Laserfiche WebLink
significant hazards to public health and safety. If it were possible to approve this application, it would <br />circumvent the standards that may be implemented by the county to ensure the safe development of BESSs in <br />the future. The proposed BESS is not a utility facility necessary for public service, but if it was, the proposal <br />would not meet this criterion. <br /> <br /> 6. Other requirements of state and federal agencies. <br /> <br />a. Costs associated with any of the factors listed above may be considered, but cost alone may not be the only <br />consideration in determining that a utility facility is necessary for public service. Land costs shall not be <br />included when considering alternative locations for substantially similar utility facilities and the siting of <br />utility facilities that are not substantially similar. <br /> <br />The applicant states that cost was only one of the factors analyzed when selecting this location. The applicant <br />did not provide analysis of any other factors. The evidence on the record suggests that cost is the sole <br />deciding factor when selecting this location. This location has existing overhead transmission lines. The <br />applicant states that they analyzed other locations near substations in the surrounding area, but all those <br />stations would require upgrades such as installation of overhead transmission lines. The upgrades to a location <br />are costs associated with that location. The proposed BESS is not a utility facility necessary for public <br />service, but if it was, the proposal would not meet this criterion. <br /> <br />b. The owner of a utility facility approved under this section shall be responsible for restoring to its former <br />condition as nearly as possible any agricultural land and associated improvements that are damaged or <br />otherwise disturbed by the siting, maintenance, repair or reconstruction of the facility. Nothing in this <br />subsection shall prevent the owner of the utility facility from requiring a bond or other security from a <br />contractor or otherwise imposing upon a contractor the responsibility for restoration. <br /> <br />The applicant states that they will comply with this section of code when the useful life of the facility is <br />realized. They did not provide any plan for decommissioning and restoration, and furthermore have not <br />provided any evidence that it is possible to restore the project site to agricultural use after developing it with a <br />BESS. The proposed BESS is not a utility facility necessary for public service, but if it was, the proposal <br />would not meet this criterion. <br /> <br /> c. The applicant shall address the requirements of MCC 17.136.060(A)(1). <br /> <br /> MCC 17.136.060(A)(1) contains the criteria for the farm impacts test in the EFU zone. The farm impacts test <br />has been recently updated by the Department of Land Conservation and Development to accurately represent <br />case law. <br /> <br />1. The use will not force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted farm or forest <br />practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use. Land devoted to farm or forest use does not <br />include farm or forest use on lots or parcels upon which a non-farm or non-forest dwelling has been approved <br />and established, in exception areas approved under ORS 197.732, or in an acknowledged urban growth <br />boundary. <br /> <br />For purposes of this section, a determination of forcing a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices <br />on surrounding lands devoted to farm and forest use or a determination of whether the use will significantly <br />increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use <br />requires: <br /> <br /> A. Identification and description of the surrounding lands, the farm and forest operations on those lands <br /> and the accepted farm practices on each farm operation and the accepted forest practices on each forest <br /> operation; <br /> B. An assessment of the individual impacts to each farm and forest practice, and whether the proposed use <br /> is likely to have an important influence or effect on any of those practices. This assessment applies practice <br /> by practice and farm by farm; and <br /> C. An assessment of whether all identified impacts of the proposed use when considered together could <br /> have a significant impact to any farm or forest operation in the surrounding area in a manner that is likely <br /> to have an important influence or effect on that operation. <br /> D. For purposes of this subsection, examples of potential impacts for consideration may include but are <br /> not limited to traffic, water availability and delivery, introduction of weeds or pests, damage to crops or <br /> livestock, litter, trespass, reduction in crop yields, or flooding.