BENTEK Foresees Huge Shift in Natural Gas Flows as More Than 40 Infrastructure Projects Come Online in the Southeast Gulf Region
BENTEK Foresees Huge Shift in Natural Gas Flows as More Than 40 Infrastructure Projects Come Online in the Southeast Gulf Region HOUSTONCO-BENTEK-ENERGY
HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--
A new report released by BENTEK Energy, LLC, details the impact of anticipated changes in natural gas markets when 40 capital infrastructure projects go into service in the Southeast/Gulf region. According to BENTEK's analysis, 25 natural gas pipeline projects, 11 natural gas storage projects and four LNG terminals are ........
Click this Link For Full Story
http://www.ad-hoc-news.de/drucken.html?art_id=16041392
Friday, March 28, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
The Kraske Segment Of The Goldsmith Report
So, here we have a sitting, elected official constantly complaining about the covenants, codes, statutes, policy and procedures of a Planning Department in the government he represents as "It doesn't work", "Not Right", "Problems in the County System", "Too Hard".
Any wonder there would be a question as to the integrity of the Planning Commission this same official was liason to and could have effectively hand picked himself to overide, as necessary, decisions from Planning Staff that may hinder whatever agenda may need to be prospered?
Seems to me Kraske's segment of the Goldsmith report was very telling and could very well highlight the crux of the weakness in this County Commission's leadership philosophy.
"Kraske:Lee's common complaint to her about the land use planning system is that it "Doesn't Work" for "Business People" and that a "Common Person" should be able to work the system but, they can't and that's "Not Right"."
"Kraske: Lee is not alone among Commissioners in wanting to fix what they perceive as problems in the County system."
"Kraske: she believes Lee sincerely feels it's "Too Hard", that Clatsop County makes land development harder than it needs to be and they could exercise more discretion."
"Kraske:Lee Feels as though everyone is being asked to do more than they should have to."
"Kraske:Lee has talked about his own plan and developments and also about how the Planning Department "Is Not Right"."
"Kraske:Lee has never asked to directly intervene in one of his projects."
Kraske:told Lee, "it's fine to change the system but, not with your own projects"."
"Kraske:In the five years that Richard Lee has been on the Board of Commissioners, he has complained once a week, on average, either about someone else's projects or his own developments. The majority of the time he is complaining about his own projects."
"Kraske:other than Lee, in the past two years, she's only received two complaints from builders but, they weren't serious complaints. The builders only told her what they said because they knew her personally. Kraske has had no serious complaints from members of the public."
Kraske's points and interview misused, some say?
What do you think?
Any wonder there would be a question as to the integrity of the Planning Commission this same official was liason to and could have effectively hand picked himself to overide, as necessary, decisions from Planning Staff that may hinder whatever agenda may need to be prospered?
Seems to me Kraske's segment of the Goldsmith report was very telling and could very well highlight the crux of the weakness in this County Commission's leadership philosophy.
"Kraske:Lee's common complaint to her about the land use planning system is that it "Doesn't Work" for "Business People" and that a "Common Person" should be able to work the system but, they can't and that's "Not Right"."
"Kraske: Lee is not alone among Commissioners in wanting to fix what they perceive as problems in the County system."
"Kraske: she believes Lee sincerely feels it's "Too Hard", that Clatsop County makes land development harder than it needs to be and they could exercise more discretion."
"Kraske:Lee Feels as though everyone is being asked to do more than they should have to."
"Kraske:Lee has talked about his own plan and developments and also about how the Planning Department "Is Not Right"."
"Kraske:Lee has never asked to directly intervene in one of his projects."
Kraske:told Lee, "it's fine to change the system but, not with your own projects"."
"Kraske:In the five years that Richard Lee has been on the Board of Commissioners, he has complained once a week, on average, either about someone else's projects or his own developments. The majority of the time he is complaining about his own projects."
"Kraske:other than Lee, in the past two years, she's only received two complaints from builders but, they weren't serious complaints. The builders only told her what they said because they knew her personally. Kraske has had no serious complaints from members of the public."
Kraske's points and interview misused, some say?
What do you think?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
From Willamette Week: Clatsop County Preps For Referendum On Peoposed Bradwood Pipeline
Clatsop County Preps For Referendum On Proposed Bradwood/Northern Star Pipeline
Willamette WeekMarch 24th 2008 4:07pm
BY: Shefali Kulkarni
Marc Auerbach of Birkenfeld, Ore. says he’s tired of seeing his county officials bend backwards to please NorthernStar Natural Gas. The latest evidence of that is a new amendment passed by Clatsop County commissioners altering county law to allow NorthernStar’s Liquefied Natural Gas (L.N.G) pipeline to pass through an area zoned for a park and recreation site.
“The county is already bending backwards to accommodate NorthernStar. This is going too far for a lot of people here. Now we are willing to let them trench across our parks?” says Auerbach, chair of the Northwest Property Rights Group—one of the major backers of a referendum to get the amendment revoked.
Click On Link Below For Full Story And Map!
http://wweek.com/wwire/?p=11311
Willamette WeekMarch 24th 2008 4:07pm
BY: Shefali Kulkarni
Marc Auerbach of Birkenfeld, Ore. says he’s tired of seeing his county officials bend backwards to please NorthernStar Natural Gas. The latest evidence of that is a new amendment passed by Clatsop County commissioners altering county law to allow NorthernStar’s Liquefied Natural Gas (L.N.G) pipeline to pass through an area zoned for a park and recreation site.
“The county is already bending backwards to accommodate NorthernStar. This is going too far for a lot of people here. Now we are willing to let them trench across our parks?” says Auerbach, chair of the Northwest Property Rights Group—one of the major backers of a referendum to get the amendment revoked.
Click On Link Below For Full Story And Map!
http://wweek.com/wwire/?p=11311
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
The Lee Recall Vote - First Results Are In At 95% Of Ballots Counted
First round of the ballot count is in with:
Yes - To Recall Richard Lee - 1627
No - Not Recall Richard Lee - 822
Update! Second Count
PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 7) . . . . . 100.00%
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . 4,265
BALLOTS COUNTED - TOTAL. . . . . . 2,665
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . 62.48%
MEASURE 4-126 - RECALL OF RICHARD LEE,
COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT 3
VOTE FOR 1
Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,732 65.26%
No.......................... 922 34.74%
Yes - To Recall Richard Lee - 1627
No - Not Recall Richard Lee - 822
Update! Second Count
PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 7) . . . . . 100.00%
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . 4,265
BALLOTS COUNTED - TOTAL. . . . . . 2,665
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . 62.48%
MEASURE 4-126 - RECALL OF RICHARD LEE,
COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT 3
VOTE FOR 1
Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,732 65.26%
No.......................... 922 34.74%
Astoria Could Have A New Police Chief After A Few More Background Checks
Contingent upon an in-depth background check beginning this week , Astoria City Manager, Paul Benoit announces the hiring of Fullerton, California Police Captain Geoff Spalding as the new Chief of Astoria Police Department. Prospective Chief Spalding will begin his new job in May.
City Manager Benoit says Captain Spalding prevailed in the selection process over candidates from Tennessee, Masachusetts, and two from Oregon.
Mr. Benoit said that the City of Astoria has already done background checks on all the finalists but now, they will start getting very thorough into Spalding's background to make certain he is the right person to handle the department.
City Manager Benoit says Captain Spalding prevailed in the selection process over candidates from Tennessee, Masachusetts, and two from Oregon.
Mr. Benoit said that the City of Astoria has already done background checks on all the finalists but now, they will start getting very thorough into Spalding's background to make certain he is the right person to handle the department.
Recall:What Is It Kraske Said To Goldsmith?
And Kraske feels she needs to submit a letter of clarity in criticism to the Goldsmith Report?
The Report clearly states what her letter only reflects.
And if there were ever a clear indication of an "Extreme Prejudice" on the part of an elected official to cause him/her to be recused from deliberating on land use issues, it appears this would be most telling and could not be ethically ignored, could it?
The following is taken from an email recieved on Friday from Debra Kraske..."Tom Freel" KAST-AM Radio
Tom,
I am concerned that my name and former position with Clatsop County are being used as part of a political campaign without my consent and I want to set the record straight.
A small portion of my interview with Jill Goldsmith regarding Commissioner Richard Lee is being presented out of context. What is not being communicated is that Commissioner Lee at no time asked me to intervene on his behalf regarding his permits nor did I feel compelled to do so.Commissioner Lee told me repeatedly that his complaints to me were made to illustrate his feelings that the land use system doesn't work for business people and that a common person should be able to obtain land use permits without needing to hire a land use consultant. These facts are part of the Goldsmith report, but are not being presented in their entirety.
Sincerely,
Debra Kraske
Former Assistant County Manager
Clatsop County, Oregon
Posted by Tom Freel at 9:41
From The Goldsmith Report:
"Kraske, Debra
Kraske told me that Lee's common complaint to her about the land use planning system is that it "Doesn't Work" for "Business People" and that a "Common Person" should be able to work the system but, they can't and that's "Not Right". Kraske told me that Lee is not alone among Commissioners in wanting to fix what they perceive as problems in the County system. Kraske said that she believes Lee sincerely feels it's "Too Hard", that Clatsop County makes land development harder than it needs to be and they couldexercise more discretion. Lee Feels as though everyone is being asked to do more than they should have to.
Lee has talked to Kraske about his own plan and developments and also about how the Planning Department "Is Not Right". Lee has never asked Kraske to directly intervene in one of his projects. Kraske has told Lee, "it's fine to change the system but, not with your own projects". There are a couple of other people who are unhappy with the Planning Department but, those who complain are well balanced with people who think Planning does a good job.
Linda Lee told Kraske that Bunch was rude to her but, did not tell Kraske that Bunch should be fired. Lynda Lee has been negative about staff before.
In the five years that Richard Lee has been on the Board of Commissioners, he has complained to Kraske once a week, on average, either about someone else's projects or his own developments. The majority of the time he is complaining about his own projects.
Kraske told me that, other than Lee, in the past two years, she's only received two complaints from builders but, they weren't serious complaints. The builders only told her what they said because they knew her personally. Kraske has had no serious complaints from members of the public."
The Report clearly states what her letter only reflects.
And if there were ever a clear indication of an "Extreme Prejudice" on the part of an elected official to cause him/her to be recused from deliberating on land use issues, it appears this would be most telling and could not be ethically ignored, could it?
The following is taken from an email recieved on Friday from Debra Kraske..."Tom Freel" KAST-AM Radio
Tom,
I am concerned that my name and former position with Clatsop County are being used as part of a political campaign without my consent and I want to set the record straight.
A small portion of my interview with Jill Goldsmith regarding Commissioner Richard Lee is being presented out of context. What is not being communicated is that Commissioner Lee at no time asked me to intervene on his behalf regarding his permits nor did I feel compelled to do so.Commissioner Lee told me repeatedly that his complaints to me were made to illustrate his feelings that the land use system doesn't work for business people and that a common person should be able to obtain land use permits without needing to hire a land use consultant. These facts are part of the Goldsmith report, but are not being presented in their entirety.
Sincerely,
Debra Kraske
Former Assistant County Manager
Clatsop County, Oregon
Posted by Tom Freel at 9:41
From The Goldsmith Report:
"Kraske, Debra
Kraske told me that Lee's common complaint to her about the land use planning system is that it "Doesn't Work" for "Business People" and that a "Common Person" should be able to work the system but, they can't and that's "Not Right". Kraske told me that Lee is not alone among Commissioners in wanting to fix what they perceive as problems in the County system. Kraske said that she believes Lee sincerely feels it's "Too Hard", that Clatsop County makes land development harder than it needs to be and they couldexercise more discretion. Lee Feels as though everyone is being asked to do more than they should have to.
Lee has talked to Kraske about his own plan and developments and also about how the Planning Department "Is Not Right". Lee has never asked Kraske to directly intervene in one of his projects. Kraske has told Lee, "it's fine to change the system but, not with your own projects". There are a couple of other people who are unhappy with the Planning Department but, those who complain are well balanced with people who think Planning does a good job.
Linda Lee told Kraske that Bunch was rude to her but, did not tell Kraske that Bunch should be fired. Lynda Lee has been negative about staff before.
In the five years that Richard Lee has been on the Board of Commissioners, he has complained to Kraske once a week, on average, either about someone else's projects or his own developments. The majority of the time he is complaining about his own projects.
Kraske told me that, other than Lee, in the past two years, she's only received two complaints from builders but, they weren't serious complaints. The builders only told her what they said because they knew her personally. Kraske has had no serious complaints from members of the public."
Recall: The Case For - The Case Against - One Last Look
Referred to the people by petition.
Measure 4-126 RECALL OF RICHARD LEE, CLATSOP COUNTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT 3
Question: Shall Richard Lee be recalled from the office of Clatsop County Commissioner, District 3?
The reasons given for demanding the recall of Richard Lee, as filed in the petition: By his actions as a Clatsop County Commissioner, Richard Lee, has harmed the future of Clatsop County and its residents through: Squandering public funds by choosing to hire planning and management consultants and expensive attorneys but disregarding their professional advice and findings; Undermining common values, adopted plans, established policies, and regulations of the County; Failing to be open and transparent in decision- making and development of policy, violating the spirit of public meetings law; Ignoring and failing to respond to the advice and concerns of paid staff, volunteer committees, and the public; Jeopardizing the justice system through threats of under-funding support staff; Manipulating the membership of the Planning Commission in order to control the Planning Commission’s decisions and actions; Endangering the public and disregarding public safety by failing to require funding guarantees for emergency services and personnel from major industrial proposals; Creating a divisive environment that is acrimonious and counter-productive in doing the public’s business. We hereby petition for the recall of Richard Lee.
The justification given by Richard Lee for his course in office:
I’ve spent my life in Clatsop County as a dairy farmer, small businessman and community volunteer. I believe in public service, which is why I ran for the Clatsop County Commission and have been proud to serve the community I love as commissioner.
The people of District 3 elected me to make decisions on their behalf and I have done my best to do what I believe is right for Clatsop County, it’s economy, it’s future and the families that call it home.
One of the risks of public service is that you won’t please everyone, but I stand by my record which I believe represents the majority view of County residents.
I’m now the target of a recall by a small but vocal minority. They’re certainly entitled to their opinion, but I will stand by my convictions and will fight to retain my seat on the commission.
If you don’t agree with me, then you’ll certainly have your opportunity to replace me at the ballot box when my term of office expires in 2010. But until then, I will continue fighting to make Clatsop County a place where people want to do business and create jobs for working people.
Measure 4-126 RECALL OF RICHARD LEE, CLATSOP COUNTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT 3
Question: Shall Richard Lee be recalled from the office of Clatsop County Commissioner, District 3?
The reasons given for demanding the recall of Richard Lee, as filed in the petition: By his actions as a Clatsop County Commissioner, Richard Lee, has harmed the future of Clatsop County and its residents through: Squandering public funds by choosing to hire planning and management consultants and expensive attorneys but disregarding their professional advice and findings; Undermining common values, adopted plans, established policies, and regulations of the County; Failing to be open and transparent in decision- making and development of policy, violating the spirit of public meetings law; Ignoring and failing to respond to the advice and concerns of paid staff, volunteer committees, and the public; Jeopardizing the justice system through threats of under-funding support staff; Manipulating the membership of the Planning Commission in order to control the Planning Commission’s decisions and actions; Endangering the public and disregarding public safety by failing to require funding guarantees for emergency services and personnel from major industrial proposals; Creating a divisive environment that is acrimonious and counter-productive in doing the public’s business. We hereby petition for the recall of Richard Lee.
The justification given by Richard Lee for his course in office:
I’ve spent my life in Clatsop County as a dairy farmer, small businessman and community volunteer. I believe in public service, which is why I ran for the Clatsop County Commission and have been proud to serve the community I love as commissioner.
The people of District 3 elected me to make decisions on their behalf and I have done my best to do what I believe is right for Clatsop County, it’s economy, it’s future and the families that call it home.
One of the risks of public service is that you won’t please everyone, but I stand by my record which I believe represents the majority view of County residents.
I’m now the target of a recall by a small but vocal minority. They’re certainly entitled to their opinion, but I will stand by my convictions and will fight to retain my seat on the commission.
If you don’t agree with me, then you’ll certainly have your opportunity to replace me at the ballot box when my term of office expires in 2010. But until then, I will continue fighting to make Clatsop County a place where people want to do business and create jobs for working people.
Patricia Roberts On "The LNG Review Process"
The LNG Review Process
From: Roberts For Clatsop http://robertsforclatsop.blogspot.com/
Here is an overview of the process used for reviewing the Bradwood Landing application for developing an import LNG terminal, pipeline and related facilities. Several issues are discussed in greater detail, but not all issues are covered. Remember, this is a 330 page document and written is legalize.
What has the Board of County Commissioners approved?
On March 20, 2008 the Board of County Commissioners discussed final revisions and voted to approve Bradwood Landing, LLC application for permits and development of an LNG Marine terminal, pipeline and related facilities. The document contains the conditions and required approvals necessary before a building permit will be issued, and the conditions required during the construction, operation and eventual decommissioning of the proposed development
This 330 page document covers every issue raised by the county during the approval process. Testimony from the public hearings is also addressed through these written findings. The Board, assisted by our planning consultant, planning staff and our land use attorney, as well as the Planning Commission deliberations and decisions, established conditions the applicant must meet to achieve compliance. The Planning staff had recommended denial of several issues until the applicant provided compliance. The Board took the approach of granting approval contingent upon the applicant meeting all approval criteria. The standards remain the same and end result is the same.
Review process to date:
The application process submittal to Clatsop County began December 12, 2006.
This initial application was found by the Clatsop County Planning Department to be incomplete. It took until February 14, 2007 for the application to be deemed complete. The Department then reviewed the application for compliance with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, Water Development and Use Ordinance (LWDUO) and Standards, and statewide planning goals. Next, the Planning Commission held public hearings on July 10 and 17, 2007 to hear testimony about the proposed development. The record was held open until July 31, 2007. Rebuttal was extended until August 17, 2007. The Planning Commission deliberated on August 28,2007 and on September 29, 2007 adopted their written findings recommending approval with conditions.
Next the Board of County Commissioners held public hearings on the application on November 19 and 26, 2007. The record was left open for additional comments and rebuttal until December 3, 2007. On December 13, 2007 the Board of County Commissioners deliberated and voted to give tentative approval to the application contingent upon preparation of suitable findings and approval by the Board. At the March 20, 2008 meeting revised findings were approved by the Board. County approval is not the final step in Bradwood’s permitting process. Before an LNG terminal may be built, Bradwood Landing LLC must also obtain permits from several state agencies and get authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Review by those state and federal agencies are now under way.
Industrial nature of the site.
Industrial use of Bradwood began in 1843 with the establishment of a sawmill at the base of Hunt Creek Falls. The railroad came in 1893. By 1930 an entire community had been built to serve those working in the mill. In 1983 the county zoned the mill site, Marine Industrial in recognition of the sites as “irrevocably committed” to water dependant industrial use. In 1990 the county reaffirmed this designation and established a 200 foot wide Aquatic Development Zone for a channel between the existing dock and the main Columbia River navigation channel. Waterway next to the existing dock area was also zoned Aquatic development at this time.
Two examples of required conditions for approval, both zone changes. At the time of the application the 40 acre terminal site was already zoned MI (Marine Industrial). Since an LNG terminal is considered an outright use in a MI Zone, why are any zone changes needed?
About five acres of wetlands, along the southern edge of the MI site is being rezoned to accommodate fill so the existing railroad can be re-aligned. Why is this allowable? The fill is necessary to accommodate the proposed development of the remainder of the site, and the loss of wetlands will be compensated by the creation of high quality estuary wetlands elsewhere.
Another zone change is required in the estuary, to accommodate a turning basin for LNG tankers. This change requires over 40 acres of Aquatic Conservation zoned water way be rezoned Aquatic Development so the necessary dredging can take place to deepen the area to accommodate the LNG ships. Some of the reasons given address the necessity of the dredging for the development of the upland use, that it is the minimum necessary for that development to occur, and that effort will be made to keep the negative impacts to a minimum.
The reasons given by the applicant for these zone changes must withstand the potential legal challenges of a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) and the review of both state and federal agencies.
In addition to these rezone issues, a Mitigation Plan is another condition of approval., The Mitigation plan must demonstrate compliance with state and federal standards for the impact upon fish, fish habitat, aquatic organisms, tidal wetlands, non-tidal wetlands, riparian habitat, designated critical habitat and wildlife habitat. The applicant is in the process of compiling with these state and federal requirements.
The Bradwood sub-area plan called for any development to be small to medium in scale. How can this development be considered small?
There are two facts that indicate that this project can be identified as small to medium. First, the state of Oregon in an attempt to encourage development of former mill sires, around 1990, ruled that all former mill sites were exempt from any building size. ( other industrial site are limited to a 30,000 square foot square t building size for industrial development.) In fact Bradwood, a former mill site, is specifically named in Clatsop County documents as exempt from a limitation on building size. Second, the only other indicator of size in the planning documents state the relative number of acres of an industrial site. Large is defined as 100 acres or more. Bradwood, at 40 acres thus is on the lesser side of medium, or 50 acres. There is no height limit on industrial sites in Clatsop County.
Further, the Board stipulated that the small to medium size limited the site to a maximum of two LNG tanks. The applicant had request three tanks. The applicant had also requested all language limiting the site to the small to medium size development be removed from the approval criteria. Their request was denied. Further the application is limited to the 36 mile pipeline included in the approval document. No other pipeline is included in this approval.
From: Roberts For Clatsop http://robertsforclatsop.blogspot.com/
Here is an overview of the process used for reviewing the Bradwood Landing application for developing an import LNG terminal, pipeline and related facilities. Several issues are discussed in greater detail, but not all issues are covered. Remember, this is a 330 page document and written is legalize.
What has the Board of County Commissioners approved?
On March 20, 2008 the Board of County Commissioners discussed final revisions and voted to approve Bradwood Landing, LLC application for permits and development of an LNG Marine terminal, pipeline and related facilities. The document contains the conditions and required approvals necessary before a building permit will be issued, and the conditions required during the construction, operation and eventual decommissioning of the proposed development
This 330 page document covers every issue raised by the county during the approval process. Testimony from the public hearings is also addressed through these written findings. The Board, assisted by our planning consultant, planning staff and our land use attorney, as well as the Planning Commission deliberations and decisions, established conditions the applicant must meet to achieve compliance. The Planning staff had recommended denial of several issues until the applicant provided compliance. The Board took the approach of granting approval contingent upon the applicant meeting all approval criteria. The standards remain the same and end result is the same.
Review process to date:
The application process submittal to Clatsop County began December 12, 2006.
This initial application was found by the Clatsop County Planning Department to be incomplete. It took until February 14, 2007 for the application to be deemed complete. The Department then reviewed the application for compliance with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, Water Development and Use Ordinance (LWDUO) and Standards, and statewide planning goals. Next, the Planning Commission held public hearings on July 10 and 17, 2007 to hear testimony about the proposed development. The record was held open until July 31, 2007. Rebuttal was extended until August 17, 2007. The Planning Commission deliberated on August 28,2007 and on September 29, 2007 adopted their written findings recommending approval with conditions.
Next the Board of County Commissioners held public hearings on the application on November 19 and 26, 2007. The record was left open for additional comments and rebuttal until December 3, 2007. On December 13, 2007 the Board of County Commissioners deliberated and voted to give tentative approval to the application contingent upon preparation of suitable findings and approval by the Board. At the March 20, 2008 meeting revised findings were approved by the Board. County approval is not the final step in Bradwood’s permitting process. Before an LNG terminal may be built, Bradwood Landing LLC must also obtain permits from several state agencies and get authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Review by those state and federal agencies are now under way.
Industrial nature of the site.
Industrial use of Bradwood began in 1843 with the establishment of a sawmill at the base of Hunt Creek Falls. The railroad came in 1893. By 1930 an entire community had been built to serve those working in the mill. In 1983 the county zoned the mill site, Marine Industrial in recognition of the sites as “irrevocably committed” to water dependant industrial use. In 1990 the county reaffirmed this designation and established a 200 foot wide Aquatic Development Zone for a channel between the existing dock and the main Columbia River navigation channel. Waterway next to the existing dock area was also zoned Aquatic development at this time.
Two examples of required conditions for approval, both zone changes. At the time of the application the 40 acre terminal site was already zoned MI (Marine Industrial). Since an LNG terminal is considered an outright use in a MI Zone, why are any zone changes needed?
About five acres of wetlands, along the southern edge of the MI site is being rezoned to accommodate fill so the existing railroad can be re-aligned. Why is this allowable? The fill is necessary to accommodate the proposed development of the remainder of the site, and the loss of wetlands will be compensated by the creation of high quality estuary wetlands elsewhere.
Another zone change is required in the estuary, to accommodate a turning basin for LNG tankers. This change requires over 40 acres of Aquatic Conservation zoned water way be rezoned Aquatic Development so the necessary dredging can take place to deepen the area to accommodate the LNG ships. Some of the reasons given address the necessity of the dredging for the development of the upland use, that it is the minimum necessary for that development to occur, and that effort will be made to keep the negative impacts to a minimum.
The reasons given by the applicant for these zone changes must withstand the potential legal challenges of a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) and the review of both state and federal agencies.
In addition to these rezone issues, a Mitigation Plan is another condition of approval., The Mitigation plan must demonstrate compliance with state and federal standards for the impact upon fish, fish habitat, aquatic organisms, tidal wetlands, non-tidal wetlands, riparian habitat, designated critical habitat and wildlife habitat. The applicant is in the process of compiling with these state and federal requirements.
The Bradwood sub-area plan called for any development to be small to medium in scale. How can this development be considered small?
There are two facts that indicate that this project can be identified as small to medium. First, the state of Oregon in an attempt to encourage development of former mill sires, around 1990, ruled that all former mill sites were exempt from any building size. ( other industrial site are limited to a 30,000 square foot square t building size for industrial development.) In fact Bradwood, a former mill site, is specifically named in Clatsop County documents as exempt from a limitation on building size. Second, the only other indicator of size in the planning documents state the relative number of acres of an industrial site. Large is defined as 100 acres or more. Bradwood, at 40 acres thus is on the lesser side of medium, or 50 acres. There is no height limit on industrial sites in Clatsop County.
Further, the Board stipulated that the small to medium size limited the site to a maximum of two LNG tanks. The applicant had request three tanks. The applicant had also requested all language limiting the site to the small to medium size development be removed from the approval criteria. Their request was denied. Further the application is limited to the 36 mile pipeline included in the approval document. No other pipeline is included in this approval.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Richard Lee:Current Permit/Certificate Status As Of Thursday, March 20,2008
OK, so here's current, as current as you will get, from Clatsop County Transportation and Development Services on the status of Richard Lee's Projects pending.
Just click on the page to read it and judge for yourself.
Just click on the page to read it and judge for yourself.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Looking Back: KAST Radio's Tom Freel A Prophet?
Pretty damned good call if you ask me.
November 07, 2007
County Split Over DA Measure
Just 31 votes caused the failure of measure 4-123. In our news this morning Commission Chair Richard Lee admitted that the committee for an independent DA did a good job telling it's story in making a case for a change in the county charter which, if it had passed, would have changed the manner in which the county provides compensation for Josh Marquis. Mr. Lee said he is glad that with the failure of this measure the commission can get back to doing the business of the public. Our reporter asked Mr. Lee when the commission might take action on an offer from Mr. Marquis to sit down with the commissioners and talk this out. Mr. Lee said there is a statewide meeting of Oregon Counties coming up and we are in the holiday season after all and he said it was unlikely that the DA will be invited to participate in a November meeting to discuss how to proceed on some agreement with the DA.What? Hopefully the commission understands how close they came to losing control of this situation and takes action quickly to come to a working relationship with this very popularDA which would seem to be very much the business of the public. This election wasn't a slam dunk for either side. It was fortunate for the county that the committee that brought this measure to the ballot decided to take the approach they did. If this had not been a constitutional change to the county charter which would have guaranteed a compensation level for the DA, it might have passed by 31 votes instead. Unless the commission drops it's attempt to control charging decisions made by the Office of District Attorney and comes to a reasonable agreement over performance measures, there could be another initiative that cures the flaws in measure 4-123. Some are already calling for a recall of the majority of the commission.It's time to resolve this matter.
And we see where the DA has promptly submitted his performance measures for 2007/2008 budget.
By the way, whatever happened on that grand jesture of a letter to the "Guvnuh" from our notorious County Commission on a state sanctioned resolution to compensation for the State's District attorneys?
November 07, 2007
County Split Over DA Measure
Just 31 votes caused the failure of measure 4-123. In our news this morning Commission Chair Richard Lee admitted that the committee for an independent DA did a good job telling it's story in making a case for a change in the county charter which, if it had passed, would have changed the manner in which the county provides compensation for Josh Marquis. Mr. Lee said he is glad that with the failure of this measure the commission can get back to doing the business of the public. Our reporter asked Mr. Lee when the commission might take action on an offer from Mr. Marquis to sit down with the commissioners and talk this out. Mr. Lee said there is a statewide meeting of Oregon Counties coming up and we are in the holiday season after all and he said it was unlikely that the DA will be invited to participate in a November meeting to discuss how to proceed on some agreement with the DA.What? Hopefully the commission understands how close they came to losing control of this situation and takes action quickly to come to a working relationship with this very popularDA which would seem to be very much the business of the public. This election wasn't a slam dunk for either side. It was fortunate for the county that the committee that brought this measure to the ballot decided to take the approach they did. If this had not been a constitutional change to the county charter which would have guaranteed a compensation level for the DA, it might have passed by 31 votes instead. Unless the commission drops it's attempt to control charging decisions made by the Office of District Attorney and comes to a reasonable agreement over performance measures, there could be another initiative that cures the flaws in measure 4-123. Some are already calling for a recall of the majority of the commission.It's time to resolve this matter.
And we see where the DA has promptly submitted his performance measures for 2007/2008 budget.
By the way, whatever happened on that grand jesture of a letter to the "Guvnuh" from our notorious County Commission on a state sanctioned resolution to compensation for the State's District attorneys?
Hazen's Going to Go For A Clatsop County "Media Policy"
Using Columbia County's Media Policy model of allowing only those "Official Media Organiztions" doing the business of gathering "Factual Information About Current Events" into "Executive Sessions" and the like, Clatsop County Commissioner Jeff Hazen, the author of the resolution that abolished the Clatsop County District Attorney stipend, plans to float this proposal before his colleagues and the citizens of Clatsop County at the March 26, 2008 Clatsop County Board of Commissiners meeting.
This should be an interesting and entertaining event to witness.
Columbia County recognizes as legitimate news gathering and media agencies without qualification, The Independent-Verninia, The Chief - Clatskanie, The daily News - Longview, The Chronicle - Saint Helens, The Spotlight - Scappoose, The Oregoinian - Portland, KOHI Radio - Saint Helens and stipulates no other entities shall be recognized as a "News Media Organization" unless it is recognized the the following process: (A) Must provide evidence the the entity is organized and operate to publish, broadcast or disseminate news to the public abd that ordinarily reports the activities of Columbia County, or that ordinarily reports matters of teh nature under consideration by Columbia County. (B) it shall be the entity's burden to persuade the Board by preponderance of evidence that it is a news component of a larger organization which isn't necessarily a news media agency. (C) The Board may consider any relevant evidence provided or gathered in making a decision whether to recognize an entity as a news media organization. The Board shall make its determination whether to recognize the entity as a news media organization based on the following criteria:
(i) Regular publication, regular broadcasts or regular updates (at least once weekly) of news.
(II) Publication, broadcast or website must caontain a minimum of 25% news content, and include news produced by its own staff.
(iii) The publication, broadcast or website must not serve primarily as a platform to promote the interest and/or opinions of a special interest group, indicidual or cause, or as a forum to air grievances, engage in gossip, or for personal attacks or character assassination.
(iv) Evidence that the entity ordinarily reports the activities of Columbia County or the entity ordinarily reports matters of the nature under consideration by Columbia County.
(D) The Board's decision to recognize or not to recognize an entity as a news media organization is a "Quasi-Judicial" decision reviewable as provided by ORS 34.010 to 34.100.
Yes indeed, interesting and good entertainment and will likley test the hell out of the First Amendment.
From Mail Tribune - Medford, Or. - Interview Highlights With Barack Obama
March 23, 2008
The following are highlights of an interview with Barack Obama
By Gary Nelson, Mail Tribune Editorial Page Editor:
Q: You mentioned timber payments to counties in passing in your speech. Do you support those payments?
A: What I'd like to do is convene meetings between federal agencies, local and state governments and interested parties, and start hammering out a long-term solution that acknowledges the revenue issues that are at stake for local governments and preserves the natural resources that are so important to Oregon.
Q: Do you think it's possible to get to a long-term solution?
A: I always believe there's the possibility of getting to a long-term solution. It just takes work. And it takes listening. And the federal government being an honest broker in the process.
Q: One of the issues that is getting a lot of attention in Oregon right now is liquefied natural gas terminals. The Bush administration has decided that energy supply is a national security issue, and therefore has given FEMA the power to decide whether Oregon gets liquefied natural gas terminals.
A: I'm not big on that theory. LNG is a transitional technology or resource. And we can't ignore our genuine energy needs. On the other hand, to completely circumvent state authority on this issue I think is a mistake.
I think it's important for the federal government to work with state governments, and to recognize that over the long-term, liquefied natural gas is not going to be the answer to our energy problems. What we need to do is to find other energy sources than fossil fuels.
Q: Do you think LNG is worth pursuing on a temporary basis?
A: I think it comes down to the economics and the safety issues. Sometimes safety concerns can be overstated. And I don't want to pretend at this stage that I have reviewed all of the science — as I just said in the town hall meeting — what I want this to be driven by is science, and if somebody can persuade me that liquefied natural gas can be used safely, and is not a significant terrorist target, and does not expose the surrounding communities to enormous threats, does not degrade the environment, and, having met all those criteria, is still economical to use, then obviously this is something that I would be open to.
But I think that if you don't factor in any of those potential hazards, then you're not making a good decision.
Q: A couple of other issues of interest to Oregonians involve initiatives passed by the voters that have come into conflict with the federal government: physician-assisted suicide and medical marijuana. Do you support those two concepts?
A: I am in favor of palliative medicine in circumstances where someone is terminally ill. ... I'm mindful of the legitimate interests of states to prevent a slide from palliative treatments into euthanasia. On the other hand, I think that the people of Oregon did a service for the country in recognizing that as the population gets older we've got to think about issues of end-of-life care. ...
As for medical marijuana ... I'm not familiar with all the details of the initiative that was passed, but I think the basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that's entirely appropriate. ...
I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue.
The following are highlights of an interview with Barack Obama
By Gary Nelson, Mail Tribune Editorial Page Editor:
Q: You mentioned timber payments to counties in passing in your speech. Do you support those payments?
A: What I'd like to do is convene meetings between federal agencies, local and state governments and interested parties, and start hammering out a long-term solution that acknowledges the revenue issues that are at stake for local governments and preserves the natural resources that are so important to Oregon.
Q: Do you think it's possible to get to a long-term solution?
A: I always believe there's the possibility of getting to a long-term solution. It just takes work. And it takes listening. And the federal government being an honest broker in the process.
Q: One of the issues that is getting a lot of attention in Oregon right now is liquefied natural gas terminals. The Bush administration has decided that energy supply is a national security issue, and therefore has given FEMA the power to decide whether Oregon gets liquefied natural gas terminals.
A: I'm not big on that theory. LNG is a transitional technology or resource. And we can't ignore our genuine energy needs. On the other hand, to completely circumvent state authority on this issue I think is a mistake.
I think it's important for the federal government to work with state governments, and to recognize that over the long-term, liquefied natural gas is not going to be the answer to our energy problems. What we need to do is to find other energy sources than fossil fuels.
Q: Do you think LNG is worth pursuing on a temporary basis?
A: I think it comes down to the economics and the safety issues. Sometimes safety concerns can be overstated. And I don't want to pretend at this stage that I have reviewed all of the science — as I just said in the town hall meeting — what I want this to be driven by is science, and if somebody can persuade me that liquefied natural gas can be used safely, and is not a significant terrorist target, and does not expose the surrounding communities to enormous threats, does not degrade the environment, and, having met all those criteria, is still economical to use, then obviously this is something that I would be open to.
But I think that if you don't factor in any of those potential hazards, then you're not making a good decision.
Q: A couple of other issues of interest to Oregonians involve initiatives passed by the voters that have come into conflict with the federal government: physician-assisted suicide and medical marijuana. Do you support those two concepts?
A: I am in favor of palliative medicine in circumstances where someone is terminally ill. ... I'm mindful of the legitimate interests of states to prevent a slide from palliative treatments into euthanasia. On the other hand, I think that the people of Oregon did a service for the country in recognizing that as the population gets older we've got to think about issues of end-of-life care. ...
As for medical marijuana ... I'm not familiar with all the details of the initiative that was passed, but I think the basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that's entirely appropriate. ...
I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)