The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) remanded an appeal of the Board of Commissioners' decision approving comprehensive plan amendments, four zone changes, and development approvals to allow a liquefied natural gas marine terminal, a natural gas pipeline, and related facilities at Bradwood Landing.

On August 12, 2009, the Board of Commissioners conducted the second and final reading of Ordinance No. 09-04, adopting supplemental findings for Bradwood Landing LLC’s land-use application for the proposed liquefied natural gas terminal project. The findings addressed two issues remanded to the county by the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals as a result of an appeal filed against the county’s original approval of the land-use application.  View the Decision Document, which includes the ordinance, resolution and order and adopted supplemental findings.

The Board of Commissioners held a public hearing July 8, 2009 on draft supplemental findings to address the LUBA remand issues, and on July 16 voted to grant tentative approval of the findings after directing the applicant, Bradwood Landing LLC, to make certain revisions. The Board reviewed the revised supplemental findings at its regular meeting Wednesday, July 22.

The remand was based on two items, summarized by LUBA as follows:

1)   "The county does not explain why it is permissible under the explicit terms of LWDUO 1.035 to apply the law dictionary definition instead of or in addition to the definition from the statewide planning goals.  Not only is the statewide planning goal definition obviously more germane to the meaning of CCP Policy 20.2(1) and CCP Policy 20.8, but LWDUO explicitly requires the county to apply that definition before turning to a law dictionary definition.  We conclude that remand is necessary for the county to apply the statewide planning goal definition of 'protect'."  LUBA 2008-052, page 34.  View LUBA 2008-052, the decision on the consolidated application.

2)   "Given that the 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 (SIC) re-evaluate whether the proposed development activities, considered as a whole comply with the 'small or moderate' scale limitation."  LUBA 2008-052, page 48.  View LUBA 2008-052, the decision on the consolidated application.

At the July 8, 2009 public hearing, the Board of Commissioners accepted testimony on proposed new supplemental findings addressing the remand issues. Testimony was limited strictly to the two remanded issues listed above. View the original draft supplemental findings.  View the revised supplemental findings. 

View the written submittals for the July 8, 2009 County Commission hearing.