Loading...
1992-28236-Minutes for Meeting August 05,1992 Recorded 8/19/19920-19-0as0 92-2b236 MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS August 5, 1992 Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. Boa"rd members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Nancy Pope Schlangen. Also present were: Rick Isham, County Counsel; Bruce White, Assistant County Counsel; Catherine Morrow, Planner; George Read, Planning Director; Karen Green, Community Development Director; Lieutenant Greg Brown, Sheriff's Department; and Paul Blikstad, Planner. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, signature of Resolution 92-065 supporting the formation of an animal overpopulation taskforce; #2, signature of MP -90-52 creating two 40 -acre parcels south of Plainview Road in an EFU-40 and F-2 zone for Bob and Jeanne Ricketts; #3, signature of Order 92-064 designating The Bulletin for publication of foreclosures for 1992-93; #4, confirmation of appointments of Corinne Martinez, Steve Gold, Linda Stephenson, Sylvia Shields and Bill Kopacz to the LaPine Economic Development Board; #5, chair signature of liquor license renewals for Twin Lakes Resort Restaurant and Store, and Paulina Lake Resort; #6, signature of Rental Agreement with Darla Ginocchio for house on county property being developed as the site for the new county jail; #7, signature of Resolution 92-064 declaring two IBM keypunch machines surplus property; #8, signature of tax refund Order 92-084. THROOP: I'll move approval of the eight consent agenda items. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 2. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VOUCHERS Before the Board were accounts payable vouchers in the amount of $172.661.12. SCHLANGEN: Move approval upon review. THROOP: Second the motion. PAGE 1 MINUTES: 8-5-92 3. 4. 5. 0119-031 VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES REQUEST TO RESCHEDULE J -J APPEAL CU -92-40 Before the Board was a request from Robert Lovlien, attorney representing John Cooley, Bill Herz, Cheryl Circle and John Lindsey, who were the appellants in the appeal of a conditional use requested by the J Bar J Boys Ranch. His clients were concerned that there would not be enough time at a day -time hearing for everyone to testify and suggested moving the hearing to the evening. The Board felt that they would be able to allow adequate time for everyone to testify at the time and date the appeal was originally scheduled. COMMUNITY EVENT DISPENSER LICENSE APPLICATION Before the Board was chair signature of the Community Event Dispenser License Application for The High Desert Museum. They would be holding the "Sagebrush Rendezvous" at the Hooker Creek Ranch on Gerking Market Road on August 22 starting at 4 p.m. SCHLANGEN: I move signature by chair. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES TEMPORARY BUILDING INSPECTOR Before the Board was a request from Karen Green to hire a temporary building inspector to help out with the work load this summer. She said there were adequate funds to pay for this position from the fees. Chairman Maudlin said that he would make sure that Mike Maier, County Administrator, processed this request as quickly as possible. THROOP: I'll move approval subject to review. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 2 MINUTES: 8-5-92 0149--Q 2 6. DECISION ON WILDLIFE AND SURFACE MINING PACKAGE Before the Board was signature of the Wildlife Area and Surface Mining Package of ordinances. Ordinance 92-040 would amend the Deschutes County Year 2000 Plan to adopt text and goals and policies concerning fish and wildlife; Ordinance 92- 041 would amend the Plan to adopt inventories conflict analysis and ESEE determinations for fish and wildlife resources; Ordinance 92-042 would amend the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance concerning wildlife protection; Ordinance 92- 044 would amend the Plan concerning surface mining ESEEs; Ordinance 92-045 would amend the plan to adopt national wetlands maps; and Ordinance 92-046 would amend the Deschutes County Code to amend zoning maps designating new wildlife area zones. MAUDLIN: I would entertain a motion for first and second reading of Ordinance 92-044 by title only. THROOP: I'll make the motion. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 92-044 by title only. THROOP: Move adoption. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin asked which ordinance he had voted against previously. Bruce White said he thought they were 92-041 and 92-042 because they both set forth the policy to defer any consideration of the "Goal 8/Goal 5 mapping interface." Chairman Maudlin said it was his understanding that the County was totally mapping the wildlife areas and deleting destination resorts from the listing of things not allowed in the wildlife area combining zone, then adding a new Section C stating that no one could apply for a destination resort until the County had finished the Goal 8 mapping process before the end of this year. He said "he was opposed to a great deal of PAGE 3 MINUTES: 8-5-92 01. 19-0383 it" but felt the County needed to go ahead with this stage. He hoped he would have the opportunity to express his opinion and vote on the balance of destination resort and farm land issues before leaving office. Bruce White said the staff was working toward that goal, however the appeal's process could delay it. He suggested that something might be worked out that would allow Chairman Maudlin to vote on those portions which weren't still subject to appeal. THROOP: I'll move first and second reading by title only of Ordinance 92-040. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 92-040 by title only. THROOP: Move adoptionmittee SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES SCHLANGEN: Move first and second reading of 92-041 by title only. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 92-041 by title only. THROOP: SCHLANGEN: VOTE: Move adoption. Second. THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES ------------- PAGE 4 MINUTES: 8-5-92 0I 19-054 THROOP: Move first and second reading of Ordinance 92-042 by title only. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Bruce White said he wanted to add into this ordinance a paragraph on findings which would incorporate the generic findings and asked that the Board adopt the ordinance subject to that addition. Chairman Maudlin mentioned that in Exhibit A, page 2, (B) of this ordinance, it listed golf courses as not permitted in wildlife areas, and that destination resorts normally included golf course. Therefore when the destination resort issue was considered later in the year, if they were allowed in wildlife areas, they wouldn't be able to have golf courses because of this language. Catherine Morrow said the Planning Commission recommendation was not to allow golf courses. When the Planning Commission was addressing the destination resort question, they were concentrating on using the possibility of allowing limited destination resort activities (i.e. open space trails, picnic areas) in the wildlife area. They never contemplated extensive structural development or golf courses or improved recreational facilities in a wildlife area. George Read pointed out that was basically the Jaqua proposal which never included golf courses. Catherine Morrow said no testimony had been given concerning golf courses in wildlife areas. Bruce White suggested that if the Board wished to clarify that issue, he would suggest stating for the record that by excluding golf courses as "stand alone" facilities, the County was not in anyway prejudging what the Board would decide when it considered the destination resort issue. Chairman Maudlin said he would like the language in the ordinance to say, "Golf course, not included in a destination resort." Bruce White said he also felt that it should be on the record that by placing this new language in the ordinance, the Board was not prejudging the other direction on destination resorts. The other Board members had no objection to this change in language. Bruce White wanted to make the record clear that what the Board was trying to do was leave their options open and that this new language would not "weigh the balance either way on destination resorts." THROOP: I'll accept those motion. SCHLANGEN: Second. PAGE 5 MINUTES: 8-5-92 as friendly amendments to the 019-0385 VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 92-042 by title only. SCHLANGEN: Move approval. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES SCHLANGEN: I move first and second reading of Ordinance 92-045 by title only. THROOP: Second the motion VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 92-045 by title only. SCHLANGEN: Move approval. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES SCHLANGEN: I move first and second reading of Ordinance 92-046 by title only. THROOP: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 92-046 by title only. SCHLANGEN: Move approval. PAGE 6 MINUTES: 8-5-92 01 (9-WS6 THROOP: I'll second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 7. PERIODIC REVIEW PACKAGE This item was postponed to the following week. 8. SELECTION OF ARCHITECT FOR NEW COUNTY JAIL Greg Brown said the eight member architect selection committee had been working to pick the best architect for the new county jail over the last three and a half months. They reviewed thirteen proposals from interested firms. The proposals were reviewed against selection criteria, i.e. design philosophy, history of their company, the current and past corrections experience. Those thirteen companies were reduced to four. Several members of the committee traveled to five western states and visited each of the architectural firms and traveled to some of their completed projects. During the tours, they were looking at the design of the facility, how well it fit into the existing neighborhood, staffing level needed, safety of staff, and per bed cost. In the last three years, the facilities which had been built in Oregon varied in price from $40,000 to $73,000 per bed with some county jails costing more than $90,000 per bed. The committee met with each of the firms, and then made its recommendation: Lombard Conrad Architects from Boise Idaho. The company was owned by Ernie Lombard and Joe Conrad who had been architects for a number of years and had for this firm sixteen years. They were licensed architects in good standing in Oregon. They had completed approximately 22 correctional facilities in the northwest. Their most recent project opened three week ago in Yakima Washington. They had also done correctional projects in Elko Nevada, Twin Falls Idaho, and Burley Idaho, and had been hired to do the Malheur County jail. The committee was extremely impressed with this company. He felt they would be able to build the new facility for under $40,000 per bed. This company was extremely adept at building correctional facilities which required a minimum number of correctional staff while ensuring a safe environment for the correctional officers. He did a lot of background checking on the company and could not find any clients who had anything bad to say about them. Everyone was very impressed with them for the work they did during the project and also their follow through. Commissioner Throop asked which Lombard/Conrad projects the committee had visited. Greg Brown said they visited the Yakima Jail, the Twin Falls County Jail, Burley Idaho County PAGE 7 MINUTES: 8-5-92 Jail, and the County Work Release Center and the State Penitentiary in Boise Idaho. Commissioner Throop asked what kinds of people they spoke with at these facilities. Greg Brown said they talked with sheriffs, county commissioners, construction companies, corrections staff, prison guards, and the superintendent of one of the prisons. They spent a lot of time with the project coordinators who spent months working with this firm. They also did that with each of the other three companies which were under consideration. They visited 17 facilities in their tour. They visited a few jail which were not done by any of the four competing architects for a comparison to see what else was on the market. Commissioner Schlangen commented that the committee had done its homework. Chairman Maudlin felt the work that the committee had done was excellent. Commissioner Throop said the Board had heard independently that Deschutes County's selection process was one of the best which these firms had encountered. They were extremely impressed with how thoroughly County staff scrutinized their firms and interview people. MAUDLIN: I would entertain a motion for the selection of the architect as presented by the committee. SCHLANGEN: So moved. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 9. IMPLEMENTATION OF LUBA DECISION ON DESTINATION RESORT MAPS Before the Board was consideration of whether to appeal the recent LUBA decision remanding the County's destination resort mapping ordinances back to the County; and how the Eagle Crest destination resort expansion application should be handled in light of this remand. Bruce White said Eagle Crest had applied for a destination resort expansion under the map which had been remanded by LUBA, and it was County Legal Counsel's opinion that because of the remand, the County no longer had a valid map. Both Mr. Gardner and the County had chosen to appeal the remand which added a complication to how Eagle Crest might be allowed to proceed. He had submitted a memo to the Board with four options on how to proceed, however he now felt that Option 1 was no longer available because of the appeals. It was staff's opinion that the effect of the appeals was to stay the remand from taking effect, which meant that the mapping PAGE 8 MINUTES: 8-5-92 0119-0388 ordinances were "revived pending this appeal." However it was possible at the end of the appeals process, that the last reviewing body could determine that the map was not valid. Chairman Maudlin said he felt the remand decision should be appealed. The remand was asking the County to go back and make a decision which would make LUBA happy, and he didn't want to do that. Commissioner Throop said the state looked at the decisions the County made to see whether they met statutory and rule requirements. If they didn't, they sent them back to the County for further planning. Chairman Maudlin pointed out that when it was sent back, there was no clarification of the remand, so it could go back and forth a number of times before LUBA would be satisfied. Commissioner Throop put another option on the table. Since he felt it was important for the County not to take a position or wage a battle it couldn't win, he recommended that the County take on the substantive issue and determine whether or not there were high value crop areas within three miles of the northeast corner of the county. Bruce White said the Board had previously directed County Counsel to proceed with the appeal, which had been done; however, even if the Board wanted to withdraw its notice of appeal, there was still another appellant. So they needed to find a way for the Board to get an answer from a higher appeals court on the remanded issue while not holding Eagle Crest up during the process. Staff felt that Option 4 was "the best way to go." (Option #4. Repeal only that part of the existing map that is more than three miles from the County borders and replace the repealed portions with a new map.) Chairman Maudlin thought it had been discussed that the County would maintain the existing map with a line three miles inside of the county borders. Commissioner Throop said doing that would invalidate the County appeal. Bruce White said that last week the staff didn't feel the County had a map to proceed with because the map had been remanded. They felt LUBA had invalidate the entire map, so in order to allow Eagle Crest to proceed, they felt the County needed to adopt a new map under which they could apply. The proposal would have been to map all of the area short of three miles of the county boundary. However, now the staff felt the County did have a map because of the appeals, but were held hostage by whatever the appeals courts would ultimately decide. Eagle Crest would have the option of going forward under the current map, however since it was still under appeal and there had already been one adverse ruling, they would be accepting a considerable risk of the ultimate outcome. Option 2 didn't seem to be very attractive to Eagle Crest. Option 3 wouldn't PAGE 9 MINUTES: 8-5-92 01 19-03OP9 have resolved the Board's desire to get a judicial ruling on this question. Therefore, staff recommended proceeding with Option 4. Chairman Maudlin agreed that Option 4 was how the County should proceed. Commissioner Throop felt there was a fifth option: "to drop the appeal of the LUBA remand, ask Eagle Crest and Mr. Gardner and Mr. Humphreys to meet to see if there was a way to negotiate the dropping of the Gardner/Humphreys appeal and then bring on the substantive issue rather than playing losing games in court or in other words, move on to assessing whether or not there are high value crop areas within three miles of our northeast corner of the County. As part of that, adopt Option 1 which allows us to adopt a new map as part of the remand, excluding areas within three miles of the County line, without having to hold additional public hearings." Chairman Maudlin did not agree with Commissioner Throop that this appeal could not be won. He pointed out that in other County actions, i.e. siting a solid waste pit next to the boarder with another County, nothing required that this County consider issues raised by the other County. Bruce White said there had been instances in the past where people within the area of notice had been in other counties. George Read said he felt it was required by statute that all properties owners within the required distance be notified not just those within the County. Commissioner Throop said if the County didn't appeal the LUBA remand, then the County would be able to adopt a new map without having to go through public hearings. However if Mr. Gardner and Mr. Humphreys continued with their appeal, that probably wouldn't work. Bruce White said he had spoken with their attorney the previous day, and was told that they had filed a petition for judicial review, therefore they had set the process in motion independent of the County. Commissioner Throop felt they had just reserved a position, like the County, since no briefs had been filed. Bruce White agreed. He speculated that their position would be determined by their factual analysis of whether or not there were high value crop areas within the three-mile area in Jefferson County. Commissioner Throop asked if he meant that if Mr. Gardner and Mr. Humphreys went forward with their appeal, it was likely that their analysis showed there was high value crop areas in Jefferson County, while if they didn't go forward with their appeal, it was likely their analysis showed there were no high value crop areas. Bruce White said it would be more likely for them not to continue with the appeal if they felt it was clear that the remand would be of no consequence to them. Rick Isham asked if there was a legal issue concerning what constituted high value crop land in Jefferson County? Bruce PAGE 10 MINUTES: 8-5-92 0119-0390 White said there might be, but he had not had a chance to research it. He had heard through the press that McFeeder's turf farm was being considered as a high value crop area, however it was not clear that a turf farm would be considered a high value crop as listed in Goal 8 or the statute. Chairman Maudlin said he received a call from someone in Redmond who said there was high value crop land in Crook County which was close to the proposed Gardner development. He suggested people with these contentions would "start coming out of the woodwork" so he felt the County should take this opportunity to win this battle by going forward with the appeal. Commissioner Throop pointed out that the statute was "very clear on its face" so the County would not be able to argue legislative intent, therefore he felt there was a "zero probability that we'll win this battle and again I think it's a total waste of County resources." Chairman Maudlin said it was no more of a waste of resources than to have to inventory high crop lands in every bordering County. Commissioner Throop said that was the law and the planning requirement for destination resorts, and therefore the County would end up doing it anyway. Rick Isham reminded the Board that in order to proceed with Option 4 in the short time line suggested would require a unanimous vote of the Commission. Commissioner Throop said that if the majority of the Board decided to go with Option 4, he would also vote for Option 4 as the next best alternative to Option 1 and his proposed Option 5. Bruce White pointed out that Option 4 also had some risks. Eagle Crest did have some opponents, and since the County was not adopting a map through the remand process which would have limited additional public input, the map would be open to renewed public testimony and appeal. This risk had been explained to Eagle Crest and they understood the risk. Bruce White said the appellants had considered appealing on the issue of whether there was high value crop areas within the County, but it was not part of their appeal. Rick Isham said he believed that those people who appeared in the first hearings would be precluded from bringing this up under the new ordinance. Bruce White and Planning staff were not as sure of this position as Mr. Isham. Bruce White suggested that the Board ask Eagle Crest to request that the Board go forward with Option 4 knowing that there were risks involved. Commissioner Throop asked who would be paying for this extra work? Karen Green said Eagle Crest would be paying for it since the conceptual master plan conditional use permit had an actual cost for service fee structure. They had paid a deposit and the County was logging the time spent on their application which would be billed to Eagle Crest. However, the time put in to developing the new ordinance which would create the new map would not be charged PAGE 11 MINUTES: 8-5-92 0-1_ 119-oti9i to Eagle Crest. Any legislative land use matter was paid for by fee payers (primarily building permit fee payers). Chairman Maudlin asked why Eagle Crest needed to affirm their preference in writing and to acknowledge the risk, since they had already done so verbally. Rick Isham said part of the reason was that Eagle Crest had a pending application under a valid ordinance, and the County would be taking action to repeal that ordinance. Under the law, Eagle Crest would still have a right to proceed. So he understood that Eagle Crest would withdraw that application and file a new application. He felt it was a good idea to have the applicant indicate this was the way they wanted to proceed, because of all the legal issues which could be raised. SCHLANGEN: I'll make a motion that we proceed with Option 4 pending a letter acknowledging the risk from Eagle Crest. THROOP: I'll second the motion. Commissioner Throop said this option was clearly a "distant third priority alternative for him." VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 10. PACIFICORP APPEAL Before the Board was a public hearing on the PacifiCorp appeal of the Hearings Officer's conditions on CU -92-61 concerning an electric transmission line in the Bend Urban Area. Chairman Maudlin asked if anyone wanted to challenge any member of the Board's ability to hear this matter. There were no challenges. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing, and asked for a staff report. Paul Blikstad said PacifiCorp had applied for and received approval of a conditional use permit for that portion of a 6915 KV electric transmission line which was proposed to be between the city limits of Bend and the urban growth boundary. The line was ultimately proposed to connect to the substation on Cleveland Avenue with the new China Hat Substation on Rocking Horse Road. The applicant would need to obtain approval from the City of Bend for that portion within the City limits which was approximately from the Les Schwab Tire Store to the Cleveland Substation and approved of a site plan from the County for that short portion between Ponderosa Way and the substation on Rocking Horse Road. The Hearings Officer's decision was issued on June 26, 1992, with nine PAGE 12 MINUTES: 8-5-92 conditions of approval. conditions 7, 8 and 9 which proposed line as an interim me upon a community -wide review appropriate location for the south Bend area. 01 [9-0092 The applicant was appealing iealt with the approval of the isure for PacifiCorp and relying process to determine the most transmission line to serve the Bruce White said that in their notice of appeal, the applicants had proposed some substitute conditions for 7, 8, and 9, however staff had not had an opportunity to discuss them. Chairman Maudlin asked for testimony from the appellants. Clark Satre, Central Oregon Area Manager for Pacific Power & Light, verbally gave the attached testimony. Commissioner Throop asked if the current location of the substation limited the alternatives for a second transmission line, i.e. a line going south on Highway 97 and then east over Forest Service ground to the BPA corridor. Mr. Satre said they could not have had their substation any further east because they would be out of their service area. There was a practical limit of about 10 miles in length for the line from Pilot Butte to China Hat substation, but there appeared to be one way to build a line which was 10, 10-1/4, 10-1/2 miles following essentially the route mentioned by Commissioner Throop. Commissioner Throop clarified that he understood Mr. Satre to mean that the location of the subdivision did not make that route "infeasible or difficult or improbably." Mr. Satre agreed. He said there was a section of private land which would require acquisition of right of way east of the highway, however that was a regular situation for the construction of transmission lines. Chairman Maudlin asked if the route being discussed was being considered instead of the Highway 97 route. Commissioner Throop said no, he was looking at it as a possibility for the second line. Mr. Satre said it was about the maximum length a route could be and still be workable. Commissioner Throop asked if no other routes worked, would it be feasible to "turn around and head back up 97." Mr. Satre said it was not particularly desirable since there would be a double circuit line on the highway or perhaps on line on the west side and one side on the east side. This would also require double circuiting more of the existing system than what they would like, but it was an alternative. Commissioner Throop asked what the negative was to double circuiting? Mr. Satre said "you lose the degree of redundancy that you'd like to have," i.e. a lightning strike could take out both circuits on a pole, or a car accident would disable both circuits. He said they would have a strong preference for siting one line PAGE 13 MINUTES: 8-5-92 01]�9-olo3 on the east side and one line on the west side rather than a double circuit. Commissioner Throop asked if there was any major downside to a route that would go down through Forest Service land, or would it be a preferred alternative. Mr. Satre said he wanted to "stay away from preferred alternatives in going into a community process," and he did not intend to give preferred alternatives to the community. He would just say "we need to get from point A to point B, and you find the alternatives." He said that particular route had pluses and minuses. It affected fewer homes, however some people would not want to see transmission lines on forest lands. Chairman Maudlin asked for testimony from those people in opposition to the appeal. Chris Reese said when the Board of Commissioners went through this process before, they expressed concern that they did not have a complete application before them, and that it was difficult to find the best route without knowing where the westside portion of the loop would go. She said the Hearings Officer recommended and this Board concurred that a community- wide citizens group should be formed to help determine where the route should go. She did not feel that recommendation involved "waiting for the outcome of this Highway 97 proposal" as she said Mr. Satre expressed. That recommendation was made seven months ago, and PacifiCorp was now coming to the Board with no citizen group or input and an incomplete route. She felt PacifiCorp was ignoring the County's recommendations. She thought they were using the fear of power outages to get this route approved. She did think this portion of the route should be approved before a completed loop was determined, since it would make it more difficult for a community -wide process to make an independent determination. She asked that the Board uphold all of the conditions set forth by the Hearings Officer. Since she prepared her comments before she heard Mr. Satre's testimony, she wanted to amend them to include support for the completed route discussed by Mr. Satre. Commissioner Throop asked her if the "fear of the unknown for the second route" was her concern. Ms. Reese said yes, and that by putting in the substation and approving a segment of the route, it impacted and made it more difficult to find alternatives for the final segment. Commissioner Throop said in PacifiCorp's testimony, Mr. Satre indicated that the substation route would not limit options for the second line and asked why she felt the location of the substation would limit where the second line might go. Ms. Reese said they didn't know since all of the options had not been explored. Commissioner Throop asked if she could think of an alternative which would be further in length that running down Highway 97 beyond private land on the south part of town, then running PAGE 14 MINUTES: 8-5-92 01.19-0394 over to the BPA line, and then following existing corridors back to Cleveland? Ms. Reese said she didn't and it seemed to be the most workable. She said that the Forest Service and Central Electric Coop and "done some things together before" so she wouldn't rule out the use of Forest Service property. Chairman Maudlin asked where she got the information that the Hearings Officer had recommended a citizens committee seven months ago? Ms. Reese said it was in January during the last appeal's process. Chairman Maudlin said the Hearings Officer wasn't involved with that process. He said he had made that recommendation not the Hearings Officer, and he had made it prior to the testimony where everyone was in agreement that the best way to proceed would be to use Highway 97 for the line. The only people at that hearing who felt Highway 97 "wasn't the way to go" were from PP&L. Now PacifiCorp was before the Board proposing a line on Highway 97, and people were testifying against it. Ms. Reese said it wasn't that she was unhappy with the Highway 97 route, she said it just didn't agree with the Board's recommendation that a completed route be submitted. Chairman Maudlin said, "that was not a recommendation. " She said she thought it was a recommendation of the Hearings Officer. Commissioner Throop said he thought it was part of the Board's written decision. Chairman Maudlin said what he discussed at the previous hearing did not included a requirement that a total line had to be submitted for approval. Jim Palmer said he thought the hearing was a significant change in PP&L's position regarding underground lines, when Mr. Satre said they would consider putting in short sections of underground lines. He noted that the major costs associated with underground lines were the transitions underground and back out --not the length of the line. Therefore, short sections of underground transmission lines were the most expensive to consider. So he suggested that they consider longer lengths of underground line. Concerning the reliability of underground lines, he said these voltages had been used for several years by utilities, and he didn't feel that was an issue. Underground lines would be subject to fewer hazards and damage than overhead lines. This was the first time he had heard that a longer transmission line leg might be acceptable. Previously the testimony had been that the length of the two lines had to be very nearly the same. He had questioned that because "impedance matching techniques are available and have been used for many, many years that can make the electric characteristics of the lines appear similar to the power source even if they are not physically the same length." He asked who would determine the makeup of the consumer group. Chairman Maudlin said it would be the Board of Commissioners. Mr. Palmer asked why the Commissioners wouldn't proceed with the formation of this committee now? If PAGE 15 MINUTES: 8-5-92 0-119-0305 one had been formed seven months ago when it had been originally discussed, the process might be further along, and it would help avoid further problems. Chairman Maudlin said that was a possibility. He said they had trouble finding anybody who hadn't already been involved, so it was difficult to form a group. He was sure that this hearing was not the end of the process. Commissioner Throop asked Mr. Palmer what his background was. Mr. Palmer said he was an electrical engineering graduate of the University of California, and had spent 33 years as an employee of the General Electric Company in engineering and marketing positions frequently associated with the power distribution/transmission area. Jody Ward testified that they did "want to make this work and we want to be cooperative." Their concern was that PacifiCorp hadn't submitted acceptable solutions for both sides of the loop. Their trust level wasn't very high, and they didn't feel it was prudent not to have some limitations. They didn't "want to pick a fight", since they wanted the power line. However, if the County approved one leg of the loop, the solutions which would be acceptable to the public would be resisted by PacifiCorp. Commissioner Throop said he had "difficulty seeing the level of risk here" since PacifiCorp needed a connection to the power station. The second connection was not a necessity, but was a safety valve. Whatever PacifiCorp proposed for the second route would have to go through a community process and the land use application process. He asked her to define her "fear of the unknown." Ms. Ward said if all that were true, why hadn't PacifiCorp proposed the Highway 97 route to begin with? Commissioner Throop said the Highway 97 route was far from PacifiCorp's preferred alternative, and they had proposed that route as a "distant fall -back position." It was technically feasible for them to run a second line up Highway 97, however that was probably the least acceptable alternative to PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp indicated in testimony today, if the Highway 97 route for the second line was their only alternative to having no second line at all, they would accept it. He felt PacifiCorp had proposed a route which would connect to the substation and activate the line, and he didn't see any real risk. Ms. Ward asked if Commissioner Throop felt they wouldn't be coming back saying there absolutely had to be a second line? Commissioner Throop said there wasn't an absolute necessity for a second line, however it was needed as a backup should the first line go down or to use during maintenance of the first line. However, they would have to come back with a very acceptable route for the second line in order "to get it through the community. " So the burden on PacifiCorp was very high and there were no guarantees. He said he was trying to weigh the need versus the risk. Ms. PAGE 16 MINUTES: 8-5-92 01_ (9-0,196 Ward said pacifiCorp knew the Highway 97 route was a possible location for the line and that it did not have nearly the impacts on the public as the alternatives they proposed, however they still chose not to propose it. When they had been asked why the line couldn't be located in the forest, Pacificorp had responded that the line couldn't be more than 10 miles in length. She was afraid that if this line was approved without any conditions, PacifiCorp would come back for the second route with so many restriction on where the route could go that it "would be in my back yard." Commissioner Throop pointed out that PacifiCorp was on the record of this hearing stating that the eastside route would work, and that a second line on Highway 97 was technically feasible although not their preferred alternative. Chairman Maudlin said the Board would accept written testimony on this matter until 5 p.m. on Tuesday, August 11, 1992, and the Board's decision would be made at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, August 12, 1992. A member of the audience mentioned that Chairman Maudlin had alluded to the fact that it was difficult to get together a community group because they couldn't find anyone who hadn't already been involved. She asked why the Board wouldn't want people who had been involved and understood the issues. Chairman Maudlin said they hadn't put together a committee because everyone had already been involved at the hearings, and it never came up again. In the future, if the Board desired to appoint such a committee on another line, he felt it would certainly involve the people who had shown an interest in the past. DATED this�� day of L�;� Commissioners of Deschutes Coun Ore on. , 1992, by the Board of op, r(ammissigner AT T: Nancy P e'Sc Recording Secretary Dic Maudlin, PAGE 17 MINUTES: 8-5-92 , Commiss 01 is -0307 August 5, 1992 My name is Clark Satre. I am Central Oregon Area Manager for Pacific Power & Light. We're here today to appeal the County Hearings Officer's decision on CU -92-61, a conditional use permit for a 69/115 KV electric transmission line in the Bend urban area. Specifically, that line would extend from our existing substation on Cleveland Avenue east of Highway 97, south along Highway 97 to Rocking Horse Road, and west on Rocking Horse Road to our substation known as China Hat substation. There are existing poles and electric distribution lines for the entire length of this route. The portion of this route covered by CU -92-61 is a little less than one mile in length from the Bend City limits on the north to the urban growth boundary on this south. The hearings officer approved the conditional use permit but with 1 01' [9-0ti98 conditions that are unacceptable to us. Those conditions are numbers 7, 8, and 9, and I will discuss why those conditions should preferably be removed, but if not removed then altered substantially. Before I discuss those conditions however 1 would first like to review the facilities we need to adequately serve the south Bend area. First, we need a new substation because our existing substations are overloaded, and are not located so as to be able to adequately serve the growing loads in the southern part of the community. This substation has been built on Rocking Horse Road west of Highway 97 and is called China Hat substation. This substation is an allowed use in the RR10 zone, and was found by the County to meet all appropriate criteria for the issuance of the necessary permits, and has been fully permitted. Second, we need a new transmission line originating at Pilot Butte substation east of town on Highway 20 and going to the new China Hat substation. Pilot Butte substation is where bulk power comes into the Bend area. 2 0-1_ � 9-0ti99 Third, we need a new transmission line from China Hat substation to a point on the existing system west of the Deschutes River. And, fourth, we need a switching station (which could also double as a future substation) at the point on our system west of the river where the new line from China Hat substation connects into our existing system. The reasons why we need lines into and out of China Hat substation are first for reliability of service to that substation, and second for reinforcement of the entire transmission system. You will notice on the system map that every substation has two lines to it. This is so that if any one line or line section is out of service, either due to scheduled maintenance or due to an outage, we can still provide power to any substation through an alternate line. Likewise, for the same degree of reliability to China Hat substation, and all of the customers that will be served from China Hat substation, we need not one but two lines to China Hat substation. Now our existing transmission system also needs reinforcement due to K 01.119-0400 all the growth in Bend, and that is why one line to China Hat must originate at the source, Pilot Butte substation, and the other must join our system west of the Deschutes River. And at the point where the new line joins the west side of our system we will need a switching station where circuit breakers will be located. These circuit breakers and related equipment combined with remote controls will allow for automatic detection of problems on any of the lines, and automated switching so that any line in trouble can be disconnected while power continues to flow with minimal interruption to all substations over the remaining lines in service. I would like to point out also that we have never concealed the fact that all of these facilities will be needed. in fact, at every hearing in which I've been involved we've made a point of stating that all these facilities will be needed. Now, going back to China Hat substation, whether or not the substation is in the right location has. been a concern of several members of the community including you the commissioners. Your concern is, as I 4 01-19-0401 understand it, that you cannot determine where are the best locations for transmission lines if your alternatives are limited by the location of the substation. I will demonstrate to you that if China Hat Substation were located anywhere so as to be able to provide service where needed, the transmission line routes we would all consider would be substantially the same. Consider the area that will be served by China Hat substation. To the west is the Deschutes River. We know we're not going to have a multitude of lines crossing the river, and the major load area is east of the river, so that substation should be east of the river. To the south Is U.S. Forest Service land, and we know we're not going to have any load on Forest Service land so the substation should be north of the Forest Service boundary. To the east is our boundary with Central Electric Cooperative. Roughly, this boundary can be described by saying that CEC serves east of 1 Sth Street, south of Knott Road, and east of China Hat Road. Obviously our substation to serve our customers should be located in our service area, not CEC's. And to the north is our existing system which is not adequate for serving the southern part of the area, 5 01. 19-0402 so the new substation should be south of our nearest substation on Cleveland Avenue. Now we try as much as possible to put substations near the center of the area they will serve. This means two things. First, we want Cleveland Avenue substation to be near the center of the area it serves so it should continue to service some load to the south. It wouldn't make sense to have lines come all the way from a new substation to the south right up to Cleveland Avenue substation when the load is a lot closer and can be served more efficiently from Cleveland Avenue substation. So we still want to allocate some of the area south of Cleveland Avenue substation to be served from Cleveland Avenue. And second, we want the new substation to be located not just within the area to be served, but somewhere near the center rather than right against one of the boundaries. Besides being in the center of the load there are other considerations to locating a substation. Among these are availability of property, zoning, neighbors, potential routes for transmission lines and distribution lines, 6 01-19-0403 and access for some very large equipment. So when you take all these factors Into consideration you may miss the geographic center of the load area a little, but there are usually a very limited number of sites that are both suitable and available. Given the area to be served and criteria for choosing a substation site where could China Hat substation be located other than where it is now? Well, you don't want it right adjacent to the highway because some people think substations aren't pretty. In fact we had property and a fenced area adjacent to the highway where we could have built the substation, but in response to community concerns we abandoned that site and built where the substation would not be visible from the highway. But for major equipment access, It is desirable to have the substation near the highway. And once you get off the highway there are a lot of areas that are already built up, or the lots are too small, the neighbors are close, or there are 7 01-19-0404 golf courses. So there aren't a lot of choices, but for the sake of considering alternatives we would want to limit the area to probably no more than a mile in any direction, maybe a little more to the south and a little less to the east, from where China Hat substation already exists. With that area in which to place a substation, where might we consider building transmission lines from Pilot Butte substation and to the west side of our system? I contend that all the alternatives are essentially the same regardless of the substation location. All alternatives using combinations of north -south and east -west roads in the southeast part of the community would be considered. These roads combined with the railroad tracks and the highway would be considered. Every route that has been previously considered by us and either withdrawn or denied would be feasible. The three routes suggested by the Citizens for Responsible Power Placement would all be considered. These routes were Highway 97, a route following the BPA right-of-way and crossing Forest Service land, and a route following CEC right-of-way and Knott Road. D 01j9-0405 On the west side alternatives are limited no matter where the substation is located, but one alternative that we would consider in any case is Highway 97 combined with utilizing an existing river crossing within the City. Another alternative that didn't work out but would have been considered regardless of substation location was the line along Rocking Horse and Buck Canyon Roads crossing the river and connecting to Mid - State Electric Cooperative's line. With a different substation location we might have also needed some line along the railroad tracks or highway but this would still have been a good alternative because the area was relatively undeveloped, houses were generally set back from the road, and there was an existing distribution river crossing. In fact it is still my belief that without the Awbry Hall fire that line would have been fully permitted and built by now. So, it is my conclusion on the issue of substation location, and I hope by now it is also your conclusion, that you and the community can make the best decisions about transmission line locations because all of the alternatives that might be considered are essentially the same, except for minor variations at the end, regardless of where the substation is located 9 01".1 9--0406 if it is located where it can meet the electric service needs of the area. There are no factual or legal basis for reconsidering the location of China Hat substation. Now another thing everyone has said they would like to see is a community involvement process to evaluate various transmission line alternatives for all parts of the China Hat project. We understand that desire and agree with it, so why you ask are we here with a single proposal for only part of the overall project? The answer is one of timing. The need is unquestioned. Growth continues and the demands on our system continue to grow more and more beyond its capability. Only mild temperatures last winter prevented serious overloads, and normal temperatures next winter could cause widespread and prolonged power outages. As soon as we lost our appeal on the "Mountain High" route we immediately began work on design and permitting for this route along the highway. We held meetings to get input from City and County 10 planning departments, the highway department, and the Forest Service. Working as quickly as we could, involving people knowledgeable in all aspects of line siting, design and permitting, we are still here in early August not yet having an acceptable permit to build anything. From this date forward it will take an extraordinary effort to complete this line before winter. We will make that effort, but I'm sure you can understand that. if we had assembled a community group, educated them as to technical considerations for transmission line siting, evaluated numerous alternatives and then applied for permits we would have no chance of completing any line this year. In fact I expect this kind of process to take between two and three years. We are committed to initiating this community involvement process for the second line route, but we simply cannot ignore a problem that exists now and by doing so knowingly subject our customers to potentially serious power outages. And I guess you could say we've already had a lot of community input through the many public hearings. In fact part of the reason we proposed this Highway 97 route is because it was suggested and endorsed by some opponents of previous routes. 11 01r 19-0408 However, because we're here with this partial solution there are some who will accuse us of a wiily nilly, haphazard, piece meal approach with no consideration for the community. Well, first of all, its only because we are concerned about the community and our customers that we are trying to build anything. And second, let me tell you what would have happened if we had been in a rush and were not concerned about doing a good job. Perhaps you've noticed a fenced enclosure at the northwest corner of Highway 97 and Rocking Horse Road. That piece of property, very visible from the highway, is owned by us and has even today all the permits necessary for construction of a substation. Without notification or permission of anyone we could have gone ahead and built the substation within that fenced area, and it would have been there for thousands to see each day as they travel the highway. But instead we decided that a location highly visible from the highway was not in the community's best interest, so we purchased another lot off the highway where the substation is much less visible. 12 01-19-0409 We also had a permit for a transmission line between Pilot Butte and China Hat substations. We obtained the permit in 1982, and by letter from the Deschutes County Planning Department dated November 21, 1989 we were told that our permit was still valid. If we had been unconcerned for the community we would have simply built the line at that point. But we looked at the route approved by that 1982 permit and decided that due to more recent developments the community could be better served if we could find a better route. So here we are, still looking for that better route. It's true that in March 1990 the county reversed itself and determined the 1982 permit was no longer valid, but if we had gone ahead and built the line based on the county's letter to us in November of 1989 we might today be in a different forum arguing other issues related to that line and at whose expense it should stay or be removed. Next, I want to correct a statement on page 10 of the Findings and Decision of the hearings officer that is completely in error. He states, "The applicant has proposed an interim solution to the problem of energy supply for the south Bend area." In fact, my statements at the hearing 13 01-19-0410 on June 2 include, 'This [line] is only part of what our ultimate system needs to be." and ..."so while this [line] solves the immediate need of energizing China Hat substation, it will also be a part of the overall development of the system." There Is nothing In our application or our testimony to indicate we are proposing an interim solution. A partial solution, yes, but not an interim solution. The hearings officer is taking this an interim measure because he wants to, not because we have proposed it. Now let me get to the specifics of our appeal of conditions 7, 8, and 9 of the hearings officer's decision. By imposing these conditions the hearings officer has given us a permit that is subject to revocation if through an undefined process some entity identifies what they think is a so called better location for the use. There is absolutely no legal or factual basis for imposing this kind of condition, and I doubt you would ever get anyone else to build anything in the County under this condition. Neither is there any basis for limiting the duration of a conditional use permit to three years. The hearings officer's decision contained no findings or evidence to support such findings that our 14 01 19-0411 application failed to meet the approval criteria without conditions 7, 89 and 9, or that conditions 7, 8, and 9 are necessary to protect the best interests of the surrounding area or the urban area as a whole. Condition 7 as written by the hearings officer subjects the proposed line on Highway 97 to a community wide review process to "make an independent determination as to whether or not this route is feasible and appropriate." There are absolutely no criteria set forth in his decision to determine who constitutes "community wide", or what constitutes feasibility and appropriateness. Condition 8 subjects the existing substation as well as the transmission line to a community -wide review process. As we've already discussed, the substation is already fully permitted, there is no legal basis for subjecting it to further review, and transmission line alternatives would be essentially unchanged by any reasonable alternative substation location. We simply cannot accept, nor should we have to accept, further review of the substation location. 15 0-1--19-0412 Condition 8 also states that if "other routes are more appropriate and are Feasible for engineering purposes" we must remove the line on Highway 97. Again, by what standards are appropriateness to be judged? Who shall determine engineering feasibility? For example, Central Electric Cooperative and ourselves design our systems differently. I would say that we both follow good engineering practices, but what they consider to be engineering feasibility might not be what we consider to be engineering feasibility. Condition 8 also states "... the applicant shall be required to remove the route approved by this decision within 60 days of the date the other transmission line is constructed." Note the singular, line, is used, not lines. While there is so much concern over complete applications and total solutions and piece meal approaches, we would be forced to remove this line if only one other route is given to us. This gives no one an incentive to completely solve the problem, just to find somewhere else to put one line. According to these conditions, at the end of three years we could be forced to build a new line and take out this one, still needing another route to complete the loop but being no closer to a 16 0 . [9-01-13 complete solution than we are today. To understand just how absurd this is consider the following scenario. This fall we build the proposed line along the highway to energize China Hat substation. A community group is formed, and this group decides that the best route between Pilot Butte and China Hat substations is a route following the BPA right of way, then crossing Forest Service land to the highway, and north to Rocking Horse Road. We build this line, and in accordance with the conditions imposed we remove the line on Highway 97. The community process continues and eventually it is decided that the best way to complete the loop is to build a line north along the highway to our existing river crossing. So we build again the line along the highway that was built and torn out under conditions of this permit. I can't imagine anything more wasteful, yet that possibility exists as the hearings officer's decision is written. Condition 9 is even worse. It states that if "the community -wide review process proposed by the applicant is not completed by July 1, 1995 ... this permit shall be subject to review ... to determine ... whether or not 17 01 19-04-1-L4 this permit should be revoked." Theoretically, in a worst case scenario, if the community process were unable to agree on a line route within three years we could still be forced to remove this line leaving us unable to serve what will undoubtedly be a much greater load after three more years of growth. Now let me tell you what we feel are acceptable conditions. The exact wording is contained in our appeal: I will paraphrase and explain what we propose. We are willing to implement a community review process. We stated this at the June 2 hearing. We propose to include representation from public agencies, homeowner's associations, the environmental community, commercial interests, and others who are willing to commit their time and energy to solving this problem. We will seek a group such that when all is said and done no one will feel they had no representation. We will remove the transmission portion of the line on Highway 97 if through this process we receive all permits necessary from all agencies 18 011_ 19-04-15 involved for construction of overhead transmission lines from Pilot Butte substation to China Hat substation and from China Hat substation to the west side of our existing system, plus the west side switching station. These permits must be for facilities that are acceptable to Pacific Power for engineering purposes. We want the process to solve the whole problem, not just give us one line as the hearings officer's conditions state. We are willing to risk taking out this line if the tradeoff is a complete solution. We are not willing to risk removing this line if the tradeoff is only one other line, leaving us still in need of a second line and switching station. Further, the line on Highway 97 could be a part of either a Pilot Butte to China Hat route, or a China Hat to west side route. As I said before, under the hearings officer's conditions, the community could give us one route forcing us to remove the line on Highway 97, only to later determine that a line on Highway 97 should be re -installed as part of the other route. We are asking for overhead alternative routes because overhead transmission is still the industry standard and it already exists in Bend 19 V I9 -04,s so unobtrusively that people who have opposed us haven't even known there were transmission lines already in their neighborhoods until we told them. We believe there are numerous overhead line routes feasible, and are willing to work with the community to identify those that are acceptable. With todays questions about long term reliability of underground transmission cables, and the well documented cost differentials between overhead and underground construction we believe it is only appropriate to consider overhead routes. Of course if there are significant advances in technology in the next three years such that overhead and underground cost differentials disappear that could change our position. And I will soften our position further by saying that if there is a route that is suitable to us but that has a small section that is of particular uniqueness such that an underground line section is the only way to make the line buildable we will consider a short underground portion. An example might be a line on Knott Road going by the end of the Stevenson Ranch airstrip. If the community endorsed this route and the 20 only way to resolve the airstrip conflict were to underground a short section of line we will consider doing so if that section is part of a loop F-ystem. While we are willing to remove the line on Highway 97 under these conditions we would also ask that even if acceptable alternative facilities are built that we remain free to apply for permanent status for this line subject to all established procedures and permits. Let me try to summarize. There is no legal basis for a permit that potentially requires future removal of the permitted facilities. The proposed line on Highway 97 is the fifth route to China Hat substation to receive local government review. It is a route acceptable to us, it is a route that has been endorsed by a large group of citizens, the hearings officer made no findings that this proposal failed to meet any criteria for being permitted. There is no basis for the imposition of conditions 7, 89 and 9, and we respectfully request on appeal that you remove those conditions from the conditional use permit approval. 21 0' �-0-f 3 the alternative, if you are not comfortable with complete removal of ,hose conditions then we ask that you substitute our proposed f;onditions that will make removal of this line conditioned on a complete solution rather than a partial solution. 22