Clatsop County Commissioners updated on Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals decision on Bradwood Landing Land Use Application
At the Wednesday evening Clatsop County Board of County Commissioner meeting, county counsel, Blair Henningsgaard, commended the Board for the work they did on the Bradwood Landing land use application process and stated that he would like it understood that LUBA did not “overturn” the Board’s decision. LUBA remanded one and one half issues back to the County for further action. Henningsgaard also stressed that LUBA denied all of the challenges to the due-process elements of the county’s review of the Bradwood project application.
After the BOCC meeting Henningsgaard was asked to clarify if these issues would have to be reheard. He stated that it was up to the petitioner (Bradwood, in this instance) since it was the petitioner who wanted an action to take place. Bradwood could use the evidence already presented in the findings of over 50,000 pages of documentation or could ask for it to be reheard in order to present additional evidence.
In the case of the terminology used to define “protect” for instance, Henningsgaard elucidated, LUBA said the County findings referenced an incorrect source for the definition of the term “protect” in context of Statewide Planning Goals [16 and 17]. Bradwood Landing will have no problem in answering LUBA’s request for further action, according to Bradwood Landing Senior Vice President for External Affairs Joe Desmond, “This is a definitional issue, since under section 1.035 Rules of Construction, Clatsop County Land and Water Development and Use Ordinance (LWDUO), there is a ranking of how the language should be interpreted. It is an issue that can easily be clarified.”
The second finding that LUBA remanded back to the County for further action dealt with the project scale. LUBA states, “The Bradwood Subarea Plan discusses the “limited potential for small to medium sized” industrial use of the site, but relates that limited potential to the site’s development constraints, including “poor highway access and proximity to the wildlife refuge.” LUBA goes on to clarify, “The county is on stronger footing in citing the Goal 9 comprehensive plan element and the fact that the LWDUO specifically exempts the Bradwood site from building size limitations otherwise applicable in the MI zone.”
In conclusion LUBA writes “…county erred in its primary conclusion that the scale restriction is a mere restatement of the fill limitation, and because the county erred in limiting the scope of “development activities” to the upland acres covered by the LNG facility itself, we conclude that remand is necessary for the county re-evaluate whether the proposed development activities, considered as a whole, comply with the “small or moderate” scale limitation.”
Desmond explains the LUBA ruling thus: “LUBA did not rule the County erred in finding the project small to moderate in scale. Instead, LUBA found that the County is on strong footing in citing the Goal 9 comprehensive plan element and the fact that the LWDUO specifically exempts the Bradwood site from building size limitations otherwise applicable in the Marine Industrial zone is informative. Rather, LUBA said the County’s findings need to reflect that in making its determination, the record covered a broader definition of the term development for things such as in water structures, powerlines, and pipelines. Information related to each of these items is already on the record.”
Ed Wegner, Transportation and Development Services Director, told the board that no appeals of the LUBA ruling are filed by the Feb. 17 deadline, the matter comes back to the Board, which will then have an additional 90 days to review and act on the remanded issues.
Columbia Riverkeepers (CRK) continue to describe the LUBA decision as a big victory that would bring state agencies to a halt in processing a number of necessary permits for Bradwood. CRK also stated that Intervenor-Petitioners, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITF), was also successful in its appeal in which they alleged eight substantive and procedural errors in the County’s approval of the Bradwood project. LUBA, in fact, denied all eight and CRITF did not win on a single issue.
Opponents of Bradwood have hotly contested the scale of the Bradwood project. Steve Forrester, editor of the Daily Astorian, and its manager editor, Patrick Webb have played tag team taking turns raking the Board over the coals, accusing them of acting like “drunken sailors” and writing, “One of the commission’s most egregious acts was finding that the proposed liquefied natural gas terminal at Bradwood Landing was not a major development” and “That county’s decree was a howler.”
Columbia Riverkeepers argued to LUBA, “that the nature and scale of the LNG terminal is clearly not “small or moderate.” In a video taped interview a reporter asked Dan Serres, Columbia Riverkeeper conservation director and Program Coordinator with FLOW (Friends of Living. Oregon Waters) How big of a footprint is this facility? Would it be pretty large? Serres replied, “No, actually, they’re not that large. The facilities fit 50 to 100 acres …” (see clip of video below).
No comments:
Post a Comment