Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transmission Line Cu 2 24 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Umatilla planning commission denies UEC transmission‑line conditional use after heavy resident opposition
Summary
After several hours of public comment raising environmental, view‑preservation and routing concerns, the Umatilla Planning Commission voted to deny Umatilla Electric Cooperative’s conditional‑use request (CU‑2‑24) for a transmission line near Rio Senda and McNary refuge lands.
The Umatilla Planning Commission voted on Sept. 24, 2024, to deny Umatilla Electric Cooperative’s conditional‑use application (CU‑2‑24) for a proposed transmission line near the Rio Senda neighborhood and the McNary area. Commissioners cited unanswered questions about alternative routings, wildlife impacts and whether the findings fully reflected hundreds of pages of public comment.
The decision follows a staff report and applicant presentation, and more than two hours of public testimony. Staff told the commission that technical issues such as noise, wildfire mitigation and construction standards are regulated by state agencies or utilities (for example, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and utility commissions), but that the commission must apply local land‑use criteria and findings. Staff also asked the commission to direct staff to update findings if the commission felt comfortable making a decision so the record would be legally defensible.
UEC representatives said the company conducted outreach — including an open house on Sept. 18, simulation boards, mailers and a corridor feasibility study — and that design changes had reduced visual impacts (consolidating two circuits into a single double‑circuit and moving from H‑structures to single monopoles). "We tried to address these issues," said Justin, a UEC representative, noting the routing and outreach work in the packet.
Residents who spoke described the project as a generational, permanent change to local views and habitat and urged denial. "I sincerely hope you vote no to UEC's proposal," said Derek Collins, who identified himself at the hearing. Residents stressed a range of concerns: potential impacts to the McNary National Wildlife Refuge and the Wallowa Delta bird stopover; fire‑safety and liability questions where the line abuts Army Corps land; property‑value effects; and what speakers called inadequate exploration of alternatives such as routing along Highway 730.
A long‑form public commenter quoting the city comprehensive plan and state statutes argued that the comp plan should control land‑use decisions and urged a no vote to protect the river and community values, while other residents asked whether federal processes (NEPA, FERC) and the Oregon Department of Energy had been notified.
After the public record closed, several commissioners said they had not seen sufficient justification that alternatives were infeasible or that all public comments had been incorporated into legally defensible findings. Commissioner Nobles moved to deny the application; Commissioner Morgan seconded. The commission took a roll‑call vote and the chair announced the result. Staff said they would incorporate the commission’s direction into the record and next steps would include the appeal path to city council and potentially to circuit court if challenged.
What happens next: the planning commission record now reflects the denial. The decision may be appealed to city council (the transcript notes that both approval and denial can be appealed) and the applicant retains other administrative or legal remedies available under state law.
