossing" on line 11 with "a three pole, level river crossing." (2) That the language on line 6 of paragraph 3 on page 21 of the Hearings Officer's decision be clarified. They asked that the Board attach a map to depict the actual alignment and amend the sentence to read, "The line should be designed to stay as low as possible as it departs from the river up the natural draw with the aim of taking advantage of topographical screening, as depicted on Exhibit " (which was Exhibit 11 of the hearings officers record). (3) If the Board decided to specify a single pole crossing instead of a three pole, they wanted to acknowledge the height of the pole would be increased from 90 feet (79' above ground) to 105 feet (93' above ground). The Hearings officer's decision did not specify the height of the poles, so they wanted it clarified in the appeal. Commissioner Throop asked Counsel if that meant that PP&L could put up a 1,000 foot pole if they had the technology to do so? Bruce White said there was nothing in the conditions which limited the height of the pole. It was probable that the record would reflect a certain height. He thought there might also be a difference in pole materials between a one pole and a three pole configuration. Mr. Pfeiffer said the alternatives could be discussed by Mark Heidecke. Mark Heidecke, GE Rawley and Associates, PO Box 25247, Beaverton, OR, gave the Commissioners copies of Hearings Officer's Exhibit 11 which was also marked with orange tag 28. This exhibit showed alternative 4C which was the location of the crossing discussed in the conditional use permit process. This route crossed the river with an angle point near the section corner and along the forked tree, with an angle point location below the rim rock, just above the river, about 200 feet away from the river bank but below the level of the rim rock. It then proceeded up the draw to the head of the draw just below a road, and then along the edge of the burn, or within 100-150 feet of the edge of the burn, up to the existing Midstate line. He asked that this exhibit be attached to the Board's decision to clarify the location of the alternative 4C. PAGE 2 MINUTES: 6/11/91 0106 1'738 Bruce White asked if 4C was the alternative which the Hearings Officer had approved. Mr. Heidecke said that it was. Mark Heidecke said Pacific Power would also like to have clarified which type of conductor configuration should be utilized in crossing the river. Pacific Power believed that a three pole crossing of the river at this location afforded the minimum visual impact on the river. They would use a 65 foot, wood pole (approximately 58 feet above ground on the east and west bank). The angle point on the west bank of the river was located at the base of the rim rock. The bottom conductor would be 29 feet above the river and the top conductors would be at 15 feet above the lower conductors. There would be four wires on the lower profile and three wires on the upper profile. The upper wires were for transmission and the lower being distribution wires. Mr. Heidecke submitted Exhibit B which depicted a single, wood pole crossing. The pole on the east side of the river would be a 105 foot pole or 95 feet in air. The pole on the west side would be a 95 foot pole or 87 feet above ground. Because of the constraints of a single pole crossing with a 570 foot span across the river, the poles had to be dead ended. In order to dead end a span of this length, the conductors had to be firmly attached to each pole in a vertical configuration. A cross arm could not be utilized because the span length was too great. Pacific would use seven different profiles of conductors with a neutral wire at 24 feet above the river, then each distribution wire above that would be separated by 8 feet, and then each transmission wire above that would be separated by 10 feet. Exhibit A showed the three pole crossing which represented a lower profile to the river viewer by some 35 feet from the upper most wire. Pacific felt the three pole crossing was a preferred crossing with fewer view impacts. The single pole, horizontal crossing was not a feasible engineering option even if they went to steel or concrete. He gave the Board an exhibit showing the vertical configuration for a single pole crossing, except it would have one more conductor at the bottom for the neutral phase. In the three pole crossing exhibit, there were three poles with each of the transmission conductors attached to each of the poles and a cross arm below it with four distribution phases attached at the black dots on the cross arm. He submitted a drawing of the angle at which the lines would come into the cross arm and then out of the draw. Each of the poles would have guy wires coming down to the ground. The top of the pole would be below the top of the rim rock, and they went up the draw. These exhibits were marked as Exhibits C, D, and E. Bruce White asked if the Hearings Officer was confused in the third paragraph of page 16 of her decision? Mr. Pfeiffer said that on page 21, paragraph 3, second sentence, the hearings officer said, "A single pole horizontal crossing should be used if feasible . " Then in the last sentence of paragraph 3, she talked about the PAGE 3 MINUTES: 6/11/91 0106 1'739 process of moving from a single pole to a three pole if Pacific decided it wasn't feasible and wanted to ask for a three pole, which would start a kind of third round of review. Pacific felt it was easier to handle this problem by coming before the Board and dealing with this issue now. So they felt her statement on page 16, indicating the single pole was less obtrusive, was based upon the assumption that they could use horizontal lines when using a single pole. If the Board approved the change in language from single pole to three pole, the last sentence on Page 21, paragraph 3 should be deleted since it explained the process for requesting how to make this change. However if the Board decided to leave the single pole language, they wanted the last sentence to remain, so they could still make a request to the Planning staff. Betty Marquardt, PO Box 1138, Sisters, testified against the appeal. She was horrified to see how many cords would be hanging over the river and felt it should have been a portion of original site plan. She felt it had not been made clear at the hearing in November exactly where the lines would be placed. She gave the Board two exhibits to be placed into the record. One concerned the responsibility of PP&L to comply with Deschutes County Zoning ordinances which stated that a clear site plan or map should be a part of the application. She wanted to see a site plan map of the transmission lines which would go over the wild and scenic Deschutes River. The second concerned the laws relating to landscaping open space. The Forest Services area was considered open space according to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. She turned in a page from the Comprehensive Plan indicating that all electric transmission lines should be placed in an electrical corridor. She felt that a more appropriate location for the line would be about one-half mile before the Forest Service Visitors' Center using road 9710 for power lines. The power lines could go down Highway 97. Although the hearings office approved the application, the Hearings Officer had not seen the exhibits with all of the lines which had been submitted at this hearing. Commissioner Throop asked Pacific if they had a copy of the site plan document which could be given to Betty Marquardt. Pacific said that the information she was seeking was a matter of record and was already part of the file. Betty Marquardt responded that what had been shown at this hearing had not been seen at previous hearings. Commissioner Throop asked Counsel if he had an opinion on the completeness of the site plan. Bruce White said that the drawing exhibits had been shown at the hearing before the Hearings Officer. He said Betty Marquardt was inappropriately challenging the crossing site, when the site had already been decided last November and, therefore, was not open for reconsideration at this hearing. Paul Blikstad commented that Betty Marquardt was correct in that there was no site plan for that portion of the line which ran from the west side of the river to the existing Midstate line. Because PAGE 4 MINUTES: 6/11/91 0106 1'740 this area was Forest Services property, the staff felt it was not a consideration for the County. Betty Marquardt said that part of the reason she submitted information was for the Forest Service to use in their study. Bruce White clarified that the Forest Service was going through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process where they would be looking at alternative crossings, so it was possible that this crossing would not be the one that the Forest Service would approve. In that case, the Board would have to revisit this decision. He said the concerned area was just outside the urban growth boundary, and that the area around the river was Forest Service property. Commissioner Schlangen asked why the Board was making a decision before the Forest Service had considered the crossing site. Bruce White said the County liked to exert as much jurisdiction as possible and have as much influence as possible over the Forest Service who could preempt the County's decisions on federal lands. So through this hearings process, the County was exerting the County's position. The Forest Service did not determined until about one month ago (which was after this process had started) that it was necessary for them to look at alternative crossing sites. The decision made by the Board could eventually be moot if the Forest Service decided that there was an alternative route which was better. Molly Chaudet, Environmental Coordinator on the Bend Ranger District and on the interdisciplinary team for the environmental impact statement for the proposed river crossing, wanted to outline the process the Forest Service would be going through and to see whether the County and the Forest Service could join together in a cooperative effort rather than the County making a decision, and then the Forest Services going through their process separately. So far the County had made a recommendation to the Forest Service on the best location for a crossing. The Forest Service would be looking at all of the issues and other alternatives, if the range of alternatives which they currently had did not respond to all of the significant issues which had been identified. She felt the crossing approved by the Hearings Officer was different than the crossing site alternative which had been approved by the Board. She understood the conditional use permit was granted on Alternative 4B and was submitted to the Forest Service as Alternative 4B. When that line was staked, a concern was raised regarding the description which the County Commissioners received on their site visit, and what was actually submitted on the map. She asked if it was the County's interpretation that the Hearings Officer's finding changed the alternative on the west side of the river to Alternative 4C. PAGE 5 MINUTES: 6/11/91 0106 1'741 Chairman Maudlin said the decision made by the Board was that a route would be permitted using 4B or a combination of 4B and 4A which would run up the draw and have the least amount of visual impact from the east. He didn't know where 4C came from. Bruce White asked if the map referred to as Exhibit 11 was consistent with what the Board thought they were approving. Chairman Maudlin said yes, if it went up the draw, but that he had never seen it staked. Molly Chaudet said it was apparently mapped differently as well. The map that was included in the proposal did not show a line that went up the draw. She felt the interpretation that the Hearings officer placed was that alternative 4C represented the line that went up the draw which the Board had approved. Chairman Maudlin said he had made a motion to use Alternative 4B which was the western most line. Ex-commissioner Prante then amended his motion to make it 4B or a combination between 4A and 4B so there would be some leeway for the Forest Service. Molly Chaudet said the alignment of 4B did not go up the draw, but that 4C appeared to reflect what the Board had intended. Commissioner Throop said that the original vote was 2-1, and that Chairman Maudlin was the only Commissioner currently on the Board who voted for it. Commissioner Throop had voted against it because he didn't feel it was a legal application. He felt the comprehensive plan needed to be amended before a conditional use permit was approved. He also had concerns about the culture artifacts, the State and Federal Scenic Waterways, and felt power lines were more conducive to road rights-of-way and other developed area rather than undeveloped public lands. Molly Chaudet said she felt there was an option for the Board to postpone making this decision to allow time for the County and the Forest Service to work in cooperation in the development of the EIS and to look at the alternatives. However, if the Board decided to make a decision, the Forest Service would take their recommendation into consideration. Stosh Thompson, adjacent landowner and manager of the wildlife sanctuary which was crossed by the proposed line, said he had served on the Planning Commission for eight years. In view of the effects of the Awbrey Hall fire, which occurred in the middle of this process, he felt it was a bad idea for the power lines to cross the river at this location, especially since the area included a designated wildlife sanctuary, a State and Federal Wild and Scenic River corridor, and U.S. Forest Service land which could someday be part of the Bend Urban Growth Area. He was concerned that this map (Exhibit 11, marked 28) be the one that is always be referred to in the future. He understood the lines would cross low PAGE 6 MINUTES: 6/11/91 0106 1742 to low and asked what the elevation would be on bottom of the first pole. Mark Heideke said it would be approximately 10 feet above river level. Mr. Thompson said that what was designated as 4C was what everyone had understood to be 4B at the previous hearing before the Board. Commissioner Maudlin said at the site visit when they were looking across at the Kruden property, they looked up river and there was a stake with a draw on the other side of it. He asked if that was the same location as indicated on the 4C map. Mr. Thompson said it was. He agreed that a three pole crossing would probably be better than the one pole. He felt it was important for the County to make a decision on this matter today. If the Forest Service settled on another route or made any changes in the route, the project would have to come back through the process again. He said the County had the ability to deny the site plan if the Forest Service came up with a crossing site which the County did not want. Bruce White said that if the County approved this route today, it would be the only approved route. If the Forest Service came up with another alternative, the process would begin all over again. Paul Blikstad said that the draw in question had an area of 100- 150 feet where a slight different in the placement of the pole could make a significant different in the impact. He suggested having the line staked so that everyone could see exactly where it was going to be before the decision was made. Chairman Maudlin said the County could not say exactly where the line would go because the Forest Service had jurisdiction, and the Board had already decided to run the line up the draw while maintaining the least visual impact from the east side. Commissioner Throop said he felt it was important that the Forest Service be an independent agency in making this decision. He didn't want Deschutes County driving the Forest Service decision. He recommend that the Board either make a decision today or postpone making a decision and suspend any kind of activity until the Forest Service had made their independent decision. He felt there were better locations for this kind of development. Mark Heideke asked if he could clarify the confusion concerning Exhibits 4B and 4C. Unfortunately, an exhibit that was prepared and submitted during the conditional use appeals hearing was misplaced. The original 4B which was submitted in the site plan application was known as orange Exhibit 27 and in the Hearings Officer's decision was known as Exhibit 9. The angle point was on the east side of the river, and in his testimony, he had mentioned a swale. There was not a meeting of the minds on the location. Exhibit 4C in the minds of many was preferable to another location which headed up to a small indentation in the rim rock which was approximately 600 feet from the section line, while 4C was about 1,800 feet from the section line. After the refinement of the PAGE 7 MINUTES: 6/11/91 0106 1'743 location, they corrected the map to go up the draw and across. If the Board wanted the line to go up the draw, 4C was the correct exhibit. Chairman Maudlin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Throop suggested two options: (1) making a decision today, or (2) deferring the decision in order to let the Forest Service complete their work with the caveat that the Forest Service not consider the postponement an attempt by the County to aid the Forest Service in their process by forming a partnership. Commissioners Maudlin and Schlangen said they wanted to make a decision today. SCHLANGEN: I'm ready to move adoption of the Hearings Officer's findings with the following clarifications or changes: on page 21, #3, change the word from single pole horizontal to three-pole horizontal; on line 9, after screening, to add, as depicted in alternative 4C on exhibit 11-28; and to delete the last sentence of the paragraph. THROOP: I'll second the motion. Bruce White said he felt there was another reference to "single pole" that would also need to be changed to "three pole". SCHLANGEN: There are two references. May I correct that, the first one from single pole in line 3 to three pole then on line 9 add "as depicted in exhibit A," then again down on line 14 to change "single pole level horizontal" to "three pole level horizontal; and then to delete the sentence starting, "If the relocation," on line 15. THROOP: Second. Bruce White ask if the Commissioners wanted to specify a pole height? Commissioner Maudlin asked if the County could rely on the testimony that the pole would be approximately 55 feet out of the ground. Bruce White said that for purposes of enforcement, a specific condition was better rather than relying on testimony. An appropriate condition might be that the pole would be no higher than a certain height at a specific location. Commissioner Throop said he would be consistent and vote no. He felt this was approved under an unlawful process. He had come to the conclusion that there needed to be urban solutions for these kinds of urban problems rather than trying to fix them on very important rural lands with important natural resource values. PAGE 8 MINUTES: 6/11/91 010 6 1'744 Commissioner Schlangen said a decision on the location of the line had already been made, and she felt the Forest Service would evaluated the cultural and resource issues. Commissioner Maudlin said there were already different types of lines out in this location. Apparently this line was necessary for any growth to the west of Bend. He felt it was appropriate for the Board to make a decision based on what they felt was the best option. Jim Fisher, Area Operations Manager for Pacific Power and Light, said that any references to pole height needed to be clear as to whether it was the total height of the pole or the height of the pole from the ground up. Bruce White asked if the Board wanted to amend their motion to make specific reference, i.e. to say a three pole crossing as depicted in Commissioners' Hearing Exhibit A, that would set forth that the pole on either side of the river would be at pole top 57 feet above the ground. He suggested that the motion be changed to read: "a three pole crossing as depicted in Commissioners' hearing Exhibit A." SCHLANGEN: I so change my motion to reflect in line 3 and 14. THROOP: I'll second the motion to amend. (voting on the amendment) VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES (voting on the main motion) VOTE: THROOP: NO SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS T Throop, Commiss'c ancy,,P ,Sc langen, DY'1'c `lMddl in; BOCC:alb PAGE 9 MINUTES: 6/11/91