Loading...
1992-05043-Minutes for Meeting January 14,1992 Recorded 2/10/199292_oso 0108 1245 43 MINUTES` c C77 _ PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT PUBLIC HEARING tit co DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS r" January 14, 1992 r-rC-3 EKY � Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. oafd members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Nancy Pope Schlangen. Also present were Paul Blikstad, County Planner and Bruce White, Assistant Legal Counsel. Before the Board was a public hearing on an appeal of the County Hearings Officer's denial of the Conditional Use and Site Plan applications (CU -91-116 and SP -91-135) for an electric transmission line to extend from Hamby Road on the northeast side of Bend to the China Hat substation on Rocking Horse Road on the south side of Bend. Chairman Maudlin said that everything which was already in the record and everything that had been received or testified to on this issue would be included in the record. He asked if any of the Commissioner had had any ex parte contacts concerning this issue. Commissioner Schlangen said she had had none. Commissioner Throop said he had had one contact since he had participated in a meeting which Mr. Clark Satre from Pacific Power called in November 1991. The purpose of the meeting was to get various agencies to look at the question of power transmission problems in the Bend area. Most of the discussion centered around whether there were alternatives to the route before the Board in this appeal. A subsequent meeting was scheduled for January 9, 1992, to look at some of the alternatives however that meeting was canceled. He did not feel that his attendance at this meeting biased him in any way. Chairman Maudlin said he had had no contacts regarding this hearing. Chairman Maudlin said the time would be limited to one hour for the proponents and one hour for the opponents. He pointed out that in a County ordinance it stated that the County shall not take redundant testimony, so he requested that people keep their remarks to new testimony. He asked for a staff report. Paul Blikstad said that the issue before the Commission was an appeal of the County Hearings Officer's decision on CU -91-116 and SP -91-135 a conditional use permit and site plan for a 69/115 KV electric transmission line. The line was proposed to extend from Hamby Road in the northeast portion of Bend to the China Hat substation on Rocking Horse Road south of Bend. The conditional use permit was submitted for approval of that portion of the proposed transmission line lying within the urban growth boundary of Bend but outside of the Bend City limits. The site plan was submitted for that portion of the line lying outside the urban PAGE 1 MINUTES: 1-14-92 r1„Co.OF�MED 01081246 growth boundary. The applicant also submitted a site plan application with the City of Bend for that portion of the line within the Bend City limits. The appeal before the Board did not include any portion of the line within the City limits of Bend, however it was clear that the line had to be considered as a whole. The public hearing before the Hearings Officer was held on two evenings in September 1991. The record was left open for additional testimony until October 15, 1992, and for written rebuttal until October 25, 1991. The Hearing Officer's written findings and decision was rendered on November 25, 1991. The Hearing Officer denied the application based mainly on the finding that the proposed transmission line would have substantial adverse impacts on the neighborhoods through which it would traverse. The Hearings Officer also found that there may be other alternative routes that would be more appropriate for the line and would have less impact on fewer people. The applicant stated in the notice of appeal that the proposed lines should be a use permitted outright in the urban area and not subject to the general conditional use criteria of Section 19.100.030 of Title 19, the Bend Urban Growth Boundary Zoning Ordinance. The applicant further contended that the special use standards of Section 19.88.120 of Title 19, Utilities, were the only criteria which should apply to that portion of the line within the Urban Growth Boundary. He said the Board had to decide whether the language of Section 19.88.120 of Title 19 actually established transmission lines as a permitted use in the Bend Urban Area subject only to the criteria established in that section, or that the transmission lines were a conditional use subject to the other general conditional use criteria. He then read the standards which were applicable to the conditional use and site plan applications. He said the Planning Division had also received twelve additional letters since the appeal. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing and asked for testimony from the proponents. Clark Satre, Pacific Power Area Manager for Central Oregon, PO Box 1209, Bend 97709, testified that he had been employed by Pacific Power for 20 years and that he was a registered, professional electrical engineer in the State of Oregon. He outlined their hour presentation. Jim Fisher, Operations Manager for Pacific Power & Light in the mid -Oregon area, PO Box 1209, Bend, OR 97709, testified that no one who had testified in any other hearings had questioned the need for this transmission line. The existing system was 20-25 years old. He pointed out PP&L's existing transmission system and the proposed transmission line. He said the current system was an obvious loop which began at Pilot Butte and ended at Pilot Butte and was predominantly located in the north half of the Bend urban area. He said that last winter this loop was loaded at and beyond its rated capacity (up to 130% of capacity). Because of this they had some real serious problems which required them to take a lot of PAGE 2 MINUTES: 1-14-92 0108 124'7 short cuts, disable switches, and turned off alarms in order to slide by without any major catastrophes. They had to put in a temporary sub at Blakley Road Substation which added some additional capacity. Chairman Maudlin asked if the added equipment at the Blakley Substation could be added to the system to help out with any future problems. Mr. Fisher said the permit for this substation did not include a proper foundation, included only temporary equipment, and was only tied into the system on an emergency basis. It was so close to the Cleveland Avenue site that it added from a capacity standpoint but not from a delivery standpoint. Commissioner Throop asked if there were other alternatives which Pacific Power could consider for a line route. Mr. Fisher said there were "any number of routes with hundreds of variations that could actually come south and tie this thing together." He said they had already considered 20-30 routes which led them to proposing this route as the best. Commissioner Throop asked what his response was to the Hearings Officer's decision which said proposing a single route was not the best way to proceed and that there needed to be some community decision making involved in selecting the best alternative. Mr. Fisher said they didn't have anything against working with people in selecting a route, but he understood that because of the way the ordinance was constructed, PP&L could not make an application with a map indicating six or seven routes, but were limited to one specific proposal. Mark Heidecke, GE Rawley and Associates out of Beaverton, P.O. Box 25247, Portland, 97225, testified that he had been the manager for this project for the last 30 months. He said that from the Pilot Butte substation to the Bend City limits there would be double circuit transmission lines on galvanized steel structures. This would eliminate the need for guy wires which were necessary on wood poles, thus minimizing the visual impacts. These structures would vary in height from between 61-70 feet above the ground. The pole height along the railroad tracks would be between 45-46 feet from China Hat Road to the China Hat substation, then 55-61 feet between the Bend City limits and China Hat Road, thus reducing the visual impacts of the line. From the Cleveland Avenue tap point at the city limits to China Hat, the line would be constructed of single wood poles. The reason they proposed this location for the line was because in the County Comprehensive Plan it said, "where feasible, all utility lines and facilities shall be located on or adjacent to an existing public or private right of way so as to avoid dividing existing farm units, and transmission lines should be located within existing corridors as much as possible." Because of this language, they tried to maximize the use of existing transmission corridors between Pilot Butte and China Hat. 40% of the proposed line would be in an existing transmission corridor. The balance was within an existing operating railroad right of way which maximized the use of existing public and private rights of PAGE 3 MINUTES: 1-14-92 0108 1248 way. They analyzed over 20 different alignments between China Hat and Pilot Butte against the Comprehensive Plan. One route considered was route 12A which ran between Pilot Butte and Knott Pit which also maximized the use of existing transmission line corridors. However that alignment was located along an existing CEC right of way along Ward Road and was located in an area of sage brush and juniper covered ground with a sloping terrain to the east. The homesites along Ward Road had mountain vistas and the line would not be screened at all by these juniper trees. They sought to minimize visual impacts by locating the route through an area that had existing ponderosa pine timber cover. Because of these reasons, they felt their proposed route was the best available to meet the "spirit and the intent of the comprehensive plan." Commissioner Throop said that in the Hearings Officer's decision he expressed concern that there wasn't sufficient interaction and participation between PP&L and the public, and asked if there were any meetings with the affected public before the application was submitted. Mr. Heidecke said they did meet with a land owner group from Timber Ridge prior to submission of the permit application. PP&L did issue a press release concerning the existence of the route evaluation which brought them a wide range of comments from the public. He personally spoke with ten individuals on route 12A in conjunction with survey activities. The County ordinances and the Hearings Officer required that their applications be very site specific. This was only a proposal for the east side of the loop, and they would be coming back to the County with another proposal for the west side of the loop. Commissioner Throop said the Hearings Officer indicated to PP&L at the hearing on the west side loop that they needed to be very site specific, while in his decision on the east side loop he said they should be more open to various routes. He asked if Mr. Heidecke wished to comment on that apparent discrepancy. Mr. Heidecke said they felt Mr. Fitch was proposing what he would like the ordinance to be rather than what it really was. He said they would also like to have a smoother process which would given the community as a whole an opportunity to comment. Commissioner Throop asked if there were any established routes which could be used for a southern loop. Mr. Heidecke said no, there weren't any existing transmission lines that went within a mile of the China Hat substation. Chairman Maudlin asked if there were any exiting poles on the railroad right of way on the proposed route. Mr. Heidecke said only in the City of Bend. Chairman Maudlin asked if on route 12A the line would go down an existing CEC line. Mr. Heidecke said yes, but the line would have to be rebuilt for double circuit. Chairman Maudlin asked how tall the CEC existing lines were. Mr. Heidecke said about 55 feet, so the new line would be 10-15 feet higher than the existing lines. Chairman Maudlin asked if metal PAGE 4 MINUTES: 1-14-92 0108 1249 poles were used, could the height be kept to 55 feet? Mr. Heidecke said the problem with the Ward Road alignment was that for most of the line, both Pacific Power and CEC had existing distribution circuits underneath the transmission line. Because of those distribution circuits, they had to maintain a pole height to clear them, so the Ward Road line could never be as low out of the ground as their proposed route. Chairman Maudlin asked if it could perhaps be the same height as the current line, and Mr. Heidecke said it could possibly depending on the terrain. They did not follow through on route 12A when they determined that it would have to go through a surface mining zone where these lines were not an allowed use. Commissioner Throop asked if Pacific Power had dropped their option to cross some property which had been part of the proposed west side route. Mr. Heidecke said the option had expired. The Forest Service had indicated that they could not approve any route available in the wild and scenic river area, therefore there was no longer a need for the option. Commissioner Throop asked if the approved west side route was "dead." Mr. Heidecke said the Forest Service had kept them hanging and some other study had to be done, but the route the Board approved which crossed the wild and scenic waterway was dead. Clark Satre said they did notify the concerned property owner of their intention to exercise the option, however the property owner did not respond so it was in limbo. Because of the Forest Service decision, they hadn't pursued it. Also because there was a condition in the approval regarding the location of the line on Forest Service land, even if there was some other way to place the line on other lands, PP&L would still have to come back to the County for a change in the conditional use permit. Commissioner Schlangen asked about balancing the line if the west side of the loop was not approved. Mr. Satre said they definitely needed to have the entire loop to have a balanced system. The whole China Hat loop (this proposal and a west side proposal) had to be comparable in length to the existing system, so it was important to keep the line length at a minimum from Pilot Butte to China Hat and from China Hat back to the rest of the system. Clark Satre said they were in agreement with the Hearings Officer's finding that the present body of scientific knowledge regarding electromagnetic fields (EMF) was insufficient to make a conclusion as to the possible health effects. The federal government did not have any standards however a few states did. Oregon adopted an EMF standard of 9,000 volts per meter. Montana had the strictest standard of 1,000 volts per meter. The line being proposed would have, at it highest, 420 volts per meter. Florida had adopted a standard that a magnetic field should not exceed 150 milligauss. The average for a single circuit on their proposed line was 1.86 milligauss directly beneath the line. Where it was a double PAGE 5 MINUTES: 1-14-92 0108 1250 circuit, it would be 2.58 milligauss. It dropped significantly as the distance to the line was increased. He did some personal magnetic field measurements in the community and found the following: on 27th between Neff and Highway 20 there were distribution lines with values of 1.8 to 2.4 milligauss, on Division north of Wilson under the distribution line it was 5 milligauss, at his desk in his office there was a field value of 1.7 milligauss, at an underground distribution line in his neighborhood it was 3.5 milligauss, his refrigerator was 2.5 milligauss, the range was 15 milligauss, and the microwave was over 20 milligauss. He didn't feel that transmission lines like those being proposed could be considered the main source of magnetic fields. Mr. Satre continued that their testimony had clearly documented that underground transmission lines cost 10-12 times more than overhead lines. The cost study for this specific installation indicated costs of $1.2 to $1.6 million per mile for an underground line compared to $125,000 per mile for an overhead line. San Diego Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, and Commonwealth Edison which documented that underground rates were over $1 million per mile. The opponents quoted costs from installations in Chicago and Las Vegas, however PP&L has submitted a letter from Chicago and Las Vegas stating they had no such underground transmission lines. The Public Utility Commission said that because an underground line would be an extraordinary cost, they would consider placing the additional costs on the residents of the specific jurisdiction rather than allowing it to be spread throughout the state. Concerning property values, Mr. Satre said PP&L had submitted testimony from a qualified real estate appraiser indicating there was no reduction in property values for homes adjacent to transmission lines, while the opponents submitted opinions, not data or market analysis. Concerning the alternative routes suggested by the opponents, Mr. Satre testified that: (1) the BPA/Forest Service route, which would follow BPA's transmission line and then cut through the Forest Service property, was longer than their proposal and might be too long to be an effective line. It would not be in any established corridor once it left the BPA line; and since this was an urban problem, the solution should also be imposed on the urban area rather than a national forest; (2) the 12A route discussed earlier would expose more homes within 50 feet than the proposed route, and the comprehensive plan did not allow utilities in some of the zones that had to be crossed; and (3) the Highway 97 alternative would probably be proposed as the west side portion of this loop which would not make it feasible for the east side route. Commissioner Throop asked why they couldn't run a double line down Highway 97. Mr. Satre said they didn't feel that was a good alternative because of vehicular exposure. If a vehicle hit a PAGE 6 MINUTES: 1-14-92 0108 1251 pole, both lines would be lost. They felt it was an acceptable risk where the exposure was minor, however the risk along Highway 97 was to high. If there was just one line taken out by a vehicle, that section could be "switched out" and allow power to the China Hat substation through the other line. Commissioner Throop asked how frequently PP&L had lost 69KV transmission lines due to vehicular accidents in the Bend area. Mr. Satre said once or twice a year. Commissioner Throop asked if there would be a difference between a wooden pole and a metal pole. Mr. Satre said they currently had all wooden poles, however he wasn't sure that a metal pole would stand up to a runaway semi either. Chairman Maudlin asked how the comparison of affected homeowners would work out if they used 200 feet from the line instead of 50 feet. Mr. Satre said they had not calculated the effects of 200 feet. In previous hearings, the Hearings Officer had expressed a concern for homes in close proximity to the line because of any potential health effects, so they had focused their count to homes in close proximity. The field values dropped off significantly when you were 50 feet from the line. Commissioner Throop asked if it would be possible to bury the distribution lines, and then pull the pole profile down for the transmission lines. Mr. Satre said it was technically possible but there was a question of cost. Commissioner Schlangen asked if the cost would be the same as putting the transmission line underground. Jim Fisher said the average cost of an underground distribution line would be $20 a foot or about $100,000 per mile where the transmission line would be $1.2-$1.6 million per mile. Steve Pfeiffer, attorney for the applicant, 900 SW 5th, Portland 97204, testified that many of Mr. Fitch's comments were not related in any way to the criteria in the County ordinance. Commissioner Throop asked him if he felt this was a "live issue" for an appeal to LUBA. Mr. Pfeiffer said it would not be valuable as an appeal issue because it was an issue that would be remanded. He felt the one "true" legal issue was whether the conditional use criteria applied in the County. Their position was that the conditional use criteria did not apply to this special use. The need to demonstrate there was no other alternative route was not a standard in the County's ordinance. The standards were: minimal impacts and that the impacts be minimized. The applicants carried the burden of proof that they had made every effort to minimize impacts, and that the impacts were minimal. The applicant, i.e. a shopping center, would undertake their own analysis at to where they wanted the facility to be, and then come forward with their best case of how it would meet the standards. They did not have to exhaust a series of alternatives particularly with a facility which would meet with resistance where ever it would be located. They, therefore, felt that a lack of alternatives could not be the basis for denial. He felt the issue that everyone was grappling with was how to come to these kinds of proceedings having achieved some form PAGE 7 MINUTES: 1-14-92 0108 1252 of consensus up front. They felt that if the County wanted PP&L to proceed by submitting several alternatives, the County would need to set some ground rules. However he felt this would create its own problems, i.e. how would people attending the hearing know the specifics of the project, and how would you determine who to notice. He felt there were two ways of dealing with this problem: the Board could identify and legislate corridors for utilities and everyone could attend the hearing and comment, or the applicant could submit several application. He felt the second option would mean there would have to be several hearings like this one. They had made the effort to look at alternatives and exhaust as many as possible using the criteria established. Chairman Maudlin opened the hearing for testimony from opponents. Bob Lovlien, 40 NW Greenwood, Bend, testified that he was an attorney representing the J.L. Ward Company. Jan Ward and owners of the Developments such as Mountain High, Nottingham Square, and Timber Ridge had been very effective in addressing their concerns, so he just wanted to comment on some of the issues brought up by Steve Pfeiffer. He felt there were two questions: (1) whether alternative sites could be evaluated in one application or a series of applications, and (2) were the conditional use permit criteria in the ordinance applicable to this application? They felt that the conditional use criteria should be applicable to this application. Something of such community -wide concern should have more than two sentences in the ordinance to establish what the criteria should be. They felt the issue of alternative sites was the most important issue. Nobody disagreed there was a need for the power. He didn't see anything wrong with filing seven different applications if there were seven sites which might work. There had to be a "best" site somewhere to locate this particular transmission line. It might not be the best site to those people who lived under it, but there was a "preferable" site for a community, so all of the sites needed to be reviewed. He felt the notice issue could be resolved, i.e. like the Highway Division handled the Parkway issue. They asked that the County deny the application and give direction to PP&L on how to proceed. Commissioner Throop asked what advise and recommendation he would make to the County Board on what to tell PP&L in terms of how to proceed. Mr. Lovlien felt there were two ways to proceed: (1) file a number of different conditional use permit applications or ( 2 ) for the County to pass a super -siting ordinance indicating that something of this kind of magnitude and community -wide concern would be handled differently than a conditional use permit application so that different alternatives could be explored at one time. He felt the easiest answer was to file four or five applications at a time, or one application could be filed with several different alternatives. PAGE 8 MINUTES: 1-14-92 0108 1253 Chairman Maudlin asked if Mr. Lovlien felt the City was in error for not requiring a condition use application in their process when their ordinance language was the same as the County's. Mr. Lovlien said yes. Win Francis, representing Paul Brewer, owner of The Pines Mobile Home Park, testified that the mobile home park had 240 spaces, 60 acres of land with more than 1/2 mile bordering on the proposed transmission line route. Mr. Brewer told him that had he known about the proximity to a proposed power line, he would not have purchased the property. In his office there were six transactions concerning property owned on the east side of town which were in proximity to a power line, and in all six of these negotiations, they "beat on my client" (lowered the price) because of the power lines. The general consensus of the residents of the park was they didn't want the line situated in the proposed location; but if it had to be there, they didn't want it to be above ground. He said he had made applications to the County which had included alternate routes, and he knew that it was a common practice. If everyone involved with this type of process agreed, there was no problem. He didn't feel that the notice issue was significant. Looking at several alternatives at one time would get the public involved with the process. Once the public was involved, their right to argue would be gone because they had involved in the decision. Concerning the issue of whether it was a conditional use, he felt that if the County had interpreted it that way in the past, been they should continue to do so. He felt there should be a discussion about whether the days of above ground lines inside the urban growth boundary were over. Especially since there were a number of areas where the residents had spent their own money to have their power lines underground. Mr. Brewer had indicated he was willing to look into the idea of contributing to the cost of having the line placed underground. Jim Boyle, 20465 Powder Mountain, Bend, questioned how many power poles were taken out by semi trucks as opposed to cars. He felt the number of problems would diminish greatly with the use of metal poles. He felt that the research into negative health effects from electromagnetic fields was currently at the level that the tobacco studies were years ago when few thought cigarette smoke was hazardous. He felt that much more study needed to be done, and that elected officials should protect their constituents from unnecessary health risks. Eleanor Gamba, 60785 Willow Creek Court, Mountain High, said there was a $1.7 million study done over a five-year period by the Electric Power Research Institute of Palo Alto. Doctors from USC said this study indicated a link between childhood leukemia and power lines, black and white TV, etc. They called for prudent avoidance. She didn't feel the proposed line limited exposure to humans. She asked that the Board uphold the Hearings Officer's decision. PAGE 9 MINUTES: 1-14-92 0108 1254 Kim Ward, 60801 Brosterhous Road, wanted to discuss the communities of The Pines Mobile Homes Park and Quail Ridge Mobile Home Park. There were over three hundred families in these communities. The proposed line would go along them for over a mile. They would all be negatively affected by this line. The communities had been developed with parks, playgrounds, open space, and natural areas, and they had all underground utilities. There were no above ground utilities within a mile of them. They didn't want to live under power lines which was one of the reasons they moved there. Jewel School was opposed to the power line going right next to the school and the playground because of the health risks. This same logic should extend to the homes in which the children lived. They requested that the Board uphold the Hearings Officer's denial. Donald Landwehr, vice president of Aspen Village Homeowners Association, testified that he was expressing the view of the Association and himself. There would be seven poles visible from his home. When he bought his lot, there were no power lines and he paid a premium to purchase the lot. Had there been a power line, he didn't believe he would have purchased the lot. The railroad was there when he purchased that lot. There was vegetation on the embankment, and he did not have a visual objection to it. He enjoyed watching the trains go by and didn't consider them a negative like the power poles would be. They had suggested a route which would solve most of the problems being discussed: it stayed within the Forest Service property and outside the urban area, it was 10-1/2 miles long while the proposed route was 9-1/2 miles. The developer of Mountain High, Nottingham, and Timber Ridge set high standards for attractive residential developments which were an asset to the community. He asked that the Commission not allow Pacific Power to destroy these attractive neighborhoods. Commission Throop said the Bulletin newspaper suggested an alternative which would have the people along the line form a local improvement district to fund the costs of burying the power lines. He asked Mr. Landwehr to comment on that proposal. Mr. Landwehr said the cost figures which he and his neighbors had researched were completely different from the ones given by Pacific Power, so he doubted that the costs to place the lines underground were what Pacific Power had quoted. Ray Buseman, 20350 Donkey Sled Road, President of the Timber Ridge Homeowners Association, commended the Hearings Officer for conducting a fair, impartial hearing and filing a thorough report. He said he had lived a dangerous life as a nuclear fighter pilot in the air force when there were standards for radiation. He went through a nuclear blast four miles from ground zero, and two hours later he went to ground zero. He was well within the safety standards for that time. Now he has had two major cancer operations. So he hoped the standards being suggested for power line emissions were more accurate than the radiation standards. Concerning the meeting that PP&L had with the residents, he said he PAGE 10 MINUTES: 1-14-92 0108 1255 set it up. He had contacted an electrical engineer with power line experience in the Association, and they set up the meeting with PP&L. They discussed two routes 12A and 13. They were impressed with 12A, however PP&L objected because there was a small airport and the surface mining zone which didn't allow power lines. He felt the small air strip could be easily moved a few hundred feet. The County could change the zoning ordinance to allow power lines. They felt it made more sense to have poles in a surface mining area than in a beautiful residential area. There was no discussion of possible alternatives because this was not an attempt by PP&L to meet with the community leaders. He asked the Commission to uphold the Hearings Officer's decision. Peg Boyle, 20465 Powder Mountain, Bend, asked how long it would take to repair a pole that had been knocked down on Highway 97. The PP&L representative said that it were a standards pole and it happened at 9 a.m. on a work day, they could have it replaced by 5 p.m. If it occurred on a Sunday or a holiday, it would take longer. Approximately 8 hours under good conditions and up to 20 hours under the worst conditions. Peg Boyle felt it would be better to have two poles go through the forest lands rather than residential areas. She would not have purchased property in this area if she had known power lines were going in this area. Dave Gordon, 60721 Willow Creek Loop in Mountain High, testified that he agreed with the Hearings Officer that there were better routes that would meet the technical criteria with less destructive impacts on health and property values. He felt the actions of the applicant continued to demonstrate their insensitivity regarding what was good for this community. Since PP&L was a monopoly, he felt they should be responsible for protecting the interests and property values of their customers. Sal Giammanco, Nottingham Square, testified that he was a member of the Board of Directors of their Association, and was delegated to offer their strenuous objections to the proposed route of the transmission line. Their objections were: health hazards, depressing effect on property values, and the impact on visual and audible pollution. He said the lines gave off an annoying hum and they disrupted radio reception, the operation of hearings aids, and the safe operation of a pace maker. Kris Rees, P.O. Box 1511, Bend, testified that she was not an affected property owner, but she felt this was a community problem for Bend. Bend's economy depended a great deal upon the livability of this area. She felt it was important that the language in the Bend General Area Plan and the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, where they suggested utilities be placed underground, should be considered. She felt Pacific Power should put some of the profits they receive from their Bend customers back into the community by placing the lines underground. She was also concerned that Pacific Power had not made conservation a priority. She felt they should PAGE 11 MINUTES: 1-14-92 0108 1256 explore getting a zone change for route 12A which would have fewer residential impacts. Lina Hurst testified on behalf of the estate of E. W. Williamson. She was concerned about the figures which PP&L were using because she, alone, had 19 mobile homes in Rock Arbor Villa within 50 feet of the proposed line. There were 10 more home which were very close to the 50 foot line. All 77 spaces in the park were within 300-350 feet of the proposed line. She would prefer to see the line go down Highway 97. She was concerned that they had not considered future growth to the east, in which case the 12A or BPA route looked a lot better. Chairman Maudlin pointed out that the area she was talking about was in the Central Electric Coop jurisdiction and would not be served by PP&L. She pointed out that the power companies occasionally exchanged areas when it was to both parties advantage. He disagreed with the appraiser's study of property values. Betty Marquardt, PO Box 1138, Sisters, said she was not notified of the siting of the China Hat substation when the hearing was held even though she owned a 2-1/2 acre parcel (85C) which was 8 or 9 lots from the substation. She wanted a decision to dismantle and resite the components of the substation after a thorough study by PP&L of a new location. She asked that the substation be sited after the transmission line route had been approved and could therefore be placed on a site plan. Chairman Maudlin asked PP&L for their rebuttal. Clark Satre said that part of the finding in Mr. Brainard's study was that there may be certain potential buyers who will not purchase because of a transmission line, but that there were enough buyers in the market place who would buy, that the price was not influenced. He questioned whether or not people would be willing to give up electricity if it turned out there was a demonstrated health effect. Tobacco had no redeeming values, however there were major benefits from electricity. They had never denied there were underground facilities, but they were mostly in large cities. Their cost figures were from a reputable engineering firm which did an estimate and a design for this specific installation. Concerning the air strip on 12A which someone suggested could be moved, they discussed this with the owner, but the owner was unwilling and unable to move it. The references in the County plan for underground utilities were placed in the plan in contemplation of distribution lines not transmission lines. If PP&L had been putting transmission lines underground for the last 20 years, then the rates would probably be comparable to those in Los Angeles and Chicago which were double PP&Ls. He said they had made conservation a priority, i.e. weatherization programs. Lina Hurst referenced the number of residences' in close proximity to the proposed transmission line, when in fact that was part of the section where a line already existed and the proposal was merely to PAGE 12 MINUTES: 1-14-92 0108 1257 double circuit not to create a new exposure where none existed previously. Small territory swaps with CEC happened occasionally for ease of service, but it would be wrong to assumed there would be any large-scale exchanges. Steve Pfeiffer said they wanted a decision on this application, then if the Board wanted to consider a policy decision for how future applications should be submitted, they could do so. He restated that Mr. Fitch's decision was not based on the standards. He didn't believe that multiple applications would work, because with this kind of application, there would be no situation where everyone would agree to the process. The line would be placed in somebody's back yard, and that person would appeal to LUBA. If an application were brought to the Board on site 12A, people along that route would bring the same issues and concerns to the public hearing. The same thing would happen no matter how many applications were brought to public hearing. He suggested a legislative approach, where the County would map areas of the County within which certain regulations apply, i.e. utility corridors. He said Washington County exempted these kind of facilities outright in their code. Jan Ward, 20505 Murphy Road, (Mountain High) rebutted that for PP&L to suggest that these power lines would have no impact of property values was ridiculous. They hadn't sold a single lot in the last 6-8 months that had any view of the proposed route. The sales had all been on interior lots with no view of the proposed line. They attempted to develop the property with the highest standards possible. He felt that the community needed to deal with overhead power lines because they were a blight. He felt the lines should all be placed underground or at the least in inconspicuous areas. He felt the BPA/Forest Service route was the best route available. He knew it was much cheaper to distribute power overhead, so the transition to underground would increase the cost. But there were the same kinds of increased costs when the County moved to a sewer systems which cost 10 times as much as dumping it into the ground. He said that PP&L took tens of millions of dollars from the Bend urban area each year. If a line were to costs a few million dollars more, it would mean "nothing" in the long run. He didn't feel it was appropriate to have just the immediately affected people pay for placing the line underground since it was a community concern. Bob Lovlien felt the record was clear that PP&L could not establish there were minimal impacts on this route, i.e. livability, aesthetics, property values and permissible development. He felt that several routes should be review at the same time. Chairman Maudlin closed the public hearing and announced that the decision on this application would be made on January 21 or 22, 1992, in Room A of the Juvenile Justice Center. PAGE 13 MINUTES: 1-14-92 M DATED this D day of Commissioners of Deschutes 0 ATTEST: xj�lja-"91 � Recording Secretary PAGE 14 MINUTES: 1-14-92 0108 1258