The Coos County hearings officer has found no reason for the county to block development of a liquefied natural gas terminal on the North Spit.

Submitted Wednesday evening, the officer’s 20-page report advises the Coos County Board of Commissioners to approve a land use application filed by Jordan Cove Energy Project earlier this year. Hearings Officer Anne Corcoran Briggs said Jordan Cove satisfied all the requirements of the county’s zoning and land development ordinance. In her conclusion, she included several conditions, several of which underline the importance the state and federal government have in the review process.

The recommendation now will be taken up by the commissioners, who will deliberate on the matter at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Nov. 7, at the Coos County Courthouse. Additional public comments will not be taken.

Many projects opponents at the well-attended public hearing, held Aug. 28, had urged the county to dismiss the application because it would impact the quality of life of many county residents on a variety of fronts.

Corcoran Briggs addressed this issue in her report, noting she must follow the statutes and guidelines outlined in the county’s ordinance. But she did leave a small opening for the commissioners to deny the application.

“...the Board of County Commissioners, may, in its discretion, decide that there are other ‘appropriate’ county regulations that justify denial of the application,” she wrote.

Commissioner Nikki Whitty said she was unsure what Corcoran Briggs might have referred to with this comment, but expected to have an answer by next Wednesday’s meeting.

Commissioner John Griffith declined to comment about the Jordan Cove application, but said politics, philosophy and emotion cannot be used as criteria in land use applications.

“It has to be based on the ordinance and comprehensive plan,” he said. “It’s all very precise.”

Corcoran Briggs could not be reached for comment to clarify her remark.

Opponent Jody McCaffree had called on the county to refuse the application during the public hearing in August. Despite her protestations, when she learned of the recommendations, she said she hadn’t thought the county would heed her appeals.

“We kind of expected that (recommendation) and the county commissioners to say whatever she said,” McCaffree said. “I don’t think it was an argument we could win, although we did think we needed to make a showing.”

In her report, Corcoran Briggs acknowledged the opposition’s arguments, though it usually was in leading up to an explanation for why they were unfounded.

Some of the reasons opponents objected to the application were procedural matters, while others dealt with intricate policy and criteria considerations. In both cases, Corcoran Briggs took time to review the arguments and then explain her reason for approving the application.

One of the chief complaints from the opposition was that the LNG terminal should have been considered along with an application to build a docking slip and construct a pipeline. Corcoran Briggs said the issue of greater importance was that the county must render a decision on an application within 150 days of receiving it. Had the county waited for all of the applications, it would have run the risk of violating this requirement.

“The county may deny an application for failing to comply with relevant approval standards, but it cannot deny an application merely because it does not address the larger project of which it is a part,” she wrote.

Some opponents argued that Jordan Cove didn’t have authority to apply for a land use application because it does not own the land that would be developed. But Corcoran Briggs dismissed this as well, noting that the property’s title holders, Weyerhaeuser Co. and Roseburg Lumber Products, allowed Jordan Cove to apply for the project on their behalf.

Dealing with the project itself, many opponents had said the site for the terminal is inappropriate, given its potential impact on the environment and being located so close to populated areas.

But the applicants argued it’s the only location that meets their criteria: close to the deep-draft channel, sited below the railroad bridge and on a large vacant, level property.

“The evidence shows that the site is located on one of three deep draft channels in the state, that the proposed use is water-dependent or water-related, and that alternative locations are not as suitable as the proposed site,” Corcoran Briggs wrote.

Some opponents had argued that while the docking facilities need to be located near water, the storage tanks and other land-based facilities could be sited elsewhere.

Corcoran Briggs disagreed. She noted that LNG must be kept at low temperatures, which would be more difficult if great distances separated the moorage site from the processing facilities.

One of the principle arguments against the project was that Appendix 3, Volume II of the Estuary Management Plan said the highest priority for the use of coastal land is promoting the integrity of estuaries and coastal waters. Only the second priority was providing land for water-dependent use.

Jordan Cove argued in response that the particular land being considered has been zoned for industrial development and is therefore consistent with the county’s management plan.

Corcoran Briggs critiqued the county’s policy, but eventually agreed with the applicant’s argument.

“This strategy is ambiguous, in that it does not explain what is necessary to implement the priority scheme,” she wrote. “While it is not entirely without doubt, I conclude that the applicant’s interpretation and application of the policy is more consistent with the CBEMP as a whole.”

Concerns about tsunamis also were addressed to the satisfaction of Corcoran Briggs, noting that surge berms will be built around storage tanks that would block surges up to 54 feet tall.

Other issues, like the possibility of destabilizing sand dune and the close proximity of the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, were not within the purview of the county’s oversight. These would need to be handled by state and federal agencies, the report said.

Corcoran Briggs did have some concerns with the proposal. She wanted to make sure the applicants did not build close to wetlands and that provisions would be taken to insure historical artifacts would be properly handled and preserved. She included conditions that 50-foot setbacks be maintained from wetlands and a resource identification and protection plan be adopted to ensure Indian artifacts are protected.

She gave her approval on the condition that the county also approves the Oregon Gateway Marine Terminal, and that the state and federal agencies involved in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission review give their assent to the project as well.

Jordan Cove Project Manager Bob Braddock said he was not surprised with the conditions recommended by Corcoran Briggs and added that most already have been requested by other state and federal agencies.

“Nothing seems to be different than what we were planning to do,” he said.

Steve Jones, a member of several groups opposing the project and who ran for a seat on the Coos County Airport Board in May, said he was not surprised with the decision.

“We fully expected Anne Corcoran Briggs to come back with that recommendation,” he said. “If (the commissioners) don’t go along with her recommendation, I would be very surprised.”

Although McCaffree was unsure whether it would make sense to appeal the decision if the commissioners adopt Corcoran Briggs’ findings, Jones said there was little question in his mind.

“We will take it to LUBA,” he said. “Our attorneys are hard at work.”

McCaffree, however, thinks it would be wise to devote energy to the FERC process, which is in the draft environmental impact statement process.

“We feel we have more than one, winnable argument in terms of the FERC fight,” she said. “The location is horrible, unstable sand dunes and FAA issues. But that’s the FERC fight.”

Although the Corcoran Briggs’ conclusion was not the one she wanted to hear, McCaffree thought something was accomplished with the opposition at the land use hearing.

“We did the best we could and we let them know there are a lot of people opposed to this,” she said.