LNG supporters, critics to clash

By Alexander Rich, Staff Writer
Sunday, August 26, 2007 | 2 comment(s)

Font Size: Shrink Font Enlarge Font | Submit your news
For the first time since the idea was broached in 2004, the proposed liquefied natural gas terminal in Coos County will come under the scrutiny of a local governing body. And area residents will have an opportunity to provide evidence to support or scuttle efforts to construct such a facility.

The Coos County Planning Department will hold a public hearing in Coquille on Tuesday to give proponents, opponents and the applicant, Jordan Cove Energy Project, a forum to comment on the land use application before a county hearings officer.

Following the meeting, the officer, Anne Corcoran Briggs, who was hired by the county in April, will write an opinion that the Coos County Board of Commissioners will consider at a public meeting Nov. 7.

The project ultimately must receive approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The commission's only consideration will be to determine if it meets county building guidelines.

A staff report, submitted by Coos County Planning Director Patty Evernden, concluded it does. It also agreed there are no alternate sites within urban areas of the county that meet the criteria for an LNG import terminal. A lower bay location was deemed appropriate to provide easy access to the shipping channel and to avoid potential shipping limitations due to the railroad bridge.

In March, nearly two and a half years after the idea first surfaced, Jordan Cove filed for an application with the county. The document requests approval for the construction of an LNG terminal, including regasification facilities, two tanks capable of storing 6.4 billion cubic feet of natural gas and a co-generation plant, on 159 acres of land.

Although Jordan Cove plans to construct unloading facilities at a docking area proposed by the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay, the application says that structure is included in a separate land use permit request dealing with the Oregon Gateway Marine Terminal.

That subject will be taken up at a public hearing tentatively set for Monday, Sept. 17. Neither event will serve as a forum to discuss the Pacific Connector natural gas pipeline, which would span from the proposed LNG terminal to Malin (see sidebar).

Corcoran Briggs will serve as hearings officer at both events. According to her resume, Corcoran Briggs was a Land Use Board of Appeals board member from 1999 to 2004. Her resume touts that of the 40 LUBA opinions she authored that were appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, only six were overturned.

Board Chairman John Griffith said Corcoran Briggs was hired at the request of the Coos County Planning Commission, which would have heard the case otherwise. All three commissioners made the decision to bypass the commission in March.

Corcoran Briggs' services will be paid for by Jordan Cove, not the county, Griffith added.

Commissioners have said in the past that a hearings officer would bring in a higher level of expertise, protect Planning Commission volunteers from community backlash and stick closer to the facts of the land use requirements. These factors could prove beneficial if the commission's decision is appealed to the LUBA.

If the Board of Commissioners decides to approve the project, planning staff recommends adding several conditions. These include requiring the approval of the Oregon Gateway Marine Terminal, 50-foot setbacks from wetlands and the Henderson Marsh area, and a plot plan to confirm development will not take place within the area's floodplain. It recommends the involvement of the Department of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in reviewing the grading of dunes.

The only public comments included in the report indicate the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians have no objections to the project. In its application, Jordan Cove indicated the land had been identified as a potentially significant archeological site.

The LNG terminal hearing will begin at 4 p.m. in the Coquille Community Building, 115 N. Birch St. Jordan Cove will have 45 minutes to present its application. After that, proponents of the project will each have up to 10 minutes to present their comments, followed by neutral parties and finally opponents. After everyone who wishes to speak has finished, Jordan Cove will be given 15 minutes for a rebuttal. There will be a half-hour break from 6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

At the end of the meeting, Corcoran Briggs will decide whether to keep the case open for public comment or close it. No comments will be allowed at the Board of Commissioners meeting in November.
Tags »
Next

Have you checked out The World Link Forums?

Comments

The comments below are from users of theworldlink.com and do not necessarily represent the views of The World or Lee Enterprises. Participation Guidelines

Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Comment Policy

The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.

Please follow these basic rules:

  • No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
  • No deliberately false information.
  • No obscenity or racially offensive language.
  • No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
  • No information that invades another person's privacy.
  • No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.

Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.

The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.

Close Guidelines

DK wrote on Aug 30, 2007 12:34 PM:

The County pays for the costs of the Hearings Officer, but is reimbursed for that expense by the appicant as a part of their application fees. In fact, the applicant reimburses the County for all of its costs associated with processing the application. This is not a conflict of interest. It simply ensures that we, as taxpayers, don't have to pay for the exorbinant cost incurred in processing the application.

JK wrote on Aug 27, 2007 11:32 AM:

Having the hearings officer paid by the developer smacks of conflict of interest. If the Planning Commission intends to serve as an arm of the developer they will be held responsible even though they are attempting to sidestep responsibility by hiring the hearings offcier.


*Member ID:
*Password:
 

Not already registered?

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!



*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

*First Name:
*Last Name:
Would you like to be added to our mailing lists?
Daily Headlines
Breaking News
Special Offers
 
Advanced Search
Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH

Blogroll

Most Popular

Polls

» View Past Poll Results
» Suggest a Poll

Marketplace

Special Sections

More Special Sections