Ex 11 by nL358Lo

VIEWS: 8 PAGES: 161

									                                                           1


 1                IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
 2                    COUNTY OF KITTITAS
 3   __________________________________________________
 4   KITTITAS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY )
     COMMISSIONERS   SPECIAL MEETING     ) NO. 2-2003-01
 5   RE DESERT CLAIM WIND POWER          )
     PROJECT                             )
 6   __________________________________________________
 7
               VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
 8
     __________________________________________________
 9
10
                         March 1, 2005
11                         6:00 p.m.
                 Kittitas County Fairgrounds
12                  Ellensburg, Washington
13
14
15
16
17
     BEFORE THE KITTITAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25   REPORTED BY:
     LOUISE R. BELL, CCR NO. 2676
26
                                                       2


 1   APPEARANCES:

 2    KITTITAS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:

 3          COMMISSIONER PERRY HUSTON

            COMMISSIONER DAVID BOWEN

 4          COMMISSIONER ALAN CRANKOVICH

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
                                                          3


 1       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    It is March 1st,

 2   year 2005.    It is 6:00 p.m.   We are at the

 3   Kittitas County fairgrounds in special

 4   meeting of the Kittitas County Board of

 5   County Commissioners.   This meeting will

 6   please come to order.

 7       We are in special meeting this evening

 8   for purposes of conducting a continued public

 9   hearing regarding the Desert Claim wind power

10   application.

11       Before we begin, let me start by

12   introducing the commissioners.    To my --

13   well, not far right, but almost far right, is

14   Commissioner Alan Crankovich, District 2.       In

15   the center, Commissioner David Bowen,

16   District 1.    I'm Perry Huston, Commissioner

17   of District 3.   To my far right is Julie

18   Kjorsvik, the clerk of the board.

19       Let me introduce Darryl Piercy,

20   Community Development Services director, to

21   my immediate left, who will introduce the

22   staff table.

23       MR. PIERCY:    Mr. Chair, thank you very

24   much.   To my left is Allison Kimball,

25   assistant director of Community Development

26
                                                     4


 1   Services.   And to my far left at this table

 2   is Jim Hurson, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor.

 3       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    Thank you.

 4       Again, we're in public hearing this

 5   evening to consider the application of the

 6   Desert Claim Wind Power Project.

 7   Specifically, we have a revised development

 8   agreement which has been put out for public

 9   comment.    That's the purpose of our meeting

10   tonight.

11       We'll later receive a report from staff,

12   report from the applicant, as well as take

13   public testimony regarding the information

14   you've heard and have had available to you.

15       Because this is an application that

16   deals with the specific rights of an

17   individual -- in this case a company, but an

18   individual nonetheless in the eyes and ears

19   of the law -- it is a quasi-judicial process,

20   and to that end we are prohibited from

21   ex parte contact or contact outside of this

22   hearing process relevant to the application.

23       However, things happen, so the remedy

24   for those occasional and hopefully

25   inadvertent contacts is that we disclose

26
                                                      5


 1   those for the record so that anybody has the

 2   opportunity to question or otherwise bring to

 3   bear any concerns they might have regarding

 4   those third-party contacts.

 5       I'll begin with those disclosures.       I

 6   have had -- well, actually let me do some

 7   housekeeping.   We have -- since we released

 8   the revised development agreement, we

 9   received a variety of letters, e-mails,

10   et cetera.   Those have all been assembled

11   through 4:00 p.m. of today and are now part

12   of the public record.

13       So any of those documents that we have

14   seen, you can see; they're a matter of the

15   record at this time.

16       In terms of in-person contacts, I did

17   have a visit by Tuffy Morrison, who had

18   questions concerning the status, if you will,

19   of the process that would now be driven by

20   the revised development agreement.   We had

21   the discussion that tonight it would be open

22   for public testimony and eventually the board

23   would make some sort of a decision vis-a-vis

24   the development agreement.

25       As well, Steve Lathrop called -- well,

26
                                                      6


 1   now that I think about it, I believe he was

 2   talking about one of the other wind farm

 3   applications.   At any rate, again, a question

 4   of process in terms of the status of the

 5   development agreement and the various

 6   hearings.   I explained -- well, I guess it

 7   was the other application.   I explained to

 8   him that we'll be reviewing documents

 9   Thursday night.

10       So it's actually beginning to happen:

11   It's beginning to merge together.

12       So at any rate, I had that contact with

13   Mr. Lathrop and I'll disclose that Thursday

14   as well.

15       Hearing that, let me ask for the record

16   if there's anyone would who object to my

17   remaining sitting in hearing on this

18   application.

19       Let the record show there's no one

20   indicating an objection.

21       Commissioner Bowen.

22       COMMISSIONER BOWEN:    The only thing

23   close to a declaration, I guess, is in

24   passing in the conversation with Jim Mapes --

25       UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER:   I can't

26
                                                     7


 1   hear.

 2       COMMISSIONER BOWEN:    In a conversation

 3   with Jim Mapes --

 4       Is that working better?

 5       In a conversation with Jim Mapes he

 6   informed me that he was in support of

 7   windmills and wind farms in general, and

 8   that's the only contact I've had.

 9       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    Hearing that, let

10   me ask if there anyone present who would

11   object to Commissioner Bowen sitting in

12   hearing on this application.

13       The record show there's no one

14   indicating an objection.

15       Commissioner Crankovich.

16       COMMISSIONER CRANKOVICH:    Other than

17   various comments on wind farms in general

18   supporting or against, nothing really

19   staunchly comes forward.    And incoming

20   written comments that we've been receiving.

21   I've had one outside contact, and that was

22   with Mr. Milt Johnston of the Department of

23   Natural Resources and in regard to the

24   setbacks.

25       And that's it for me.

26
                                                       8


 1       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   Hearing that, let

 2   me ask if there is anyone present who would

 3   object to Commissioner Crankovich sitting in

 4   hearing on this application.

 5       The record show there's no one

 6   indicating an objection.   All commissioners

 7   will remain seated.

 8       With that, how we'll proceed this

 9   evening is again we'll start with a report,

10   staff comments.   We'll go to the applicant,

11   who will then bring us up to date in terms of

12   the revised development agreement and other

13   activities since we last met.

14       Let me remind staff and the applicant

15   that I do expect they'd be thorough

16   presentations in the beginning.     I will want

17   no new, substantive information following

18   public testimony.   We'll give opportunity for

19   discussion to points made in testimony and

20   that sort of thing, but I want no new

21   information after public testimony or I will

22   reopen it to additional public comment.    So

23   just to make that absolutely clear so we

24   don't run afoul of misconception.

25       After we receive that information, we'll

26
                                                     9


 1   open it to public testimony.    I'll give you

 2   five minutes to present your testimony.   You

 3   can turn in written testimony of any length,

 4   and that will be -- we'll accept that up to

 5   the time we close the record.   We'll have to

 6   see how far we get in terms of our testimony

 7   this evening before we take on that

 8   particular decision.

 9       What I'm going to propose in terms of a

10   schedule, Commissioners, is that we take a

11   break at 7:30, one at 9:00, and then if we

12   were not completed, go ahead and finish the

13   evening by ten o'clock.   Should we finish

14   ahead of time, then we'll discuss our

15   schedule; but if not, we'll try to find

16   another date to continue taking public

17   testimony.

18       So in terms of your five minutes, what

19   I'll do so that you can keep tabs in terms of

20   your time, at four minutes I will give you a

21   one-minute warning; at five minutes I will

22   stop you and ask you to complete your

23   thought.   So we all have an understanding of

24   what's expected.

25       With that I'm going to ask Community

26
                                                      10


 1   Development director Darryl Piercy to deliver

 2   whatever staff comments he believes

 3   appropriate.

 4       MR. PIERCY:   Thank you, Mr. Chair,

 5   members of the board.   For the record, Darryl

 6   Piercy, director of Community Development

 7   Services.

 8       A couple of housekeeping items that I

 9   just wanted to bring to the board's

10   attention.

11       First off, the chairman did mention that

12   all letters that have been received by the

13   department and by the commissioners' office

14   are contained in a packet of materials that

15   have now been forwarded to the board.

16       I should also point out and just to

17   clarify that any e-mail correspondence that

18   would have come in in regards to public

19   comments are also included in that packet.

20       So if there was information that you or

21   any member of the public sent to either

22   Community Development Services or to the

23   Board of County Commissioners, they are in

24   fact part of that packet and are now

25   considered to be part of the record.

26
                                                     11


 1       We have limited copies of those

 2   available if anyone would like to have those.

 3   They have been provided to the board and to

 4   the applicant.

 5       In addition, over to the table to the

 6   far -- my far right near the door there are

 7   copies of two items.   One of them is

 8   identified as Progress Report No. 3.

 9   Contained within Progress Report No. 3 is a

10   copy of the draft development agreement that

11   will be the subject of conversation this

12   evening.

13       In addition to that is a document

14   entitled "Executive Summary" that's

15   associated with the Progress Report No. 4.

16   Progress Report No. 4 was supplied to the

17   Board of County Commissioners and to staff

18   this evening just prior to the commencement

19   of the hearing.   But the executive summary

20   that's contained within Progress Report No. 4

21   is available for your review in copies at the

22   table.

23       Following the meeting on February 15th

24   of this year, staff was directed to proceed

25   towards this public hearing by providing

26
                                                     12


 1   copies of the draft development agreement to

 2   all parties of record.

 3       That was accomplished through our

 4   department.   Over 350 copies of the draft

 5   development agreement were mailed to the

 6   names that we have identified as parties of

 7   record.

 8       To be a party of record you would have

 9   included your name on a mailing list at each

10   of these hearings; you would have provided

11   testimony, both either -- either written or

12   orally, and all of the names that have been

13   captured through this public process are now

14   part of this mailing list.   And again, the

15   number totals in excess of 350.

16       All of those parties were in fact mailed

17   directly to them copies of the development

18   agreement.

19       If for some reason you found that you

20   are here this evening and did not receive

21   that and you feel that you should be on our

22   public mailing list, please see us, one of

23   the staff members, either during the break or

24   after this hearing to ensure that your name

25   is on future mailings if you so desire and

26
                                                     13


 1   you did not receive one.

 2       As indicated previously, within the

 3   executive summary are -- excuse me, within

 4   Development Report No. 4 that was received

 5   this evening -- or Progress Report No. 4

 6   received this evening, I would direct the

 7   board's attention to Tab 1.

 8       In a brief review of Tab 1 is a brief

 9   history or executive summary of the entire

10   process in terms of changes that were in fact

11   made to this document since the time that the

12   document was originally submitted.

13       You may recall that a series of public

14   hearings have been conducted in regards to

15   the original development agreement as well as

16   the original application.   Those were held

17   both jointly before the Planning Commission

18   and before the Board of County Commissioners.

19       Following the Planning Commission's

20   recommendation, the Board of County

21   Commissioners also took public testimony

22   prior to closing the record for deliberation.

23       During the closed deliberation process,

24   the applicant was asked on a number of

25   hearing dates to modify the development

26
                                                     14


 1   agreement based on comments received from the

 2   Board of County Commissioners as well as

 3   comments and deliberation from CDS staff.

 4       The proposal that you have before you

 5   this evening that's entitled Progress Report

 6   No. 4 reflects those discussions, reflects

 7   those comments that were provided by the

 8   board, is a document that is identical to the

 9   document that ultimately was identified and

10   moved forward by the board on February 15th,

11   with additional comments in terms of process

12   and modifications in terms of the summary as

13   identified in Tab 1.

14       This process has been undertaken through

15   a closed-record hearing process, and now the

16   record has been reopened and public testimony

17   will once again be taken in regards to the

18   application before us, including the revised

19   development agreement, again, that was mailed

20   to the 350-plus members of the public who

21   have requested that information in the copies

22   that are available here this evening.

23       With that background and history,

24   Commissioners, I would say that the staff

25   presentation is complete and we'd be happy to

26
                                                       15


 1   respond to any questions that you might have.

 2       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:     Questions of

 3   staff, Commissioners?

 4       Thank you.

 5       Applicant, your presentation.

 6       MR. STEEB:   Good evening, Commissioners.

 7       Thank you, Mr. Chair, for clarifying

 8   what the process is tonight; that was one of

 9   my first questions.     And it's very clear how

10   we will respond tonight as well as everybody

11   else in addressing the issue before us, which

12   is the development agreement that went out

13   two weeks ago, and then having a chance to

14   comment on comments that are presented

15   tonight.   So thank you very much for that.

16       That being said, let me just get into

17   this with the binder that's before you that

18   Mr. Piercy correctly walked through, and I'm

19   just going to walk through it shortly and

20   then move on with my presentation.

21       On February 15th of this year, we

22   presented to the Board of County

23   Commissioners our third progress report

24   regarding a number of issues in the draft

25   development agreement for the Desert Claim

26
                                                     16


 1   Wind Power Project.

 2       At that time, the board continued the

 3   public hearing in this matter until today,

 4   March 1st, and directed the county staff to

 5   make the final draft development agreement

 6   available for a two-week public review and

 7   comment, which we're culminating tonight.

 8       The board also directed us, the

 9   applicant, to provide a report detailing with

10   the changes made to the development agreement

11   since the County first made it available for

12   public review back in August of last year.

13       This is our report to the board tonight.

14   I will explain the changes, both the

15   structural and the substantive changes made

16   to the development agreement in response to

17   comments we received from the public, county

18   staff, and this board.

19       At this time we are also submitting to

20   the board the following three items, as

21   Mr. Piercy said.   The first one is an

22   executive summary.    It's a four-page

23   executive summary of the changes.   That's --

24   75 copies are here; they're available for

25   everybody to look at.    It's basically the

26
                                                      17


 1   Reader's Digest version of what I'll be

 2   talking about of the changes between the two

 3   documents.    That's in Exhibit 1 of your

 4   package.

 5       Second, a redline copy of the final

 6   development agreement showing these changes.

 7   No magic, other than pushing the buttons on

 8   Word Perfect and comparing the two documents

 9   so that we could develop the executive

10   summary and talk about it tonight.

11       And third, a copy of the original

12   September 16th or the original development

13   agreement that went out.

14       First I'd like to talk about the

15   editorial changes.   There were editorial

16   changes that are always made in these type of

17   documents.    They're in your memo.   I don't

18   see any real need to go through them, because

19   they're really what they are, are editorial

20   type of things.   But if the board would like

21   us to go through those we can; otherwise, I'd

22   move on to the more details in the

23   development agreement.

24       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    Commissioners, any

25   preference?

26
                                                       18


 1         COMMISSIONER BOWEN:   It's up to the

 2   applicant, as far as I'm concerned.

 3         MR. STEEB:   Okay, I'd just like to move

 4   on.

 5         Let's move on to Page 4 in your

 6   agreement.    And if people are following along

 7   and have this, you'll -- the sequence of the

 8   executive summary is laid out exactly the

 9   same way it is in the development agreement.

10   So as we talk about recitals or section --

11   the various sections, 1, 2, 3, 4, as I speak

12   about those tonight you can follow them both

13   if you have the development agreement here or

14   have the executive summary, so it's pretty

15   systematic.

16         I'd like to start with the substantive

17   changes made to the responses, to comments.

18   These were made to the development agreement.

19         The first area I'd like to look at is

20   the recitals.   That's at the beginning of the

21   document.    There were two to speak of there.

22   Recital J was added to document the Board of

23   County Commissioners' decision that the

24   project is covered by the County's wind farm

25   regulations as we find in KCC 17.61A.

26
                                                     19


 1       In response to staff comments, Recital K

 2   was added to clarify that the County has the

 3   authority to enact laws and enter into

 4   agreements to protect the public health,

 5   safety, and welfare.

 6       The next is Section 1, effective date

 7   and term.   In response to a comment from the

 8   county prosecuting attorney, Subsection 1.2.3

 9   was inserted, which requires the County and

10   Desert Claim to meet in 25 years to discuss

11   extending the term of the development

12   agreement or to make plans for

13   decommissioning the project.

14       The next section, 2, Definitions.    In

15   response to comments from the County, the

16   provision requiring Desert Claim to start

17   construction within five years was deleted

18   and the definition of substantial

19   completion -- or substantial construction was

20   also deleted from the original document.

21       Also the development agreement was

22   revised to require Desert Claim to complete

23   construction, not just start construction,

24   within the five-year construction build-out

25   period.

26
                                                     20


 1       Another point is in response to public

 2   and County comments, the development

 3   agreement was revised by inserting a

 4   definition of "final construction plans."

 5       What this does is it acknowledges that

 6   the project may be constructed in phases and

 7   to account for changes made because of

 8   micrositing and/or additional conditions

 9   imposed by the County.

10       A definition of micrositing was inserted

11   to make it clear that in the process of

12   micrositing project facilities, Desert Claim

13   will not use micrositing to reduce the

14   required safety zone setback and/or any

15   required turbine buffer.

16       A definition of the project power

17   collection system was inserted to recognize

18   that it ties the project together and that

19   portions of this system may be located within

20   public rights-of-way.

21       And a definition of project substation

22   was inserted to make the project -- or the

23   development agreement consistent again with

24   KCC 17.61A, which is about wind farms.

25       There's a catch-all here.   Definitions

26
                                                       21


 1   were added for various other pieces that were

 2   needed, such as CDS, Community Development

 3   Services, for example.   Repowering FAA,

 4   et cetera, and I'll just leave that up to

 5   people to look at.

 6       The next section, No. 3, was permitted

 7   land uses.   No changes were made to that

 8   section.

 9       Section 4, applicable laws/vesting.     The

10   development agreement was modified by

11   deleting the construction build-out period

12   and substantial construction concept for the

13   reasons I just talked about in the

14   definitions.

15       This section was modified by tying

16   mitigation measures to those contained in the

17   final EIS.   This section was modified to

18   include an explanation of the term "County

19   approval."   That was it for Section 4.

20       Section 5, development standards.      In

21   order to insert new subsections pursuant to

22   directions from the County Board of

23   Commissioners, the development agreement was

24   revised by renumbering and reordering the

25   subsections in the September 16th, 2004,

26
                                                        22


 1   draft.

 2       In accordance with the board's

 3   instructions, a new subsection 5.2, which

 4   deals with turbine buffers, was inserted to

 5   require a 1000-foot buffer between turbines

 6   and the build line on adjacent private

 7   property unless Desert Claim obtains a buffer

 8   waiver agreement from the property owner,

 9   which must be reviewed and approved by the

10   County.

11       I want to take a quick break here to

12   what I'm doing, because this is also public

13   and the applicant would like to put some

14   public pieces into this at this time.    I want

15   to take a quick break to talk about the

16   1000-foot turbine buffer from undeveloped

17   property.   This is not part of your report

18   that you have in front of you.   This instead

19   is our position on this issue.

20       A while ago you've asked us to come back

21   to you with workable buffer alternatives.     We

22   did; we came back with two.   Alternative 1,

23   which was the 487-foot safety zone setback,

24   and Alternative 2, which is the 487-foot

25   safety zone setback plus a 1000 turbine

26
                                                       23


 1   buffer.

 2          You asked us whether we can live with

 3   either option.   We told you that we could.

 4   But we want to make something very clear.

 5   We'd prefer the safety zone setback.   We

 6   think it is better for the project and for

 7   the County.   And we hope that you will not

 8   impose a 1000-foot turbine buffer requirement

 9   from undeveloped property.   The safety zone

10   setback is all you need to impose, for a

11   number of reasons.

12          First, it is based on the science in the

13   EIS, while the 1000-foot turbine buffer is

14   not.   The EIS establishes that the safety

15   zone setback is sufficient to mitigate noise,

16   turbine collapse, blade throw and ice throw.

17          Although the EIS recognizes that our

18   voluntary good-neighbor 1000-foot buffer will

19   provide additional noise mitigation benefits

20   to nearby existing residences, the EIS is

21   also very clear that a 1000-foot buffer is

22   not necessary to mitigate noise impact

23   because noise from the project will be

24   between 53 to 55 dBa or decibels at the

25   project area boundary.

26
                                                        24


 1       Because of this, nothing more is needed.

 2   It is not needed to mitigate for noise,

 3   turbine collapse, or blade and ice throw.     As

 4   such, there is simply no basis for the EIS to

 5   require this additional buffer.

 6       Second, the additional 1000-foot buffer

 7   from undeveloped property I believe is bad

 8   for the county.   The buffer will eliminate

 9   turbines from the project.   Every turbine we

10   lose diminishes the public benefit from the

11   project.   It diminishes the amount of tax

12   revenue for the county.   It diminishes the

13   amount of renewable power produced by the

14   project.   And it diminishes the amount of

15   construction and long-term operation-related

16   revenue that will pour into this county.

17       In exchange, all the County would

18   accomplish is to encourage people to build

19   houses on agricultural land, land that should

20   not be developed with houses in the first

21   place but should be protected for farming.

22       For these reasons we think imposing the

23   1000-foot buffer is a bad idea.   We ask that

24   you eliminate this requirement from the

25   development agreement.    We think that the

26
                                                        25


 1   safety zone setback is more than sufficient

 2   to protect the citizens of Kittitas County.

 3       We think that imposing anything more on

 4   our project would be unfair to the citizens,

 5   who would lose the additional tax, power, and

 6   revenue benefits from the project, would

 7   create an inconsistent precedent in the

 8   county, and would not generate any real

 9   benefits but would instead continue the

10   pressure to convert agricultural land to

11   housing.

12       For these reasons we ask you not to

13   impose the 1000-foot buffer from the

14   undeveloped land on our project.

15       Now let me get back to my report, and

16   I'll pick it up again on Page 6, last bullet,

17   under "Development Standards."     As instructed

18   by -- as instructed by the board, the

19   development agreement was revised to prohibit

20   a residential structure from being located

21   and/or constructed within the safety zone --

22   safety zone setback which will be maintained

23   within the project area.

24       The safety zone setback requirement is

25   now set forth in Section 5.3.

26
                                                    26


 1       In response to comments from the county

 2   prosecuting attorney, Subsection 5.6 was

 3   modified to require Desert Claim to

 4   substantially complete the project within

 5   five years.

 6       In response to public comments,

 7   Subsection 5.8 was clarified to provide that

 8   portions of the project power collection

 9   system may be located within public

10   right-of-ways -- rights-of-ways so long as

11   Desert Claim obtains a franchise and permits

12   from the County to do so.

13       In response to public comments and

14   direction from the county public works

15   director, the decommissioning section,

16   Subsection 5.11, was revised to increase the

17   amount of the decommissioning bond by

18   $500,000 from 3.46 million to 3.96 million,

19   to require Desert Claim to post the bond in

20   five-year increments, and to require Desert

21   Claim to adjust the bond every five years

22   using the U.S. Department of Labor Consumer

23   Price Index.

24       Also this section now requires the

25   project or any turbines therein to be

26
                                                     27


 1   decommissioned if they produce electricity

 2   for fewer than 250 hours within any

 3   continuous 12-month period.

 4       In response to a comment from a county

 5   commissioner, the development agreement was

 6   revised to provide that the wind power

 7   overlay zone and comprehensive plan

 8   designation be removed after the project is

 9   decommissioned.

10       In response to comments from the public

11   and the county public works director,

12   Subsection 5.15 relating to project access

13   roads was modified to require Desert Claim be

14   solely responsible for building and

15   maintaining all project access roads.

16       In response to comments from the public

17   and working with the county public works

18   director, Subsection 5.6, again, Smithson

19   Road extension, was modified to require

20   Desert Claim be solely responsible for

21   building the Smithson Road extension, be

22   solely responsible for maintaining it unless

23   and until it is dedicated as a public road,

24   and that Desert Claim be required to

25   construct to it county road standards so that

26
                                                     28


 1   the Smithson Road extension could be used as

 2   a public road if the County obtains the

 3   necessary rights-of-way dedication.

 4       And the last part in Section 5, in

 5   response to instructions from the Board of

 6   County Commissioners that the development

 7   agreement focus only on County-required

 8   approvals, Subsection 5.17 was inserted

 9   stating that Desert Claim will comply with

10   all state and federal laws applicable to the

11   project.    This enabled the deletion of

12   numerous references in Section 6 to state and

13   federal permits.

14       Next section, Section 6, SEPA mitigation

15   measures.   All the SEPA mitigations measures

16   that were in Exhibit F to the September 2004

17   draft were moved to Section 6 of the February

18   15th draft.

19       In response to comments from county

20   staff, additional SEPA mitigation measures

21   were inserted in the development agreement to

22   make it consistent with both Chapter 1 and

23   Chapter 3 of the final EIS.   These changes

24   are shown in your redline version which is

25   attached as Exhibit 2 to this report, and

26
                                                     29


 1   they include additional mitigation measures

 2   in the following subsections:   6.1, -2, -3,

 3   -4, -5, -10, -16, and -21.

 4       In response to public -- county staff

 5   comments, Subsection 6.8 was revised to

 6   further explain the role and function of the

 7   Technical Advisory Committee or otherwise

 8   known as TAC.

 9       As revised, the development agreement

10   now provides that the TAC shall function

11   pursuant to Washington State Department of

12   Fish & Wildlife, or WDFW, guidelines, which

13   are attached in the development agreement;

14   shall have up to nine members, including

15   citizens and agency representatives; shall

16   have its expenses paid for by Desert Claim;

17   and may recommend additional mitigation

18   measures which the County can require Desert

19   Claim to implement.

20       In addition -- in addition to adding

21   provisions for the TAC to better protect

22   wildlife, additional provisions were inserted

23   into Section -- Subsection 6.8, requiring

24   Desert Claim to participate in industry-wide

25   monitoring studies aimed at addressing

26
                                                     30


 1   specific wildlife impacts for wind farms.

 2       In response to public comments regarding

 3   shadow flicker impacts, additional

 4   requirements were inserted into

 5   Subsection 6.15 of the development agreement,

 6   requiring Desert Claim to provide proactive

 7   mitigation measures for potentially affected

 8   property owners before Desert Claim starts

 9   operation of the project.

10       Pursuant to instructions from the Board

11   of County Commissioners, Subsection 6.18 was

12   revised to include provisions for tourism

13   management that require Desert Claim to

14   construct and maintain a tourist kiosk at a

15   suitable viewpoint within the project area;

16   to provide ample parking at the visitor kiosk

17   to handle up to ten vehicles, with space for

18   recreational vehicles to turn around; and to

19   provide interpretive signage at the tourist

20   kiosk describing the project and wind power

21   generation.

22       Pursuant to instructions from the board,

23   Desert Claim entered into a fire services

24   agreement with Fire District No. 2 to provide

25   fire service to the public -- to the project

26
                                                      31


 1   area.   The development agreement was revised

 2   by adding a reference to the signed fire

 3   services agreement in Section -- or

 4   Subsection 6.20.

 5       The next section of the development

 6   agreement is Section 7, complaint resolution

 7   process.   In response to public comments and

 8   direction from county staff, a new section,

 9   Section 7, was inserted to set forth a clear

10   and comprehensive complaint resolution

11   process.

12       Section 7 includes and expands upon the

13   complaint resolution provisions contained in

14   the September 2004 draft of the development

15   agreement.

16       What that does is the development

17   agreement now provides in one place,

18   Section 7, specific mitigation measures to

19   address potential noise, shadow flicker, and

20   TV interference from the project.

21       Most importantly, the development

22   agreement now provides that the complaint

23   resolution process will be in place for the

24   life of the project.   Not just for the two to

25   five years as originally proposed by the

26
                                                    32


 1   staff in the first staff report to the Board

 2   of County Commissioners.

 3       Section 8, Reports and Mediation.     In

 4   order to provide a comprehensive response to

 5   comments regarding complaints about the

 6   project, a new Section 8 was inserted into

 7   the development agreement, requiring Desert

 8   Claim to provide reports to the County and

 9   creating a process for citizens to appeal

10   disputes to the County.

11       The major features of this new Section 8

12   are that Desert Claim must comply -- comply

13   and submit reports to the County every six

14   months, detailing its efforts to resolve any

15   complaints about the project.

16       Affected landowners can submit their own

17   statement to the County if they are not

18   satisfied with Desert Claim's report.

19       Once these reports are submitted to the

20   County, county staff will compile these

21   reports and forward them to the Board of

22   County Commissioners twice a year.

23       The development agreement now provides

24   that in the event the parties cannot resolve

25   any dispute, the director of Community

26
                                                     33


 1   Development Services will first work with the

 2   parties, is authorized to resolve the

 3   dispute, and the director may also now send

 4   the parties to mediation if they cannot

 5   resolve any ongoing disputes.

 6       And last in this section, the

 7   development agreement now provides that any

 8   party may appeal the director's decision to

 9   the Board of County Commissioners, ensuring

10   that the board has ultimate control over this

11   process.

12       Section 9, fees for process

13   administration.   In response to county staff

14   comments, a new Section 9 was inserted into

15   the development agreement which requires

16   Desert Claim to pay for the County's

17   administrative costs of the dispute

18   resolution process described above.

19       If we construct all 120 turbines, Desert

20   Claim will pay the County $15,000 under this

21   section.

22       Section 10, consistency with local

23   requirements.   Or regulations, excuse me.

24   This was originally Section 7 in the

25   September draft, and it was renumbered here

26
                                                      34


 1   to Section 10.   There were no changes, no

 2   changes made to this section.

 3       Section 11, amendments and revisions.

 4   In response to the public and county staff

 5   comments, this section was revised to clarify

 6   that all revisions, whether they are minor or

 7   major, can be reviewed by the Board of County

 8   Commissioners to ensure that the board has

 9   final control over this process.

10       This was accomplished by making minor

11   revisions appealable to the board, while

12   major revisions, of course, require board

13   approval already.

14       Additionally, minor revisions were

15   limited to items listed in Subsection 11.1

16   and major revisions were limited to items

17   listed in Subsection 11.2.

18       Section 12, termination.    This was

19   originally Section 9 in the September draft

20   and has been renumbered here.   And again, no

21   changes.

22       Section 13, general provisions.    This

23   was originally Section 10 in the September

24   draft and now is part of 13.    In response to

25   public and county staff comments, a provision

26
                                                     35


 1   was inserted into Subsection 13.3, requiring

 2   the project landowners to sign the

 3   development agreement in order to ensure that

 4   it can be enforced against them and their

 5   successors in interest.

 6       Subsection 13.6 was inserted to clarify

 7   that Desert Claim is not required to

 8   construct the project.

 9       And in response to comments from the

10   public and the Board of County Commissioners,

11   Section 13.9 was inserted, requiring the

12   County to review and approve any assignment

13   of the development agreement.

14       Section 14 is notices.   No changes

15   there.

16       Section 15, default and remedies, no

17   changes other than renumbering.

18       Section 16, dispute resolution.     This

19   was originally Section 13 and has been

20   renumbered.

21       Also, in response to county staff

22   comments, the mediation process in

23   Section 16, this section was expanded to

24   apply to any citizen complaints filed

25   pursuant to Section 17, which we've gone

26
                                                     36


 1   through, which is the complaint resolution

 2   section.

 3       Section 17 is the catch-all, it talks

 4   about the entire -- there's no changes there.

 5       Those are the sections within the

 6   development agreement.   There are also

 7   various exhibits attached to the development

 8   agreement, and let me quickly go through

 9   those.

10       I'm just going to list off that there

11   are several of these that are very

12   self-explanatory and then just did not make

13   any changes there.   I'd like to focus on

14   about four or five of them, though.

15       Exhibit D, which is the form buffer

16   waiver agreement, was inserted in response to

17   instructions from the Board of County

18   Commissioners requiring a 1000-foot buffer

19   from undeveloped private residential property

20   unless Desert Claim obtains a waiver from the

21   affected property owner.

22       Exhibit F, which is the form franchise

23   agreement, was obtained by working with the

24   public -- with the director of public works

25   and was inserted in response to comments from

26
                                                       37


 1   the Board of County Commissioners.

 2       Exhibit H.     This is the WDFW or Fish &

 3   Wildlife guidelines.   This was inserted as

 4   part of modifying the provisions to protect

 5   wildlife by further defining the role and

 6   responsibility of the Technical Advisory

 7   Committee or TAC.

 8       Exhibit I, which is the draft

 9   construction traffic management plan, was

10   obtained by working with the director of

11   public works and was inserted in response to

12   comments from the board.

13       And finally, Exhibit J is the signed

14   fire services agreement.   Desert Claim

15   obtained this agreement from Kittitas County

16   Fire District 2.    It was inserted in response

17   to comments from the Board of County

18   Commissioners.

19       Under this agreement, Desert Claim is

20   paying an annual fee to the fire district.

21   It's providing fire service to thousands of

22   acres that previously did not have fire

23   service and is paying up to $100,000,

24   approximately two-thirds of the cost, to

25   construct -- or support construction of a new

26
                                                     38


 1   fire station out in that area.

 2       In concluding, thank you for the

 3   opportunity to present this report on how the

 4   development agreement was modified to respond

 5   to comments from the public, county staff,

 6   and the Board of County Commissioners.   We

 7   would be happy to answer any questions now or

 8   later.

 9       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   Questions,

10   Commissioners?

11       COMMISSIONER BOWEN:    Not at this time.

12       COMMISSIONER CRANKOVICH:     None.

13       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   Other applicant

14   observations?

15       MR. STEEB:   At this time, no.

16       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   Very good.

17       MR. STEEB:   If you're satisfied with

18   what we've done so far.

19       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   Before we move to

20   public testimony, let's take five minutes and

21   give our court reporter's fingers an

22   opportunity to regain their feeling, and then

23   we'll be back.   So five minutes.

24             (A break was taken.)

25       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   We'll now begin

26
                                                      39


 1   the public testimony portion of our hearing.

 2   I have four sign-up sheets before me.     I'll

 3   go down through the list as you have entered

 4   your name.

 5       Some of you have indicated you do not

 6   wish to testify, and that's certainly fine.

 7   At the end, if you change your mind, I will

 8   ask for those who have not testified if they

 9   wish to do so.   Or if you did not sign up on

10   the list, you'll also have that opportunity.

11       For now I'll move down through the list.

12   Again, five minutes; at four minutes I'll

13   give you -- rather, one minute remaining,

14   I'll give you a sign.   At five minutes I'll

15   ask you to conclude your thoughts.

16       I'm sorry, was there a question?      Very

17   good.

18       Let's start, then, with Ed Garrett.     As

19   you come to the podium, please indicate your

20   name and address for the record, whether you

21   are speaking for yourself or whether you

22   represent a group or other individual.

23       MR. ED GARRETT:     My name is Ed Garrett.

24   19205 67th Avenue Southeast.   I'm here

25   representing myself, my wife Rosemary

26
                                                        40


 1   Monahan, as well as being spokesperson for

 2   ROKT, Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines.

 3       First I want to thank you for the

 4   opportunity to comment what the Desert Claim

 5   development agreement is.   I would like to

 6   present a parcel map that was produced with

 7   the help of the Kittitas County Community

 8   Development Services.

 9       In the development agreement on Pages 2

10   and 3, Recital G, H, and J, it mentions and

11   there's a suggestion or the rationale of why

12   this is considered to be adjoining

13   properties.   There's also discussion about

14   whether or not this project area is

15   considered to be contiguous.   And with the

16   earlier BOCC of 2005 that was also a

17   continued discussion.

18       Issue being we have several areas.     One

19   here, it's adjoined at that area.     This one's

20   separate.   This one up here is separate by

21   more than maybe a quarter to a third of a

22   mile, and then this section over here.    So

23   they're not contiguous, they're not adjoining

24   parcels of land, which is what the definition

25   is supposed to be in the utility ordinance.

26
                                                      41


 1       We've -- we have reviewed several other

 2   applications in this county to other wind

 3   farms, and Zilkha had both of those, the

 4   Kittitas Valley project as well as the Wild

 5   Horse project.   When they did the Kittitas

 6   Valley project, that was presented as one

 7   contiguous area.   It was bisected by

 8   Highway 97.    There were no landlocked pieces

 9   on that one.

10       Wild Horse, as you reviewed last week --

11   and I've got my little map here -- it was a

12   contiguous area, as well as for almost a mile

13   to a mile and a half around it there was

14   considered a buffer zone.   It was required to

15   mitigate all issues related to the wind farm,

16   that mostly being noise.

17       The problems we have with this project

18   is we have areas in this area here and areas

19   down in here where there are houses.    The

20   parcels have all been subdivided.     On this

21   map, which can reach out to about a mile on

22   the whole map area, there are 800 separate

23   parcels that could be developed for

24   residential use.

25       Mr. Steeb brings up about the area of

26
                                                      42


 1   agricultural going on in that area.   Well, it

 2   was stated by one of our commissioners that

 3   for the last 15 years agriculture in that

 4   area has been displaced mostly by rural

 5   residents.

 6       This current map shows about 25

 7   residences within 1000 feet of the project

 8   area, and they're non-contracted.

 9       Sun East area, which is this big area up

10   here, hasn't been discussed too much.   That's

11   the area in the black.    Currently up there

12   there are 168 land parcels in the place that

13   have sold out.   There's no land up there for

14   sale, other than a landowner that's current

15   is trying to resell it, which I hear that may

16   be going on, and the prices continue to go up

17   because it's a desirable area.

18       With this area of the wind farm going

19   here, you can see you've only got 1000 feet,

20   maybe 1500 feet from the border of that area

21   for Sun East community.   So they have big

22   concern, and their viewshed is looking out

23   this direction over all of this going on.

24       I coded in the DNR property in green,

25   just to show where they're located, and then

26
                                                       43


 1   the Smithson Road extension down in this part

 2   down here.     Currently, from what I can tell

 3   in the application, there's no direct

 4   contract with DNR to place turbines just for

 5   an easement.    Or the franchise, whatever that

 6   arrangement is that is being discussed.

 7       So as I said, there's about 800

 8   developed parcels shown in this area.

 9       Compatible land use, I think I addressed

10   that already, that the area is slowly turning

11   over to rural residential and not

12   agricultural use in that area.

13       And the same with farming.     You just

14   heard in the presentation by Mr. Steeb, he's

15   saying that the 1000-foot setback probably

16   isn't required because anything going on in

17   that area is just agricultural and farming.

18       And as you can see, that's not the case,

19   with all the little black dots moving in

20   there.   And as you made comments in the Wild

21   Horse project last week that you have to make

22   a decision on this, but you have to look out

23   30 years.    And 30 years -- this has been

24   going on for maybe 5 or 10.    You know what

25   this area's going to look like in 30 years,

26
                                                         44


 1   the way the property is divided up out there

 2   in subplatting.   It's not going to be a big

 3   corn field; it's going to be rural residences

 4   eventually.

 5          Thank you very much for the opportunity

 6   to comment.

 7          COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   Thank you.

 8          Frank Robertson?   Written comment, okay,

 9   thank you.

10          Gina Jefferson Lindemoen?

11          MS. GINA JEFFERSON LINDEMOEN:   Thank you

12   for allowing me here this evening to speak to

13   all of you.   I've been here before and I

14   really don't know why I'm here again, simply

15   because I think it's gone a little bit too

16   far.   I don't feel that we should be doing

17   this again.

18          You had a commission board that said no

19   unanimously; and I don't know, it doesn't

20   take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

21   But I do have some other points.

22          I went on a website today, and this is

23   for the County and -- well, this is the

24   City's website, and it says Ellensburg, the

25   scenic hub of the Pacific Northwest.       What a

26
                                                       45


 1   laugh that'll be when they put in the towers.

 2   We will no longer be the scenic hub of the

 3   Pacific Northwest.

 4       So are we wanting to be called the

 5   laughingstock of the Northwest because we've

 6   ruined our way of life here?    It's you all's

 7   job to preserve that for the citizens.    We're

 8   taxpayers.    And by putting in something that

 9   will ruin the landscape of our city, you've

10   ruined Ellensburg.   And we'll all remember

11   who did it and how it was done.

12       Also on another website I saw the

13   Kittitas Valley stretches from the top of the

14   Cascade mountains to the west city of

15   Ellensburg and to the Columbia River Gorge to

16   the east.    Foothills surround the county and

17   off road routes to Cashmere, Wenatchee,

18   Yakima, and more remote areas like the

19   Manastash Canyon, Lion's Rock, Table

20   Mountain, and they are accessible from

21   Ellensburg.   Ellensburg, Washington, is the

22   county seat of this beautiful valley.

23       Why are you all putting this up on your

24   websites if it's not going to be a beautiful

25   valley?

26
                                                      46


 1       So now on the way to Lion's Rock what

 2   are we going to see?   It'll no longer be a

 3   beautiful valley.    Wow, let's go back and

 4   look at the 400-foot windmills as we drive

 5   out Reecer Creek.    And wonder what these

 6   people are going to say.   How can those

 7   people live there?   How can we live there

 8   with windmills right in our back yard?

 9       And also there's another thing I found

10   on the website.   It says, Big city amenities,

11   small town values.   Where are your values?

12       Also it says this farm is compared to

13   Ellensburg.   I found this in the newspaper.

14   It had something to do with one of the

15   attorneys here in town had said that our town

16   would be ruined, not only the property value

17   out on Reecer and the surrounding areas, but

18   the whole town.

19       Simply due -- this is no longer a wind

20   farm; it will be considered an industrial

21   area, and it will be not degrading the city

22   of Burien or SeaTac, but the land value there

23   decreased dramatically when SeaTac airport

24   went in due to the noise, the land value

25   decrease, which would have people coming in

26
                                                       47


 1   that can't afford homes of any value.    You're

 2   going to decrease the value of Ellensburg and

 3   anybody can live over here then.

 4       Also there was a comment that you were

 5   basing the property value -- which we haven't

 6   heard anything in regards to this from you

 7   all that have said anything about the

 8   property values.   You haven't proven anything

 9   except to know that it doesn't take a rocket

10   scientist, again, to know that your property

11   value is going to decrease.   It will never go

12   up in value and no one will ever give us a

13   tax cut when the property value decreases.

14       It was compared to the windmills or the

15   wind sites in Vermont.   That was a comment

16   from a person with the last name of Best, and

17   I'm not real sure how she was involved.

18       But I looked this up today too, and

19   Easthaven Wind Farm is proposing to install

20   four state-of-the-art wind turbines on the

21   Summit Ridge of East Mountain in Easthaven.

22   It's about 30 miles north of St. Johnsbury,

23   Vermont.   There are more -- it's -- they are

24   more than seven miles from the nearest

25   permanent habitation.

26
                                                        48


 1       The other project, and these are by the

 2   company that's proposing this here for us

 3   too, are in Searsburg.   They only have 11

 4   turbines in this town.   It's a town of 85

 5   people.    And they are not in view of the

 6   public's eye.   They are up on a mountain that

 7   has been forested and they have -- they have

 8   no lights.   And they're half the height.    11.

 9   The whole state of Vermont has 15.

10       So how can you compare land value to a

11   place that has 85 residents that only has 11

12   turbines in their town and they can't be

13   seen?

14       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    Could I ask you to

15   conclude your testimony.

16       MS. GINA JEFFERSON LINDEMOEN:    Well, I'd

17   like to say something about the shadow

18   flicker.   And it said that they would help

19   with blinds and help with the homes with

20   their windows and things.

21       I have three walls in my house that are

22   nothing but windows.   I have skylights in my

23   home and I have cathedral windows that

24   overlook the valley.   So I don't know how

25   many trees you would have to put up around my

26
                                                         49


 1   house.    They can't be blinded; you can't put

 2   blinds on skylights in a home.   I have three

 3   of those.    And also --

 4       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:     Thank you for your

 5   testimony.

 6       MS. GINA JEFFERSON LINDEMOEN:     Okay,

 7   thank you.

 8       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:     Jerry Gulgell?    Am

 9   I even close?   19110 Reecer Creek?   Google?

10   Gurgle?   I must not be coming very close, or

11   they've left, so.

12       Christine Cole.

13       MS. CHRISTINE COLE:    My name is

14   Christine Cole.   I'm representing myself and

15   my partner Roger Bernette.    We live at 7430

16   Robbins Road in Ellensburg.

17       The wind industry rage has become an

18   epidemic that is now attacking our community,

19   the visions of benign and money-producing

20   promises.    The lure of money overtakes common

21   sense.    It's beyond time for our county to

22   refuse to make this valley into an

23   unprecedented experiment that opens the door

24   to even more turbines within the area.

25       I continue to find new documented

26
                                                       50


 1   evidence from public experiences of how much

 2   damage has come into the lives of the advent

 3   of these towers through their homes and

 4   community.

 5       I quit trying to print out everything I

 6   found, because the pages were extensive, but

 7   just a few were included in this statement.

 8       One is titled "Wind Power Facts," and

 9   there's a website attached.   And the second,

10   "Beware of Commissionary Zeal Over Wind

11   Farms."   And the website is also attached

12   here.

13       The remaining documentation is listed at

14   the end of my statement.   These real warnings

15   must not be disregarded.   They come from

16   sources already experiencing the damage.     It

17   has been stated in one letter to the editor

18   of the Daily Record that the wind power is a

19   worldwide growing trend.   The reason is due

20   to government subsidies.

21       However, countries are now stopping

22   those types of money because of the problems

23   with the wind power.

24       We have tried to tell you in the hopes

25   that you will do the right thing and deny

26
                                                         51


 1   this site proposal.    It is so inherently

 2   wrong.   Please listen to the voices of those

 3   who have experienced these problems firsthand

 4   and wish to heaven the turbines had never

 5   been allowed near their land and homes.      They

 6   are speaking from experience, and that is

 7   said to be the best but often painful

 8   teacher.

 9       Here are a few excerpts from the above

10   two reports.   This quotes:   Each turbine

11   required a hole the size of a three

12   double-decker bus to be dug out and filled

13   with reinforced concrete.     In Germany there

14   are a growing number of people who live near

15   wind farms that are unfit for work due to

16   pulse irregularities and states of anxiety

17   from the effects of infrasound.    In

18   parentheses, sound of frequencies before the

19   normal audible limit, end of parentheses.

20       Documented hazards linked with those

21   wind turbines include examples which have

22   caught fire, had part blown off in high

23   winds, blade breaks off and fly distance in

24   excess of 500 yards.   Induced lightening

25   strikes, killed turbine workers, caused grass

26
                                                        52


 1   fires.   Caused ice blasts, which is large

 2   shards of ice that fly from the blades in

 3   cold weather.   Flickering effects caused by

 4   sunlight filtered through the blades causes

 5   problems up to a distance of two kilometers

 6   from the wind farms.   This has been

 7   extensively documented to cause horses and

 8   other wildlife to bolt unexpectedly.

 9       This may also have an impact on people

10   suffering from brain damage or epilepsy.     The

11   noise that it emits, a mixture of whooshing,

12   whistling, humming, can be heard 1000 yards

13   away.

14       One turbine manufacturer states that

15   dwellings should be two kilometers away.

16       TV radio and mobile phone interferences.

17   Effectively turbines can cause a reception

18   shadow of up to 10 kilometers when they stand

19   between a TV transmitter and dwellings with

20   TV aerials, pointing the wind turbines

21   towards the transmitter.   Viewers in such

22   locations will have their signals scattered,

23   causing loss of detail.

24       The turbines at Altamont Pass in

25   California have an average kill of two to

26
                                                     53


 1   three hundred red tail hawks and 40 to 60

 2   golden eagles each year, while it is

 3   estimated that 7000 migrating birds a year

 4   are killed at other turbine sites in southern

 5   California.    This is from the California

 6   Energy Commission.

 7       If you approve this siting, this is just

 8   some of the damage you will have allowed to

 9   happen to those of us who come to live in

10   these communities.    More than a few

11   landowners have invited the county

12   commissioners to view firsthand the reality

13   of these structures will be placed.

14       The photos in the environmental impact

15   statement are grossly deceptive.   We know

16   well that when we take a photo of a

17   view-imposing mountain filling the camera

18   lens that it becomes a tiny dot in the

19   distance in the developed picture.

20       I have already stated this in in more

21   detail in previous testimony regarding photos

22   taken from our property in which only one was

23   represented.   The views shown in the EIS was

24   definitely understated as to the actual

25   visual impact, and the selection of that one

26
                                                      54


 1   photo is very deceptive as to reality.

 2       We will be surrounded on three sides by

 3   EnXco's proposed sitings and Ellensburg will

 4   be downwind.   There's absolutely no

 5   justification for placing these turbines

 6   where proposed.   How many different ways can

 7   the majority of folks to get the placement of

 8   these turbines state their anger,

 9   frustration, and absolute opposition?

10       These massive structures are not

11   welcome.   We do not want them, and placing

12   them near our homes is absolutely detrimental

13   to our well-being and quality of life we have

14   worked so hard for and for so many years.

15   Some things should just not be for sale; the

16   cost is too high.

17       Thank you.

18       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   Thank you.

19       Milt Johnston.

20       MR. MILT JOHNSTON:    Good evening my name

21   is Milt Johnston.   I live at 1211 View Crest,

22   Ellensburg, Washington.   I'm here

23   representing Department of Natural Resources.

24       The purpose of my comments is to address

25   only the need for consistency in the

26
                                                      55


 1   application of setbacks to private lands

 2   versus DNR lands.   I am not commenting on

 3   whether or not setbacks are appropriate or if

 4   the setbacks -- or if the distances are

 5   appropriate.

 6       Section 5 of the development agreement

 7   addresses turbine buffers or setbacks

 8   required between wind turbines and property

 9   boundaries.    Currently the buffer or setback

10   is limited to privately owned lands on which

11   residential structures are or could be

12   constructed.

13       Treating similar lands differently only

14   because of the type of ownership is not

15   appropriate.   It has long been held that

16   zoning ordinances must be uniform and equal

17   in operation and effect.   If the buffer is

18   not uniformly applied to all lands, private

19   lands are treated differently than

20   state-owned trust lands.

21       In addition, state trust lands are not

22   being afforded equal protection from

23   activities that may adversely affect it.

24       State lands managed by DNR in this area

25   are in public ownership, and at the current

26
                                                      56


 1   time we do not see these lands moving out of

 2   current -- or public ownership.

 3       Over the long-term, however, these lands

 4   could be sold or exchanged to private

 5   individuals who may wish to develop these

 6   lands for residential purposes.

 7       I am -- again, I am requesting that

 8   lands managed by Department of Natural

 9   Resources be treated in the same manner as

10   other private lands within this area.

11   Standards for setbacks or waivers should be

12   the same for both private and public DNR

13   lands.

14       In closing, let me state that we are

15   supportive of wind power and of this project

16   even though we do not have a lease with EnXco

17   or Desert Claim.   Our only request is that we

18   be treated consistently with other landowners

19   next to this project.

20       I also want to commend the Board of

21   Commissioners for your due diligence and

22   attention to detail through this progress --

23   through this process.   I do appreciate it.

24   Thank you.

25       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   Thank you.

26
                                                     57


 1       Woody Woodcock, did you wish to testify?

 2   He had a question mark.    Very good.

 3       Jake Thomas?    Did you wish to testify?

 4       Jeff Slothower.

 5       MR. JEFF SLOTHOWER:    Thank you.   Jeff

 6   Slothower.    2581 Hunter Road, Ellensburg,

 7   Washington.   Testifying as an individual

 8   tonight and also on behalf of my client,

 9   Steve Lathrop.

10       First, we specifically reserve rights

11   and obligations related to the Board of

12   Adjustment not issuing conditional use

13   permits this project calls for.   The

14   development agreement, the draft before you

15   does nothing to remedy that defect.

16       Secondly, Recital J in the draft

17   development agreement that Mr. Steeb

18   referenced is not supported by the evidence,

19   is really wishful thinking on the part of the

20   applicant.

21       And I would point out to you that you

22   can only review and decide the application

23   that's before you; you can't modify it

24   midstream, as they would have you want -- as

25   they would want you to.

26
                                                      58


 1       Their comments in the recital about even

 2   if they were considered four separate wind

 3   farms the same process would be undertaken

 4   are wrong.   It's clear that if they were four

 5   separate applications, you would have a

 6   radically different environmental impact

 7   statement that would have been done.

 8       So we don't believe that Recital J

 9   does -- nor the lack of evidence to support

10   Recital J does anything to cure the defect

11   and that this application does not qualify as

12   a wind farm within the defined county code.

13       Lastly, unlike the Wild Horse project,

14   this project is not proposed for a workable

15   location or a location where the impacts,

16   which are obvious, can be mitigated.    The

17   notion that you would buy someone curtains to

18   mitigate impacts of your project is

19   ludicrous.

20       I would ask you to please review the

21   copies of the articles that I submitted

22   tonight.   They directly rebut things

23   Mr. Steeb said tonight about this being

24   agricultural property and a way to preserve

25   agricultural property.   I've addressed that

26
                                                    59


 1   before; I'm not going to go back there.

 2       The development agreement, and

 3   particularly the sections of the development

 4   agreement dealing with setbacks and the

 5   environmental impacts and mitigation

 6   measures, are in my opinion written in

 7   complete disregard of the non-participating

 8   property owners' rights.   These negative

 9   impacts cannot be mitigated.

10       And a careful reading of the development

11   agreement, particularly the section on

12   setbacks, shows that the impacts can't be

13   mitigated.

14       Our position on this experiment with

15   wind energy is that if you're going to

16   experiment, you need to put it in the right

17   place, like I think you're going to do on

18   Thursday night with Wild Horse.

19       And secondly, you have to shift all of

20   the risk of this project to the applicant.

21   They have to bear the risk that adjoining

22   property owners face with this type of an

23   industrial complex.

24       The only realistic means of ensuring

25   that the applicant bears all of those

26
                                                       60


 1   risks -- including the risks associated with

 2   land values being decreased, noise,

 3   vibration, shadow flicker, and the

 4   degradation of our way of life -- are with

 5   significant setbacks, if you decided you were

 6   going to permit this project.    Those setbacks

 7   should be a mile from tower -- towers to the

 8   boundaries of the participating parcels.

 9       Look at Mr. Garrett's and ROKT's tax

10   parcel configuration.   You can't impose the

11   risks and burdens of these impacts associated

12   with this development agreement on the

13   adjoining property owners.

14       If -- you know, this project doesn't

15   belong in an area that's characterized by

16   rural residential densities like that.

17   That's not an agricultural area.   That's an

18   area that in years will be nothing by houses.

19       And if -- and if the applicant really

20   wants the project in this area, they should

21   do what Zilkha did and simply buy all of the

22   property that their -- that their application

23   and their project will impact.

24       Thank you.

25       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:     I actually don't

26
                                                       61


 1   mind the applause in between speakers.     I

 2   need the time to conclude my bookwork anyway.

 3   So go ahead and express yourselves as you

 4   will.

 5       I would ask, however, during a person's

 6   testimony please refrain from that; because

 7   frankly, you're eating into their time and

 8   largely breaking their chain of thought.

 9       So in between I don't care, but during

10   the time the speakers are present, please try

11   to restrain yourselves so that they have a

12   clear field to express their views.

13       Belinda Coppernoll?

14       Belinda Coppernoll?

15       Patricia Itzen?

16       MS. PATRICIA ITZEN:    Thank you.   My name

17   is Patricia Itzen.   My address is 13915

18   Southeast 41st in Kent.

19       I do own 28 acres up in Sun East, up

20   north of Sun East.   I will be one of those

21   people that's looking out over this wind

22   farm.    I'm not too happy about the idea.

23       I'm also concerned about those people

24   that live closer.    55 decibels is a lot of

25   noise.   And I think there ought to be more

26
                                                      62


 1   mitigation for that kind of thing.   And I'd

 2   like somebody to buy my 28 acres, please.

 3       Thank you.

 4       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    Thank you.

 5   Jeffrey Howard.

 6       MR. JEFFREY HOWARD:    My name is Jeff

 7   Howard.   I have a home at 21 Faun Road in Cle

 8   Elum, and I'm representing myself and my

 9   wife.

10       Several items jumped out at me, kind of,

11   from this agreement that probably warrant

12   some very serious questioning by the

13   commissioners.    And I don't have time to

14   address them all.

15       As a homeowner in this county and as a

16   professional real estate agent, the main

17   concerns that I must address relate to the

18   very distorted idea here of a contiguous land

19   mass.

20       The concept that these large parcels,

21   spread about with other properties in between

22   under different ownership, could

23   theoretically be considered a contiguous

24   property or land mass stretches the bounds of

25   creative imagination, to say the least.

26
                                                       63


 1       The fact that these Desert Claim sites

 2   abut common easements at different points is

 3   nothing but an elaborate subterfuge.   It is

 4   an attempt -- basically a legal fig leaf, so

 5   to speak -- to comply with requirements but

 6   definitely does not fall within the language

 7   of the enabling ordinances.

 8       The non-participating property owners

 9   between the sites will be adversely affected

10   without any compensation or adjustment

11   whatsoever.   And this is flat out morally

12   wrong.

13       Another thing.   There's mention that PSE

14   wants to buy this power, but to my knowledge

15   at this time there's no proof of that.    These

16   folks will divest themselves of this project

17   as soon as they can, but to whom and at what

18   price remains a mystery.

19       What little power will eventually be

20   generated if this project is built will

21   probably end up in California.

22       Once this project is completed, any and

23   all damaging effects -- whether it be bird

24   and bat kills, shadow flicker, noise

25   intrusion, or television reception

26
                                                        64


 1   problems -- will be subject to negotiations

 2   through a long and drawn-out process while

 3   the project continues to operate.

 4       As we can see from the legal talent and

 5   out-of-town support that the applicant has

 6   mustered to ram this project through at this

 7   time, one can only imagine the difficulties

 8   that future complaint resolution will take.

 9       As I have said before, this whole fiasco

10   boils down to money.   These applicants are

11   here for only one reason, and they will do

12   anything and say anything to get this project

13   in the ground so they can reap the tax

14   benefits, sell the machinery, and leave our

15   little town as fast as they can.

16       If they cannot be stopped completely, at

17   least require them to build their project

18   someplace on their own property in a location

19   where it'll have the least adverse affect on

20   local residents.

21       Thank you very much.

22       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    Thank you.

23   J.P. Roan.

24       MR. J.P. ROAN:     My name is J.P. Roan.   I

25   live at 13991 Reecer Creek Road.    I'm

26
                                                       65


 1   speaking for myself and Jim Nelson.

 2       I am concerned that imposing a 1000-foot

 3   buffer will not benefit anyone but will

 4   punish everybody.    The 487-foot safety zone

 5   setback is right as it addresses the health

 6   and public safety.

 7       However, the 1000-foot buffer does not

 8   do anything more than potentially create a

 9   smaller project.    This means fewer jobs, less

10   taxes, revenue, and reduces the production of

11   power.   Less is better for the benefit of

12   everyone.

13       Now I will read a letter that was

14   submitted to me from Dr. Jim Nelson.

15               To the Kittitas County Board

16       of Commissioners:    I am a landowner

17       in the proposed Desert Claim farm

18       area.    I'm unable to attend this

19       meeting and would like to make the

20       following comments for your

21       consideration.

22               It's unfair for the County to

23       restrict development on a large

24       portion of my property.    The

25       County's 487-foot safety zone

26
                                           66


 1   setback has already restricted

 2   developments of approximately a

 3   third of the section of land.

 4        By imposing a 1000-foot buffer

 5   and an additional safety zone

 6   setback, the County has taken an

 7   additional 28 percent of the total

 8   of approximately 61 percent of a

 9   section of ground.

10        I can no longer use that

11   property for wind farming.    All I

12   have left is approximately

13   39 percent of the section, and I

14   feel this is -- violates my

15   property rights.

16        The County's EIS does not

17   support a blanket 1000-foot buffer.

18   EIS establishes significant noise

19   impact from the project will remain

20   within the project area.

21        Desert Claim proposed a

22   1000-foot setback from existing

23   residences in order to be a good

24   neighbor and is not to reduce the

25   potential environmental impacts

26
                                           67


 1   from the project.

 2        While it is true that the

 3   1000-foot setback between turbines

 4   as existing established that this

 5   setback is not necessary to

 6   mitigate noise impact of the

 7   project because the noise of the

 8   project boundary will be between 53

 9   and 55 decibels, which is well

10   within the County limits.

11        The 1000-foot buffer is

12   inconsistent with the County's land

13   use policy because it protects the

14   kind of development that is

15   inconsistent with this area.

16        This area is zoned Ag 20 and

17   forest and range which is supposed

18   to be used for farming, agriculture

19   operations, or residential

20   development.   Wind farms, not

21   houses, are consistent with Ag 20

22   forest and range classification.

23        The 1000-foot buffer is being

24   imposed to protect undeveloped

25   property so that it can later be

26
                                           68


 1   developed with houses.    The

 2   problem, it does not make sense to

 3   impose a buffer in order to protect

 4   an inconsistent type of

 5   development.

 6        The county is not being

 7   consistent if it imposes a

 8   1000-foot buffer on the Desert

 9   Claim project but on the Wild Horse

10   project.    For the Wild Horse the

11   County is only imposing a safety

12   zone setback.

13        The size of the safety zone

14   setback in both projects is being

15   established using this same

16   criteria.   There is no reason for

17   the County to impose an additional

18   buffer on one project but not the

19   other.

20        As such, the County should be

21   consistent with the (inaudible) of

22   the 1000-foot buffer for Desert

23   Claim.

24        The 1000-foot buffer reduces

25   the public benefit from the project

26
                                            69


 1   because it will eliminate turbines

 2   and will reduce the amount of tax

 3   money that flows to the county from

 4   the project.   It will reduce the

 5   amount of power production of the

 6   project.   It will reduce the amount

 7   of construction-related revenue

 8   that flows through the county.

 9        The County is not gaining

10   benefits by imposing this

11   additional buffer, because it does

12   not eliminate the environmental

13   impacts from the project and it

14   only allows people to build houses

15   on land that is zoned for

16   residential development.

17        As such, there is no basis for

18   eliminating public benefits that

19   will occur to all citizens of the

20   county in order to protect a few

21   landowners.    Instead, the County

22   should eliminate the 1000-foot

23   buffer, recap the full benefits of

24   production of this project.

25        Thank you for your

26
                                                         70


 1       consideration.   James Nelson.

 2       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:     Thank you.

 3       Let's take our 7:30 break as advertised.

 4   We'll be back in session at 7:40.

 5             (A break was taken.)

 6       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:     We'll come back

 7   into session, please.   We'll pick up with our

 8   next speaker, Ross Marvin.

 9       MR. ROSS MARVIN:    My name's Ross Marvin.

10   I reside at 12611 Wilson Creek Road.      And I'm

11   representing myself and my wife.

12       And this gentleman was so kind to let me

13   use his scale.

14       When I bought the property four years

15   ago, the Planning Commission says just for --

16   if you want to develop it in the future,

17   survey it and plot it out.   Which I did.     And

18   these are the -- and my wife, in her infinite

19   wisdom, had to build a house to view this

20   way, the best view of the valley.    We got 200

21   degrees of view.

22       With our house on there and the

23   utilities, underground utilities and

24   everything, we were going to develop the

25   other three pieces of property.    I've got

26
                                                      71


 1   $282,000 invested in that now, and it's going

 2   to be worth nothing if I got to look at 26

 3   huge monstrous windmills.

 4       And when I called the planning

 5   department, I couldn't find anybody that

 6   could tell me what 104 decibels with two

 7   windmills right here, right next to my

 8   property line, what the hell the noise was

 9   going to be on the downward side on my

10   property.   It's going to be a jackhammer or

11   what?   Maybe you guys can answer that for me.

12       And if my property value goes down, is

13   the assessor going to reduce my taxes?

14       When I developed this property, I hired

15   people in this valley, workmen and companies,

16   and paid them good money to develop that.

17   And I certainly isn't going to invest any

18   more money in the damn thing if you're going

19   to put in this monstrosity.

20       I don't understand if your Planning

21   Commission turned it down and said it wasn't

22   worth it, why are you people are

23   second-guessing them and why we're doing

24   this.

25       Thank you.

26
                                                      72


 1       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    Thank you.   Janet

 2   Nelson.

 3       MS. JANET NELSON:    My name is Janet

 4   Nelson.    I live at 271 Via Kachess at Lake

 5   Kachess, and I'm here to represent Kittitas

 6   Audubon.   I'm the conservation chair for that

 7   organization.

 8       Once more we have the opportunity to

 9   express our opinions on the proposed Desert

10   Claim wind farm and the development

11   agreement, this time a second revision.

12       Kittitas Audubon has commented on all

13   the phases of this project that have gone

14   through your jurisdiction, and we refer you

15   to our prior comments.

16       Speaking in reference to the current

17   revised development agreement, we question

18   the dropping of the sections that dealt with

19   mitigation under Section 6.6, vegetation.

20   Specifically 6.6.2, in which Desert Claim

21   said that they would coordinate with the

22   Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife to

23   mitigate for impacts to sagebrush, steppe,

24   and grassland habitat; and Section 6.6.4,

25   where they said they would prepare a detailed

26
                                                      73


 1   reclamation and site restoration plan to be

 2   coordinated with and improved by the

 3   Department of Fish & Wildlife.

 4       In hearing about the section on

 5   compliance, is this where that Section 5.17

 6   was used to replace the wording?   Or is it an

 7   oversight or what?   If there is sagebrush,

 8   steppe, and grasslands within the project,

 9   they need to be addressed through the

10   Department of Fish & Wildlife.

11       The development agreement before you,

12   which will last for 30 to 35 years, depending

13   I think upon when the end of the build-out

14   is, by denying the Technical Advisory

15   Committee the ability to suggest the

16   moving -- removing or temporarily shutting

17   down of a turbine lacks the flexibility to

18   address major problems should they occur with

19   the turbines affecting wildlife or the public

20   in general, for that matter, I would think.

21       Concerns for cumulative impact in

22   general, not just in this valley, and the

23   lack of sufficient wildlife studies resulted

24   in Kittitas Audubon Society board of

25   directors voting 10 to 3 to not support the

26
                                                      74


 1   three wind farms in Kittitas Valley.

 2       Kittitas Audubon remains committed to

 3   the protection of wildlife and the

 4   environment of our valley and again urges the

 5   Board of Commissioners to follow the

 6   determination of the Kittitas County Planning

 7   Commission by rejecting the Desert Claim

 8   application.

 9       I thank you.

10       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:     Thank you.

11       Bertha Morrison, did you wish to speak?

12       MS. BERTHA MORRISON:     I'm Bertha

13   Morrison, and I live on 9131 Naneum Road.

14   And I'm also a landowner of the Desert Claim

15   project.

16       My family has lived here over a hundred

17   years and have paid taxes.   The beauty of our

18   valley is being ruined by houses and

19   depletion of our groundwater that has also

20   dropped your property values.

21       My son will speak and he will speak for

22   me too.    Thank you.

23       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:     Thank you.

24       David Boyavich.

25       MR. DAVID BOYAVICH:    Good evening.   My

26
                                                         75


 1   name is David Jack Boyavich, Sr.    I reside at

 2   18830 Reecer Creek Road.

 3       Perfect map.     When this thing first

 4   started years ago, I thought about it and I

 5   thought about it, and then I decided that I

 6   was going to fight this thing.    Well, I'm

 7   here on behalf of about 49 families that have

 8   my proxy.

 9       Mr. Huston has a packet that I gave him

10   about a year and a half ago.     You two

11   gentlemen don't, unless those two people you

12   took over for passed them on to you.       If you

13   don't, I'll get some more for you.

14       I've always maintained location,

15   location, location, location.    And I feel

16   that if you people approve these things for

17   Wild Horse -- now, I've given this an awful

18   lot of thought.   I'm definitely against it up

19   on Reecer Creek, without a doubt, because you

20   guys got me 360 up there.

21       Mr. Roan here has 45 below me.     Guy up

22   above me's got 25.   Guy down below me's got

23   20, and then there's a bunch over on Zilkha

24   that's going to put some up.    So I'd have

25   about 400 of those damn things I'd be looking

26
                                                       76


 1   at.

 2         Anyway, if you guys approve this thing,

 3   what you're going to wind up doing is letting

 4   them get a foot in the door.   Once you

 5   approve this thing for Wild Horse, that's

 6   just the beginning, people.    They're going to

 7   put these things from the Columbia River all

 8   the way to Cle Elum.   Trust me, they're going

 9   to do it.

10         Groundwater.   I just heard Mrs. Morrison

11   say something about the fact that houses and

12   people were sucking up groundwater.    Yeah,

13   that's a concern; I agree.

14         But by the same token, when they go to

15   put these things in, how are they going to

16   put the footings in?   They're not going to

17   get excavators out there to do every one of

18   those things.   They're going to have to

19   blast; they're going to be using dynamite.

20   And how many wells are going to go dry

21   because these people have blasted either

22   above me, alongside of me, or on the other

23   side of the road?    How many people are going

24   to lose their wells?   Something else to think

25   about.

26
                                                       77


 1       Today I called Mrs. Rominger, Iris.       I

 2   asked her, I says, Iris, I said, what's the

 3   profit in it for Kittitas County for these

 4   things to be put in here?    And she really

 5   didn't have a definitive answer other than

 6   some moneys for schools, some tax bases will

 7   go down, some people will profit.

 8       And I find that the only people that are

 9   going to profit off of this thing are Zilkha,

10   EnXco, and the people's property they're

11   putting these things on.    The rest of us are

12   going to suffer.

13       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:     Rick Forster.

14       MR. RICK FORSTER:      My name's Rick

15   Forster.   My address is 2411 268th, Redmond,

16   Washington.

17       I have 40 acres up on Sun East.     I have

18   windmills looking right in my front window.

19       This last Saturday's paper had a

20   beautiful brochure on Kittitas Outdoors.

21   What a nice picture there.    That's your

22   tourist industry right there, okay?

23       There's been a lot of talk about how

24   noisy these things are.    Do any of you guys

25   know what 104 decibels is?    Tonight I'd like

26
                                                       78


 1   to show you, okay?

 2       This is a decibel meter, and I will turn

 3   the radio up, and when it hits 104, you can

 4   read it right there, okay?

 5       UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER:     What are

 6   you using, Rick?

 7       MR. RICK FORSTER:     This is a chain saw

 8   running.

 9              (Audio tape played.)

10       MR. RICK FORSTER:     So we're not -- we're

11   not even getting there.

12       Let me turn it down; let me turn the

13   meter down, okay?

14       Okay, that's -- that'll be 90 category.

15              (Audio tape played.)

16       MR. RICK FORSTER:     So we're still not in

17   the 90s yet, okay --

18       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:     Actually, you were

19   at 98.

20       MR. RICK FORSTER:     Okay, we're at 98.

21   Okay, good --

22       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:     You were at 99

23   previously.

24       MR. RICK FORSTER:     Okay.   Now, these

25   guys are allowed 104 decibels plus 9 more,

26
                                                         79


 1   because they don't have to fix anything

 2   unless it goes 10 over, okay?

 3       On their draft, 7.2, they have up to

 4   1500 feet they have to monitor this thing.

 5   Is there some kind of wall there where the

 6   sound stops?   You know, under the adverse

 7   conditions sound, just like a gunshot, goes

 8   forever.   So where does 1500 feet come from?

 9       And this is one -- this is one source of

10   noise.   You've got 120 sources of noise.

11   Okay?

12       So when Cadman -- Cadman put a gravel

13   pit in down there at North Bend; when you

14   come down the hill by the truck stop there,

15   over on the right they put a gravel pit.

16   They spent a million dollars on berms for the

17   people across I-90 that live there.      They had

18   to keep their decibels down to 70.

19       These windmills are industrial

20   equipment, okay?   There's three

21   classifications of noise.   There's A,

22   residential; B, commercial; and C,

23   industrial.    Industrial, you have a top level

24   of 70.   Residential, 50.

25       If we had a wild party up there and

26
                                                       80


 1   we're bothering our neighbors because we're

 2   making too much noise, people -- neighbors

 3   call the cops, the cops come in ten minutes,

 4   party's shut down, okay?

 5         These people have ten working days to

 6   come out and look at the problem.     There's

 7   not -- there's not even a time when they have

 8   to fix the problem.   The problem can go on

 9   forever.   There is no teeth for them to take

10   care of a problem.    Why don't you guys have a

11   lemon law?

12         At SeaTac airport, you should call

13   SeaTac -- Port of Seattle and ask them how

14   much money they're spending for sound

15   mitigation for sound problems.   If this went

16   through, and the County, also by issuing the

17   building permit, is going to be right in bed

18   with these people with the problems, okay?

19   You're going to be sued just like they will

20   be.   And I don't know if there's enough tax

21   dollars to really cover all that.

22         Why don't you please send these hired

23   guns home and not build this.

24         Thank you.

25         Different noise levels, state

26
                                                     81


 1   industrial.   Kids can have earmuffs on

 2   running around outside.   Thank you.

 3       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   Thank you.

 4       Steve Kolchin.

 5       MR. STEVE KOLCHIN:    My name is Steve

 6   Kolchin, and I live at 7507 245th in Redmond.

 7   I own 20 acres in Sun East and I'm currently

 8   under construction in a second home for my

 9   family.

10       I'm here tonight representing myself, my

11   wife, and I think hundreds and hundreds of

12   other families who are thinking of doing what

13   I've just done in the last year, and that's

14   come over to this beautiful area after

15   searching long and wide for probably six

16   years for a place to build a second home.

17       We chose Sun East.    I chose it because

18   of the view, the rural atmosphere, the

19   accessibility to recreation, the forest is

20   there, but mostly the beautiful valley and

21   the view.

22       I'm very, very concerned if this project

23   goes through that my property values will

24   definitely drop.   I think I'll be staring at

25   lights.   I'm not certain, do these things

26
                                                       82


 1   have pinwheels on them or is it just the

 2   blinking light?    But there'll be a hundred of

 3   them down there.

 4       The noise is an interesting one, as

 5   we've heard.   1500 feet, 500 feet, 104

 6   decibels.   I know in the summertime in the

 7   right conditions, when you have cold air and

 8   then you have warm ground, sound travels a

 9   long way.   And if there are 120 of these

10   things that sound anything like this

11   (indicating), you're going to not only hear

12   it a thousand feet away, you're going to hear

13   it in town and everywhere else.

14       I would definitely look at not buying in

15   Sun East if these were here, and I'm certain

16   hundreds of others would feel the same.

17       I found out about this after starting

18   construction this last summer, and I

19   appreciate the opportunity to come here and

20   tell you how I feel.   I really wish you would

21   oppose this project, and I trust that is an

22   option at this time.

23       I understand the Planning Commission has

24   denied it, yet it's come up to a higher

25   level.   And I think having the public here to

26
                                                        83


 1   tell you in overwhelming opposition to this

 2   project, I trust you'll deny it.

 3       What I, what I sense is these folks have

 4   come in and tied up leases.   Maybe I stand

 5   corrected.   They don't own a chunk of land.

 6   They've tied up individual pieces.    And there

 7   seems to be some legal finagling whether

 8   that's one farm or many.

 9       I'll tell you as a trained landscape

10   architect it is one in its impact on an area.

11   It doesn't matter in easements that run

12   between the two or if they're a quarter mile

13   apart.   You are going to have a regional

14   impact when these towers go up, and it is

15   going to drastically alter the landscape and

16   the quality of life.

17       Thank you, and I urge you to oppose.

18   Thank you.

19       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    Thank you.

20       Preston Shugart.

21       MR. PRESTON SHUGART:    Good evening.     My

22   name is Preston Shugart.   I'm here

23   representing myself and my wife Carla and my

24   children.    We're landowners out on Wilson

25   Creek Road at 13201 Wilson Creek.

26
                                                      84


 1       We have 44 acres out there that we

 2   bought right before we heard about the wind

 3   farms.   At the present we're about 1500 feet

 4   away from our property line.

 5       And let me just back up a bit and say

 6   that I'm all for wind power, all for all

 7   forms of alternative energy if it's properly

 8   located.    In my opinion, this farm and this

 9   project is not properly located.

10       The other thing I have with -- in

11   particular with this agreement is the

12   setbacks.   There's discussion about the

13   setback from property line and setback from

14   existing residences.

15       And in my opinion, if you put a setback

16   from the existing residences, you're

17   basically giving the project rights over

18   other people's property for the next 30, 35

19   years.

20       To my understanding, the property owner

21   would have to get the project owner's

22   permission to develop their property within

23   that thousand feet from a turbine.     And you

24   know, with no compensation to the neighboring

25   property owner, that just doesn't seem fair.

26
                                                      85


 1       There has been some mitigation or things

 2   that they said that they can do to mitigate

 3   the visual effects and noise effects.      You

 4   know, they'll buy you some trees or some

 5   blinds.   I imagine if the noise bothers you,

 6   they might even buy you some earplugs.

 7       Or maybe they'll just tell you to close

 8   your eyes and not look and maybe, you know,

 9   wear earplugs or a headset or something like

10   that to not hear the noise.   I guess that's

11   generous in their opinion.    In my opinion,

12   it's not.

13       Everything here that I've been saying

14   and everything everybody else has been saying

15   comes down to one thing:   money.   Your

16   opinion about the wind farm depends on the

17   financial gain that you stand to see.      And

18   it's been that way for the entire discussion

19   that I've seen.

20       If you stand to gain money, then you're

21   in favor of it.   If you stand to lose money,

22   you're against it.   And in my opinion, you

23   stand to lose a lot more than you stand to

24   gain.

25       But that's not my call; that's your

26
                                                       86


 1   call.   So what are you going to do?   What are

 2   you going to tell the people of this valley

 3   when you say that these eight landowners

 4   stand to gain money, so we'll vote for them;

 5   the rest of you can go to hell.

 6       Thanks.

 7       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    Thank you.

 8       Carla Shugart, did you wish to speak?

 9       MS. CARLA SHUGART:    No thank you.

10       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    Thank you.

11       William Erickson.

12       MR. WILLIAM ERICKSON:    Well, I've read

13   the proposed agreement.   We live at 6980

14   Wilson Creek Road, and we also have property

15   over on Naneum Road.    Been county residents

16   for 39 years.

17       I find some concerns missing from the

18   agreement.   There's nothing in the agreement

19   that allows the County to shut down the

20   project when health and safety of the county

21   residents is at risk.

22       There's nothing in the agreement that

23   addresses the liability insurance for fire

24   and health risks.   I would recommend 75 to

25   100 million -- may seem like a lot --

26
                                                      87


 1   increased each year by the Consumer Price

 2   Index, the minimum it should cover for

 3   tangible property five miles downwind from

 4   the industrial complex plus the loss of life

 5   and health issues.

 6       I understand that this -- there's an

 7   agreement with the fire district; however,

 8   this doesn't guarantee there will not be a

 9   fire.   A wind-driven fire is very hard if not

10   impossible to contain, especially if it

11   happens at night.

12       And with our wind, high winds, I presume

13   this is when the towers collapse.   You've got

14   something like 80 gallons of oil that are

15   hazardous material up there, way up.     And

16   when it comes down, I'm sure there's going to

17   be a lot of sparks.   That's when fire

18   happens.

19       And if you're downwind of a strong wind,

20   if you're downwind and there's a strong wind,

21   then the fire department, even though they're

22   well-equipped and we've got a good one, isn't

23   going to be able to contain that.   Especially

24   at night.   It's gone and there's going to be

25   loss of life.

26
                                                        88


 1       So there needs to be something in there

 2   for insurance.    My insurance broker says it's

 3   the -- the -- like Desert Wind Claim's

 4   responsibility, liability.    I don't see

 5   anything in here for liability insurance.     If

 6   they're a limited liability corporation,

 7   who's going to pay?   What is it?

 8       There's nothing in the agreement for --

 9   that addresses the reduced property values

10   both current and future.    This could be a

11   tiered-down increase that Desert Claim would

12   pay to the current landowners on property

13   sold from zero to five miles.   And this would

14   be at appraised value where before the

15   windmills.

16       One mile, 100 percent more.     1 to 2

17   miles, 80 percent.    2 to 3 miles, 60 percent.

18   3 to 4 miles, 40 percent.    4 to 5 miles,

19   20 percent.   This would be at the first sale.

20   If somebody buys that close to a wind farm,

21   well, that's their problem.

22       There's nothing in here that

23   increased -- that -- for the increased dust

24   and pollen issues; it wasn't -- it hasn't

25   been addressed.

26
                                                         89


 1       Okay, concerns with the agreement,

 2   Page 3, K.   This project does not promote the

 3   health and safety and welfare of the citizens

 4   of Kittitas County.   How can this project

 5   promote the health, safety, and welfare of

 6   the citizens when Page 5 T states, This

 7   agreement is created in part to mitigate

 8   probable significant adverse environmental

 9   impacts associated with the project?      It's in

10   conflict with itself.

11       Okay, Page 5.     Furthermore, development

12   of the project is expected to provide fiscal

13   benefits to the county.    This statement is

14   false.   The black hole of attorney's fees and

15   litigation, along with increased road

16   maintenance, increased insurance premiums,

17   reduced residential tax base, will cost more

18   than the taxes received.   Instead of adding

19   more shares, you might be looking at having

20   to cut more.

21       Page 5.    Let's see, I'll try and not get

22   all of them here.   The safety zone setback,

23   there needs to be a greater setback from the

24   KRD north branch canal.    If the tower

25   collapses, see Page 40.    There's 80 gallons

26
                                                       90


 1   of hazardous fluid in the turbine at nearly

 2   400 feet high.   If it falls towards the

 3   canal, it could contaminate the canal and

 4   crops and pastureland downstream.

 5       And buffer zone for residents needs to

 6   be more than a thousand feet.   A thousand

 7   feet is less than a quarter of a mile.

 8       And let's see, shadow flicker and noise

 9   and that kind of problems should be at the

10   option of -- of -- if they -- if they want to

11   create this thing, then the residents have

12   the right to -- to shut it down if it causes

13   problems to them, or else they can buy their

14   property.

15       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    I need you to

16   conclude your remarks, sir.

17       MR. WILLIAM ERICKSON:     Okay.   I don't

18   think that you want to get into this.    It's a

19   real mess.   It's detrimental to the county,

20   to the residents, and there's a lot of false

21   statements in here when you really look at it

22   and study it.

23       Thank you.

24       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    Thank you.

25       Marla Parsel.

26
                                                       91


 1       MS. MARLA PARSEL:    Marla Parsel.   I

 2   reside at 13043 Reecer Creek Road.   I

 3   represent myself; Lawrence Ruble, who is a

 4   partner in the property with me; and I also

 5   represent my neighbors to the south of me,

 6   Chris and Lee Perchet.

 7       And I'm going to walk over to the map

 8   and show you where I'm located.    Right in

 9   here (indicating).

10       We purchased this property back in 2001.

11   And I'd like to dispel the rumor about this

12   being a real agricultural area.    You see the

13   blue line there's the KRD canal.    Only people

14   to the south of the KRD can have irrigation

15   water.   So all of us to the north have to

16   rely on the creeks that come down in.

17       But there's another thing too.     A lot of

18   the landowners that are involved in this

19   project sold their water rights to Trend

20   West, so there's even less water.

21       We have tried to farm.   We have

22   150 acres in that area right there, and we've

23   put some things in.   We lost most of all of

24   our oat last year because there's just not

25   enough water to sustain a crop.

26
                                                      92


 1       So the next thing you can do with the

 2   property is pasture cattle.   Well, if you

 3   don't have enough water to keep the grass

 4   green, you've got about a month or so that

 5   you can pasture cattle on.

 6       We bought the property with intentions

 7   to subdivide it in the future.   We paid $2500

 8   an acre for that.   If this project goes in

 9   and we cannot subdivide, it's probably going

10   to be worth about 500 an acre, because the

11   only thing you can do on it is pasture cattle

12   on it.

13       I have a kind of -- well, if you look at

14   the picture there that I took, this is the

15   ranch property on the bottom.    And on the

16   top, I imposed what the windmills are going

17   to look like.   And there is more windmills to

18   the north of us.

19       But according to this agreement, if I

20   have a complaint regarding shadow flicker --

21   and I'll definitely have a complaint on the

22   noise after that last demonstration -- if you

23   see the big Three Creek barn there, it's

24   about three to four stories high, and that's

25   where we are camping cattle at right now.

26
                                                       93


 1       And I spent about the last two hours

 2   before I came here out there, and about that

 3   would be the time when you would have either

 4   sunrise or sunset.   I get it both; I get it

 5   both at sunrise and sunset.

 6       So curtains on the window and some

 7   trees, I don't think that there's going to be

 8   trees high enough to hide the shadow flicker

 9   coming from these turbines that are on both

10   sides of me on that.

11       And according to your agreement, I fax a

12   complaint to the County; the County then

13   contacts the wind turbine people; they send

14   their guy out to take a look at this

15   complaint.   And then there's a bunch of

16   paperwork, it seems like.   And then that's

17   about it.    Because I don't see how you could

18   ever resolve my problem with me living right

19   there with the turbines on both sides of me,

20   and that close, completely surrounding me.

21       And I guess my biggest issue is that the

22   property values, there's absolutely nothing

23   that I've seen regarding what happens to us

24   when our property goes down at least

25   60 percent or even more.    It looks like that.

26
                                                       94


 1       And in addition, the thousand -- or the

 2   1000-foot setback, that has just got to be

 3   required.   Because my residence is in the --

 4   right in the middle of my property.   And if

 5   you allow them to use my residence as a

 6   setback, then you take away my right to do

 7   anything with the rest of the property.

 8       And I have -- you know, it's a great

 9   place.   I'm abutting Reecer Creek Road on

10   both sides there.    It's perfect to subdivide.

11   That's what we bought it for.   And so I

12   just -- I don't think that you have the right

13   to take that away.   So I oppose this wind

14   turbine project.

15       Thank you.

16       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    Thank you.

17       Andrew Johnson.

18       MR. ANDREW JOHNSON:    Andrew Johnson.

19   I'm representing myself.   260 Lennis Road,

20   off Look Road, just east of the airport.

21       I have been looking at some of the

22   documents and remembering my experience in

23   the airline industry and when the jet engines

24   came in and so forth.   I don't hear too well

25   anymore because of that.

26
                                                         95


 1          I heard the noise a little while ago,

 2   though.   It sounded just like the airport.

 3          And I'm here to say that I challenge any

 4   one of you to try and live day in, day out,

 5   night in and night out with 51 decibels

 6   ringing away in your ears.

 7          The 1000-foot setback is not adequate.

 8   It is not.   I talked to a friend of mine the

 9   other day that's in the development business.

10   I asked him, How many houses did you build

11   last year?   He said 100.   Then he turned to

12   me and he said, This year I'm going to build

13   200.

14          I am minded of Mr. Garrett's testimony

15   in which he pointed out that houses are

16   springing up all over this area that this

17   project is going into.   We're becoming a

18   bedroom community for Seattle.

19          They've run tests to see how many

20   house -- sorry, how many cars cross the pass

21   every day to go to work and come back.       It's

22   over a thousand.   Every day.   It takes as

23   long to go from here to downtown Seattle as

24   it takes to come from Lynnwood to downtown

25   Seattle in rush hour.    Think about that.

26
                                                       96


 1       Thank you very much for listening.

 2       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    Thank you.

 3       Alan Lindemoen.

 4       UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER:   He went

 5   home.

 6       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    He went home?

 7       Phyllis Whitbeck.

 8       MS. PHYLLIS WHITBECK:    My name is

 9   Phyllis Whitbeck.   I live at 7440 Robbins

10   Road in Ellensburg.

11       I have here a map similar to Ed

12   Garrett's, except I went ahead and put the

13   houses in.   The friends that I have at Sun

14   East and myself got together.   The green are

15   the houses that are here permanently.     A lot

16   of the cabins, which will become permanent

17   homes.

18       I'd like to give this to the council.

19       And I thank my friends at Sun East for

20   helping me put that together.

21       On the questions and comments I have, I

22   understand that Desert Claims can get a bird

23   kill permit to make it legal to kill eagles,

24   hawks, owls, bats, and many small birds.     To

25   check and see how many are being killed would

26
                                                       97


 1   be impossible.    The coyotes, rodents, skunks,

 2   and other scavengers would dine for dinner

 3   and the feathers would blow away in the wind.

 4       Did I hear right that Desert Claim plans

 5   to sell the wind farms after they get it up

 6   and running after collecting government

 7   subsidies?   Will the same operating rule

 8   apply to the new owners?

 9       I live one mile away from -- or further

10   than one mile away from the turbines, and

11   it's still too close.   In fact, I live one

12   and a half miles away from the turbines and

13   they could mess up our TV reception.   Would

14   the one-half mile apply to us also in having

15   it fixed?

16       How about our cell phones?    That is all

17   we have and that is all we want to use.

18       The flashing lights.    We are high enough

19   to look directly at the flashing lights

20   24 hours a day.   We are one and a half miles

21   away.   Will they provide blinds for our

22   windows also?    You know, closing off open

23   windows in the summer with blinds would be

24   very hot and stuffy.

25       When the airport was repaired --

26
                                                      98


 1   repairing their flashing lights, they flashed

 2   through our house all night long before they

 3   corrected the problem.   The airport is six

 4   miles away.   Cell tower lights are ten to

 5   twelve miles away, and only one very bright

 6   light flashes.   Instead of 121 turbines

 7   flashing away there.

 8       Planting trees are a laugh.    It's too

 9   windy for them to grow large enough to be

10   effective.    Barriers -- to be effective

11   barriers.    And close to the house is

12   dangerous in a range fire.

13       Range fires after turbine construction

14   was not addressed.   The only thing that can

15   stop a raging range fire blowing 30 to 60

16   miles per hour are the fire

17   retardant-dropping planes.    It would not be

18   safe for them to fly within a half to three

19   quarters of a mile near the turbines in that

20   stiff a wind.

21       How could a little man protect 30 or

22   more homes or 70 parcels of land near the

23   turbines from a raging fire?    That will take

24   more than a new fire station and extra money

25   added to the bill from Desert Claims.    This

26
                                                      99


 1   stuff here could be used for the city.     But

 2   not on a wind-driven fire on the range.

 3       Desert Claim's area may be made

 4   rodent-free with poisons, but what about the

 5   land outside of their territory?    Without

 6   hawks that guard this area, other predators

 7   will increase in populations.   Coyotes,

 8   snakes, weasels, and many other small

 9   animals.   There will go the neighbors'

10   chickens, rabbits, dogs, cats, and et cetera

11   because these make good little snacks.

12       Will Desert Claim's wind farm be fenced

13   in to keep out the public so people will not

14   get close to the turbines and get hurt or

15   destroy private property?

16       Shadow flicker.     When the sun is high,

17   it will affect few people.   When the sun is

18   rising or setting, lots of people will see it

19   because of longer shadows.   No more watching

20   the sun rise or set.    Winter sun will also

21   produce very long shadows.   A 2000-foot

22   leeway is not enough.   This would be only

23   good maybe on a summer afternoon.

24       The city of Ellensburg is also the only

25   service city in the state of Washington that

26
                                                       100


 1   owns and operates both municipal electricity,

 2   natural gas utilities, water, and sewer

 3   services.   They also -- I can't read my

 4   writing.

 5         They also research and evaluate

 6   renewable energy for the city.    Will they get

 7   a big piece of the wind turbine operations;

 8   and if so, how much?   And if not, why not.

 9         Oh, and what a nice gesture for Desert

10   Claims to help pay the County for any of the

11   lawsuits that might arise from the good

12   citizens of Kittitas County.    That hurts.

13         Please reread all the reasons people

14   sent in against the turbines.    Most of these

15   people out here are quiet folk.    That's why

16   they got away from the city hassle.     They

17   aren't used to being impolite and continually

18   nag, nag, nag, like it seems we're forced to

19   do.

20         Our county commissioners, please listen

21   to the people of Kittitas County and say no.

22   Keep our county beautiful to live in and to

23   share with others.

24         Thank you.

25         COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   Thank you.

26
                                                      101


 1       Chet Morrison.

 2       MR. CHET MORRISON:    I'm Chet Morrison.

 3   I live at 2607 Judge Ronald Road.   I'm one of

 4   the landowners of the proposed Desert Claim

 5   wind project.

 6       I can understand the County's opposition

 7   to imposing the new restrictions on my

 8   building a residence within the project

 9   closer than 487 feet from a turbine.    This

10   safety zone protects the residents from the

11   potential risk of turbine collapse, noise

12   impacts, ice throw and blade throw.

13       This new county-imposed requirement is

14   clearly stating that residents within the

15   project have the same protection and benefits

16   as residents outside the project boundaries.

17   This provision equally protects every

18   citizen's rights.

19       I cannot understand, however, the

20   County's reason for imposing a 1000-foot

21   buffer in addition to the safety zone

22   setback.   This requirement will reduce the

23   number of turbines that I can put -- that can

24   be constructed in this project.

25       I cannot understand the additional

26
                                                       102


 1   requirement.   No health or safety concern has

 2   been identified to require the additional

 3   setbacks.

 4       It places an unfair restriction on my

 5   right to fully utilize the property by

 6   drastically reducing the amount of land that

 7   I can use, taking me from being able to use

 8   about 62 percent of the property down to

 9   being able to use about 38 percent of the

10   property.

11       The big question is who benefits -- the

12   big question is why do we need this

13   additional buffer?   Who benefits from this?

14   My answer is nobody.

15       The adjacent landowners do not gain any

16   additional benefits; they already have the

17   health and safety setbacks of 487 feet, the

18   same as residents within the project.    I lose

19   economic benefits from my property and the

20   County receives less tax revenue from the

21   project.

22       I will also ask the County to explain to

23   me how my property rights are being treated

24   equally with all the other citizens of

25   Kittitas County if this buffer is imposed.

26
                                                     103


 1       Let me read to you a portion of the

 2   development agreement from another proposed

 3   wind farm here in Kittitas County.   I sat in

 4   on their hearing before this board, and this

 5   is a provision inserted into their agreement

 6   in response to the request from the board

 7   regarding turbine setbacks, Section 5.16,

 8   turbine setbacks from residents.

 9             "A minimum safety zone setback

10       of 541 feet shall be maintained

11       between project wind turbines and

12       residents located outside the

13       project boundaries, illustrated in

14       Exhibit B.

15             "In the event the applicant

16       wishes to install wind turbines

17       closer than 541 feet to the project

18       boundary, applicant shall obtain an

19       easement or covenant that restricts

20       construction of any new residence

21       within 541 feet of any turbine as

22       measured from the nearest turbine

23       tower center point at any such new

24       residence."

25       In that project the County is not

26
                                                       104


 1   imposing a 1000-foot turbine buffer.      So

 2   again I ask you why are you imposing it on my

 3   property?   Why am I being treated differently

 4   than the neighbors who live to the east?

 5       Thank you.

 6       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    Thank you.

 7       Mike Gossler.

 8       MR. MIKE GOSSLER:     Good evening.   My

 9   name is Mike Gossler.   I reside at 3212 74th

10   Place Southeast, Mercer Island, Washington.

11   I'm here on behalf of myself and my wife

12   Cheryl and my brother-in-law and his wife,

13   Gary and Susan Edie.

14       Between Gary and my family, we both own

15   20 acre parcels of property that look

16   directly down over this proposed project.

17   I've testified at previous proceedings before

18   the Planning Commission, and I'm not going to

19   reiterate those comments.   I believe those

20   are part of the record.

21       I'm here because this really truly is

22   the wrong project in the wrong place.     But I

23   want to address two features of the February

24   15th, 2005, development agreement that I

25   think in and of itself should render this

26
                                                      105


 1   project fatal.

 2       The first relates to the noise issue,

 3   and a number of people have addressed that.

 4   But I'd like to refer you to some specific

 5   provisions of the agreement.

 6       Section 6.16.1.2 and 7.8.3.2 basically

 7   define the decibel level that's permitted to

 8   be 104.   Although as Mr. Forster pointed out

 9   earlier, it actually can -- there's a buffer

10   of another 9 or 10 above that, which is, as

11   he's demonstrated, a rather significant

12   noise.

13       In addition, Section 7.8.2 says that the

14   applicable noise standard is defined in the

15   Washington Administrative Code at

16   Section 173-60.   And it refers to the Class C

17   section for noise.

18       Now, if you go to that section of the

19   Washington Administrative Code, it defines

20   the maximum allowable decibel levels for

21   Class C as between 60 and 70.

22       I submit to you, first of all, that

23   that's the wrong classification.    It really

24   ought to be Class A, because that would pick

25   up residential and recreational property,

26
                                                     106


 1   which for the most part is what we're talking

 2   about here.

 3       In addition to that, even for Class C

 4   property, the maximum permissible decibel

 5   levels is 60 to 70, and yet here we've got an

 6   agreement that permits it to go to 104.

 7   That's completely inconsistent and contrary

 8   to the regulations that they say are

 9   applicable to this project.

10       Third, if you look at the exceptions in

11   the Washington Administrative Code that allow

12   you to get beyond the 60 to 70 decibel level,

13   it talks about short -- basically it's the

14   kind of things or uses or -- that involve

15   short bursts of large amounts of sound.

16       Examples include aircraft in flight,

17   railroad traffic, warning devices not

18   operating continuously for more than five

19   minutes, or bells, chimes, and carillons.

20   Sounds created by emergency equipment.

21   Petroleum refinery boilers during setup of

22   boilers.   Discharge of firearms.

23       We're not talking about windmills that

24   operate continuously over long periods of

25   time at decibel levels that well exceed the

26
                                                      107


 1   standards set forth in the Code.   It's simply

 2   wrong.

 3       Second, under Section 7.2, if you own

 4   property that's outside 1500 feet from the

 5   location of these windmills, you don't even

 6   have a right to complain.

 7       Unfortunately for me, my property is

 8   beyond 1500 feet, which is barely beyond a

 9   quarter of a mile.   We all know how sound

10   travels.   And so I don't even have recourse

11   in the event there is a problem.

12       For those fortunate enough to be within

13   1500 feet -- and this is my final comment --

14   look at the dispute resolution section of the

15   agreement, which is basically in Section 9.

16   It puts the County basically in the forefront

17   of the problem-solving.

18       In Section 9.1 it says, "Kittitas County

19   shall be the initial point of contact for any

20   complaints submitted pursuant to the

21   complaint resolution process in Section 7."

22   Then it goes on to describe some of the

23   procedures.

24       What kind of compensation does the

25   County get for being embroiled in that kind

26
                                                      108


 1   of a procedure?    You get a whopping $15,000.

 2   If you build 120 turbines.

 3       Now, I have had a little familiarity

 4   with the legal process, and I'm here to tell

 5   you $15,000 isn't going to take you anywhere.

 6       Those two sections of the revised

 7   agreement in and of itself should give you

 8   ample reasons to reject it.

 9       Thank you.

10       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:     Thank you.

11       Linda Schanz.

12       MS. LINDA SCHANZ:    Hi, my name is Linda

13   Schanz, and I'm representing my husband, my

14   son, and myself.   We reside at 4190 Robbins

15   Road in Ellensburg.

16       And our property adjoins the Desert

17   Claim project boundary and we will have wind

18   turbines north of us within a thousand feet

19   of our property line as stated.    To the

20   northwest and due east of our property within

21   one-quarter to a half-mile and southeast of

22   our home in view upon the ridge.

23       For the record, I want to state that we

24   are against allowing this wind farm

25   application in its current proposed location.

26
                                                      109


 1   I also want to thank you for giving me

 2   another five minutes to listen to me.

 3       My comments on the applications are as

 4   follows.    Under the development standards at

 5   5.2, turbine buffers, a thousand feet is not

 6   an appropriate buffer.    I know you've heard

 7   this over and over again tonight.

 8       And while the numbers for the noise

 9   decibels and the ice throws and the danger in

10   the EIS do not necessarily support our

11   position, there's several dozens, if not

12   hundreds, of statements from websites and

13   newspapers around the world that tell us

14   otherwise.

15       Many of us have spent many hours in the

16   last year and a half researching.   We all

17   know that numbers can be manipulated to fit

18   any need.    Just ask any math graduate or

19   anybody who does budgets.

20       I would ask you to believe the people

21   who have to live within the noise of the

22   turbines within a thousand feet before I

23   would trust any engineered document.

24       When both of those things agree, both

25   the engineering and the people, then we have

26
                                                       110


 1   something I think we can act on, and I don't

 2   think a thousand foot is agreed by -- by both

 3   of those people here.

 4       So on the SEPA section, 6.0, there's

 5   several things that do not protect the

 6   residents and landowners a hundred percent.

 7       A example of this is in 6.5.2, the

 8   groundwater section.    It discusses mitigation

 9   measures; however, there's no mitigation

10   addressed if a well is disturbed or damaged,

11   if its water reroutes or is silted.   Perhaps

12   wells within a recommended distance should be

13   tested prior and after blasting.

14       I do believe that EnXco should have to

15   address any damage, because we need to

16   protect the landowners a hundred percent in

17   this matter.

18       On the wildlife, I know Janet Nelson

19   spoke about the TAC.    I think it's a great

20   idea; however, it was written with really no

21   teeth in it.   It'll probably work as written

22   for about a year, and then once you've done

23   all the mitigation that is feasible, short of

24   stopping a turbine or removing a turbine,

25   that's it; there'll be no other mitigation

26
                                                      111


 1   that will fix the problems.   So it will

 2   become just red tape and probably go on to

 3   Superior Court, as you state in I think 16.6.

 4       And really I think that's just an

 5   example of it is what it is; it's an

 6   industrialized wind plant in an agricultural,

 7   rural, residential, and wildlife area.

 8       It really only goes so far in protecting

 9   our wildlife.   In 6.8 and 6. -- 6.8.19.3 and

10   -4, both indicate that there'll be a study if

11   bats are attracted to turbines and to

12   investigate how we're going to -- mechanisms

13   for deterring them.

14       We already know in Virginia thousands of

15   bats are being killed and are seemingly

16   attracted to the turbines.    This was a study

17   that was done by a graduate student from a

18   nearby university and was in the Washington

19   post in January.

20       Really the item's only in here because

21   we did no studies of bat kills in our

22   sanctioned bird study, and we went ahead and

23   accepted that in the EIS.    And much against

24   the recommendations of the Audubon Society.

25       And in the current language EnXco only

26
                                                      112


 1   has to try to mitigate problems, short of

 2   tearing down turbines.

 3       So the shadow flicker is a joke, really,

 4   to me, because even if EnXco pays for the

 5   mitigation, weak as it is, it makes the

 6   homeowners responsible for alleviating a

 7   problem that cannot be fixed.   It's a known

 8   problem and it once again spells out that

 9   turbines don't belong in populated areas.

10       As it's written, the mitigation measures

11   are -- once they're implemented, there's no

12   requirement for EnXco to further address

13   problems, and that's stated in 7.9.

14       It does not protect the landowners a

15   hundred percent, although it does protect

16   EnXco a hundred percent.

17       So I'll -- one more thing and I'll wrap

18   this up.   7.0, the complaint resolution

19   process.   All problems within two miles of

20   the project area should be part of the

21   complaint resolution process.   Because if you

22   believe that only people within 2500 feet of

23   this project area are going to be affected,

24   just go back to the EIS under unavoidable

25   adverse impacts, and you'll see that it goes

26
                                                     113


 1   much further than that.

 2       So just in closing, we would ask that

 3   the Board of County Commissioners follow the

 4   recommendations of the Planning Commission

 5   and make the only responsible decision, and

 6   that's to deny the Desert Claim wind farm

 7   application in its current location.

 8       Thank you.

 9       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    Thank you.

10       Helen Wise.    Did you wish to speak?

11       Art DePalma?

12       MR. ART DePALMA:    I'm Art DePalma.    I

13   live at 6991 Manastash Road, and I represent

14   my wife and myself.

15       And I also agree that this is not the

16   right place to be building 120 wind turbines.

17   I also agree there's just no mitigation for

18   shadow flicker, the strobe lights by day, the

19   red lights by night, eight miles from

20   Ellensburg.

21       And going back to Recital K, that the

22   County should be supporting the health and

23   welfare of the people in the county, a lot's

24   been said.    And it's true about the noise,

25   but there's also the effects of low level

26
                                                        114


 1   noise for residents for vibration, which is

 2   real.   It's not -- it's not something that's

 3   made up.   And it's something that's just --

 4   we've become more aware of this last year.

 5       And that's why the British government

 6   has been supporting research at Salford

 7   University in Manchester, England.   And I

 8   have something from their website at Salford

 9   University from their acoustics research

10   center.    And it says a team from the

11   acoustics research center headed by Andy

12   Morehouse has been chosen by the Department

13   of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to

14   carry out a research project to develop

15   guidelines for assessing disturbance by low

16   frequency noise.

17       And they go on to state how they're

18   going to do it.    And they haven't done it

19   yet; this is just starting.   It really is

20   just in progress.

21       And in the development agreement under

22   noise, it -- Desert Claim says that they're

23   going to avoid low frequency sounds.     But how

24   do they know?   There's no way to know,

25   because there's been no way to detect for

26
                                                      115


 1   sure vibratory noise scientifically.

 2       In fact, there's disagreements -- and I

 3   don't understand this -- but some of the

 4   scientists say that you should be using the

 5   C weighting scale and others the A weighting

 6   scale and it's usually the A weighting scale

 7   that's used and this doesn't pick up

 8   residence or vibratory low-level noise.

 9       And there's already hundreds of cases of

10   medical problems that has been documented at

11   least in England.   In Europe -- England,

12   Germany, Holland, Denmark -- they're backing

13   away from putting wind farms near homes.

14       In this country, I don't know of any

15   place in the country that's like this, that

16   wants to put a wind farm or where there is a

17   wind farm right in the middle of hundreds of

18   homes.

19       Also there's the thump-thump noise that

20   is there, depending on how the wind and the

21   rotating blades are interacting.

22       It also -- we've talked a little bit

23   about real estate prices, lawsuits.    There's

24   already been one lawsuit in England where a

25   homeowner was given a judgment because of

26
                                                     116


 1   damage to visual amenity, noise pollution,

 2   and the irritating flicker caused by the sun

 3   going down behind the moving blades of the

 4   turbines 550 meters from the house.

 5         And we've talked about a 1000-foot

 6   setback versus 400-and-some-feet setback.

 7   And again, I mentioned this before, but I'd

 8   just like to read the Riverside County,

 9   California, ordinance that says, Restrict the

10   placement of wind turbines within two miles

11   of residential development unless the

12   applicant supplies documentation that the

13   machines will not produce low-level

14   frequency -- low frequency impulsive noise.

15         And you can't do that.   You can't show

16   that it's not going to produce this type of a

17   noise, because the research is just starting.

18         So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense

19   to put a wind farm in a residential area when

20   you really don't know what's going to happen

21   as far as responses to vibratory noise.

22         Also there's been arguments that, well,

23   it'll stop runaway growth, there'll be less

24   pollution, less people moving here, and so

25   on.

26
                                                        117


 1       But, you don't blight an area to keep

 2   people from coming.   I mean, you wouldn't

 3   build a huge nuclear waste dump here to keep

 4   people from moving here.

 5       Secondly, it's in your power, you know,

 6   the zoning laws, you're not going to change

 7   all of these zones to residential, so you're

 8   not going to have another Issaquah here; this

 9   is still going to rural and there'll be rural

10   development.

11       You know, when I first came to --

12       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    I need you to

13   conclude your remarks.

14       MR. ART DePALMA:     Okay.   My last comment

15   is, when you weigh your decision, please take

16   into account the Planning Commissioners'

17   votes that have confidence that you'd come to

18   the same conclusions.

19       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    Thank you.

20       Diane Schwab.

21       MS. DIANE SCHWAB:    My name is Diane

22   Schwab.   I represent my husband and myself.

23   We live in Maple Valley, Washington.     We have

24   50 acres up here in the hills.

25       I've read through the entire agreement

26
                                                      118


 1   between Kittitas County and Desert Claim.

 2   And there's a few misquotes in there that I

 3   think really stand out.

 4       David Steeb stated that PSE is looking

 5   at their project to buy it.    PSE has denied

 6   this fact and publicly stated in one of the

 7   journal magazines that they're not

 8   interested.

 9       "The County has determined that this

10   agreement is appropriate for the project and,

11   therefore, desires to enter into this

12   agreement."   I have not heard anyone from the

13   County make that statement.   And it seems

14   quite presumptuous on the part of EnXco

15   unless the County's told them something else.

16       And then it says development of the

17   project is expected to provide fiscal

18   benefits to the county.    This fact is not

19   known.   Once again, it's speculation.

20       All of these three items should be

21   stricken from the draft.

22       Section 11.2.   This section states that

23   if they wish to expand this wind farm, this

24   would be a major revision to this agreement.

25   This tells us that either there could be more

26
                                                       119


 1   wind turbines placed on this land or they

 2   would require more land.   Let's worry about

 3   this one wind farm and not go into the future

 4   yet.

 5          EnXco has previously claimed that these

 6   turbines do not pose a fire hazard, yet there

 7   are over 30 pages of documentation regarding

 8   fires in this -- in this latest book that

 9   they put out.

10          Lest we not forget to mention that if

11   the County pays to demolish a fire station,

12   EnXco will pay $100,000 towards the cost of

13   building a new fire station.     How much is

14   that going to cost the County?

15          Once again, EnXco has failed to consider

16   the public concerns.    To offer to place

17   blinds, curtains, shutters, et cetera on

18   windows and homes is not an acceptable answer

19   to shadow flicker.   To plant trees to hide

20   their turbines is not an acceptable answer.

21   To paint the turbines a neutral color is not

22   an acceptable answer.

23          A 400-foot turbine will produce a

24   1000-foot shadow at one o'clock in the

25   afternoon.   As the sun goes down, the shadow

26
                                                      120


 1   gets longer.   So I didn't do the math to

 2   figure out how much more it would go up, but

 3   we're talking a long distance.

 4          The citizens of Kittitas County do not

 5   want to stay in their homes on a bright sunny

 6   day.   We came here for the open country.    A

 7   tree is not going to hide a turbine unless

 8   you plant a very tall tree.   But then again,

 9   how are you going to water it?

10          If the County Commissioners sign this

11   agreement, it will be a slap in the face to

12   the citizens of Kittitas County.   We have

13   provided you with proven statistics,

14   testimonials from real people who live among

15   wind turbines, and many, many pages of data

16   which clearly has stated that wind turbines

17   do not belong among the public.

18          Yes, taking care of county politics and

19   finances is important, but you also have a

20   responsibility to protect the people of this

21   county.

22          Oh, yes, I also read in this draft that

23   when the lawsuits start that EnXco attorneys

24   will team up with the County attorneys to

25   fight these lawsuits.   Now, isn't that cute.

26
                                                      121


 1       I guess one way to put this is the

 2   County can either be about big business and

 3   wind turbines or people.   The only way to

 4   have it both ways is to keep the wind farms

 5   away from people.

 6       We ask that you deny this agreement and

 7   protect the citizens who will be forced to

 8   live out there with nothing in return but

 9   miseries.   The people have clearly spoken;

10   have you been listening?

11       Thank you.

12       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   Thank you.

13       Clint Coppernoll.   Clint Coppernoll?

14       Dennis Romppel.

15       Terri Petrey, did you wish to speak?

16       MS. TERRI PETREY:   My name is Terri

17   Petrey.   I reside in Ellensburg.   My address

18   is 300 East Helena, No. 113.

19       I live in an apartment building.    I do

20   not own property here or anywhere else.    And

21   I have in the past been fortunate enough to

22   be a property owner.

23       I wound up here in Ellensburg, not

24   because I came here to retire, not because I

25   came here for a high paying job, but because

26
                                                       122


 1   it was the only job that my husband could

 2   find at a time when our family had had a

 3   child that had become seriously disabled.

 4   And we had lost our home, our business, our

 5   preferred occupation, and many, many other

 6   things in the course of that situation.

 7       However, in the last two and a half

 8   years I've involved myself in a number of

 9   things in the community, largely because I

10   couldn't find employment here.   And so our

11   family is not a family that's privileged to

12   live on a ridge overlooking the valley.    We

13   live in an apartment and we do the best that

14   we can.

15       But I want to talk to you a little bit

16   about what does makes Ellensburg unique.

17   This (indicating) is a picture of the Wu-Tang

18   clan, and probably most of you in this room

19   don't have a clue who these people are.    This

20   is a rap group.   They're one of the early rap

21   groups.

22       And reason I'm talking to you tonight

23   about a rap group is I'm talking to you about

24   the asset of culture.   The rap and the

25   hip hop groups have managed to mine the black

26
                                                      123


 1   urban culture and it has become a

 2   multi-billion-dollar industry.    Not only

 3   music but clothing, lifestyle, what-have-you.

 4       And I would submit to you that our

 5   greatest asset here in this county is our

 6   agrarian historic western past.   Arguably

 7   reflected by this group (indicating), the

 8   Ellensburg Rodeo Grandma Cowboys.    I guess I

 9   don't remember what we call them.    The Rodeo

10   Grandmas.

11       And this is an unexploited asset that we

12   have here.   This asset will be lost if we

13   continue to parcel out 3-acre parcels,

14   20-acre parcels.

15       One of the reasons that I support the

16   wind energy here is maybe it's not

17   compatible, as some people would say, with

18   these parcels, okay, but I would submit to

19   you that in terms of the entire valley and

20   helping this valley to retain its agrarian

21   culture and also its agricultural industry --

22       Which I note is one of only two

23   industries here right now; it's the industry

24   that we came here to work in, and it's a

25   growing industry, expanding not only into

26
                                                       124


 1   Korea but into Vietnam and potentially into

 2   China.    So it's something we need to take

 3   care of because it's here now and it provides

 4   family wage living jobs, okay?

 5       We have a situation here where most of

 6   this development is not going to provide

 7   housing that most of the people who work here

 8   in this county can afford, okay?

 9       So if we're going to have continuing

10   parceling out of land or even building on

11   existing parcels, we need to make sure that

12   we have industry that can support the people

13   that come here.   Not just to take care of

14   these people, but the people who are already

15   here and didn't come here trailing wads of

16   cash behind them.

17       This is a picture of the Puyallup Valley

18   before it developed many, many, many, many

19   decades ago.   This represents agrarian

20   culture and the agrarian industry of many

21   places.   Not only just the Puyallup Valley.

22   Could have been San Fernando Valley in

23   California.    Lots of places.   Long Island at

24   one time in New York was the place that did

25   the farming.

26
                                                      125


 1       But if we don't protect that, eventually

 2   this (indicating) is what we're going to see.

 3   And I'm not even sure what this city is or

 4   where it is.   It is either in a basin or a

 5   valley.   Surrounded by mountains much like

 6   our place.

 7       And I would submit to you that I would

 8   much prefer to see 120 wind turbines than

 9   this happen to this valley, okay?

10       So with that, I urge you to vote to

11   approve this project.

12       Just one more minute, though.    I want to

13   talk a little bit about property rights.

14   It's something I know a little bit about --

15       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:     Direct your

16   comments to the board, please.

17       MS. TERRI PETREY:   Let's just say this

18   (indicating) is an individual landowner's

19   bundle of property rights.    And I realize

20   maybe we'll take 40 percent of those property

21   rights away.   But there's still a bundle of

22   property rights that are left.   Let's

23   aggregate with some other landowners.

24       But let's compare that to the benefits

25   to the community.   Which include not only the

26
                                                         126


 1   property rights of the landowners; they

 2   include employment, better funding for county

 3   services, a future source of power.      And we

 4   could go on and on.

 5         As a government entity in the state of

 6   Washington, you're required --

 7         COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   I need you to

 8   conclude your remarks, please.

 9         MS. TERRY PETREY:   (Continuing) --

10   you're required to balance the burden on the

11   property owner against the benefit.      I submit

12   to you the benefit far outweighs the burden.

13         Thank you.

14         COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   Thank you.

15         Liz Lasell, did you wish to speak?

16         MS. LIZ LASELL-McCOSH:    Hello.    My name

17   is Liz Lasell-McCosh.     I just moved to this

18   lovely area two years ago.     I live at 201

19   Casey Drive.   And I'd be surrounded by those

20   things if you guys went ahead and put them

21   up.

22         I didn't get a chance to read the packet

23   because apparently I'm not on the mailing

24   list, although looking at that map, there

25   would be one within a thousand feet of my

26
                                                      127


 1   house.

 2       I'm out there with my horses and my

 3   lifestyle, and this morning I had the

 4   privilege of looking out my living room

 5   window and watching the elk.   And I'm

 6   wondering, you know, how they're going to

 7   feel about 120 turbines out there.

 8       All the information on the oil in the

 9   machinery and the fires, I called the fire

10   department this morning because I saw smoke

11   in a place I didn't think there ought to be

12   smoke.   Found out later it was probably a

13   neighbor burning something.    But, you know.

14       I didn't leave my house last year during

15   a fire outbreak right up above me, and now

16   you're saying, well, if the wind kicks up,

17   the turbines might just help speed it along.

18   And that's a major concern for me.

19       I kind of wonder, you know, with all

20   this nice sunny weather and no wind that

21   we've been having lately why nobody has

22   thought of coming in with solar power instead

23   of wind power.   Because I don't think they're

24   400 feet high.

25       And I don't like curtains.    Thanks very

26
                                                         128


 1   much; I'll do my own decorating.

 2          I'd really like to stay here for a

 3   little while and listen to the coyotes at

 4   night and watch the stars and not worry about

 5   the flicker of little lights other than the

 6   planes and the satellites going overhead.

 7          I really hope you can follow the

 8   Planning Commission's recommendation and not

 9   approve these things.

10          Thanks very much.

11          COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   Thank you.

12          Let's take our nine o'clock break as

13   advertised.    We'll be back at 9:10.

14               (A break was taken.)

15          COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   Let's come back

16   into session, please.

17          Before we begin with our testimony

18   again, let me do a little strategic planning,

19   if you will.   I have two -- or at least one

20   that's indicated they wish to speak still on

21   the list, and then one, perhaps, Tom McKosh?

22   Are you still here?     Did you wish to speak?

23          And Sue Bangs.   Are you still here?   You

24   are.   And you wish to speak?

25          MS. SUE BANGS:   Just briefly.

26
                                                        129


 1       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:      Who is not on my

 2   list -- or for that matter if you're on my

 3   list but have changed your mind and wish to

 4   speak this evening that have not spoken?

 5       One, two, three, four, five, six.      Okay,

 6   very good.

 7       Let's go ahead and move to Sue Bangs.

 8       MS. SUE BANGS:      My name is Susan Bangs.

 9   I live at 751 Clarkey Road.

10       And I just want to urge the

11   commissioners to go with the recommendation

12   from the planning board.    You are our voice,

13   so please hear us.

14       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:     Thank you.

15                (A discussion was held off the

16                record.)

17                (Pause in the proceedings.)

18       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:     Who else would

19   speak at this public hearing?    Sir.    In that

20   green hat, right here, sir, please.

21       MR. SANDY SANDALL:     My name is Sandy

22   Sandall.   I reside at 8560 Elk Springs Road,

23   Ellensburg, Washington.

24       I have a question on the

25   decommissioning.    According to this,

26
                                                      130


 1   decommissioning the project or any turbine

 2   and related project facilities within --

 3   therein within 12 months after the project or

 4   any turbine therein ceases generating

 5   electricity for at least 250 hours during any

 6   continuous period of 12 months.

 7       To me, 250 hours, you've wasted ten and

 8   a half days.   Is this all they're required,

 9   all they're -- all Enxco is required to

10   operate these things and get by with it?

11   We're talking about how much energy they

12   produce; 250 hours won't seem like much.

13   Maybe I'm misinterpreting something here.

14       I think that they -- you've got 8760

15   hours in a year.   Half of that's 4380, so I

16   think that they ought to at least produce

17   half or de -- have them decommissioned from

18   there.

19       I'm opposed to the wind farms in the

20   project that they're in.   I'm for alternative

21   energy.   I live on solar panels; I know what

22   it's like to have alternative energy.   And

23   the right place at the right time; the right

24   location is the key.

25       Thank you.

26
                                                         131


 1       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    Thank you.    Who

 2   else would speak at this public hearing?

 3       The hand right here.

 4       MS. DARLENE YOUNG:    Thank you.   My name

 5   is Darlene Young.   I represent myself and my

 6   husband Bob.    We live at 771 Sun East Road.

 7       We are opposed to the wind farm

 8   location, not necessarily to the project.       I

 9   don't think it's fair that we are part of an

10   experimental project, not knowing what the

11   outcome will be.

12       One of my concerns is the vagueness of

13   the fire department and what areas that they

14   will be protecting.   Right now in Sun East it

15   is considered DNR land; it is contracted to

16   them.   Does this mean that only the fire

17   district is going to cover the wind turbine

18   areas per se?

19       That area where you have two bad fires

20   in the last five years.   And fortunate to

21   have DNR with their helicopters and target

22   planes to put this out to help with

23   District 2.

24       The station that we have right now on

25   Robbins and Reecer Creek is a very tiny

26
                                                        132


 1   station.   It's nice that Desert Wind would be

 2   willing to spend two-thirds of their money to

 3   provide a new station, which would not even

 4   begin to build a fire station.

 5       I am aware of the cost; I was involved

 6   with Fire District 10 in Issaquah for six

 7   years.   $100,000 would hardly begin.    So that

 8   means the taxpayers would get to pay the

 9   balance of a new station.

10       Who would provide the fire engine and

11   the manpower?   We currently have three

12   volunteer fire fighters at that station.    All

13   three of them live five to ten miles from the

14   station.   It takes lots of manpower and lots

15   of money to fight fires.    We don't have it.

16       I just think that we're just getting

17   ahead of the -- the cart before the horse,

18   and it's not fair to make us part of this

19   experimental project.

20       Thank you.

21       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    Thank you.

22       Who else would speak at this public

23   hearing?

24       Here in the aisle.     Then next Ms. Wise.

25       MR. MICHAEL SPARLING:    Michael Sparling,

26
                                                       133


 1   2206 North Sparling Lane.

 2       There seems to be some question about

 3   how far sound travels.   Well, I'll tell you

 4   on Labor Day when the rodeo's going, I

 5   probably live in a straight line about a mile

 6   and a half to two miles from here.   And on

 7   certain nights I can hear the announcer

 8   word-for-word on what he has to say.      Other

 9   nights I can still hear, it's pretty noisy.

10   But most of the time I can tell you exactly

11   what he has to say.

12       And that's a mile and a half to two

13   miles this way (indicating).

14       Also, as far as I'm concerned, I totally

15   support what the Planning Commission came up

16   with.

17       Thank you.

18       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:     Thank you.

19       MS. HELEN WISE:   I'm Helen Wise.     1106

20   East 3rd Avenue in Ellensburg.   I speak for

21   myself and for my children and grandchildren.

22       I will not go into a lot this evening,

23   because you've heard me before and I've

24   written plenty of letters.

25       I want you to know that -- again, that I

26
                                                     134


 1   am very much impressed by all the study

 2   that's gone into this.   I think you have

 3   worked very conscientiously, all of you, with

 4   the applicant and have considered all the

 5   documents very thoroughly.

 6       I do -- do not have a personal interest.

 7   I have a -- well, beyond what it will do for

 8   the community, that's my concern, it will do

 9   for the valley.   And for the future of our

10   whole area and state.

11       For me, I'm an environmentalist and I

12   know that time is running out and it's going

13   to be too late to do some of these things

14   such as having alternative wind power --

15   alternative electric power.

16       This location, if you look at the maps

17   you know that the location is right for the

18   resource.   And I agree very heartily with

19   Terri Petrey, who spoke a while ago about

20   what it does to the scenery of this valley to

21   have it all houses and houses and

22   developments and developments.

23       Wind turbines, whether they're beautiful

24   or not is in the eye of the beholder, and

25   many people think they are graceful and

26
                                                        135


 1   beautiful and much better neighbors than a

 2   lot of housing developments.

 3       Besides the fact I just must confess I

 4   don't see -- the people that develop up in

 5   that area are not part of our community.     If,

 6   if all those folks that build those nice

 7   developments up there were actually

 8   participating -- were buying their groceries,

 9   for example, in Ellensburg, were buying their

10   furniture, whatever, in Ellensburg, we would

11   have a much different downtown.

12       Thank you.

13       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:      Thank you.

14       Who else would speak at this public

15   hearing?   Way in the back.

16       MS. HOLLY PINKERT:    My name is Holly

17   Pinkert.   I'm here for both myself and my

18   husband Wes.   I speak for myself and my

19   husband Wes.   We reside at 5900 Robbins Road.

20       I am a citizen of Ellensburg and of the

21   community.    I'm employed here at the

22   university.    I'm a biologist by training and

23   by employment.   And of -- you have reams of

24   information that I've already submitted to

25   the board, so I won't belabor those points.

26
                                                      136


 1       However, I do want to address some very

 2   specific points in the latest agreement, the

 3   latest revised agreement from EnXco,

 4   specifically regarding some of the biology.

 5       They talk about revegetation.   On

 6   Page 23, 6.1.9, they talk about applying a

 7   seed mix to revegetate damaged areas.    And

 8   this is a little bit naive and perhaps even

 9   inappropriate.

10       If you're going to restore an area,

11   especially like the shrub-steppe up above the

12   irrigation areas, it's not as simple as just

13   throwing some seed.   You've got to collect

14   something called cryptobiotic crust.    It's a

15   mixture of lichens; it's soil, fungi, and

16   bacteria, and these things will help keep

17   weeds out.   And if you go up to some of the

18   undisturbed areas, you can still find some of

19   this.

20       If they do not do that, then knapweed

21   and cheek grass are going to increase

22   dramatically.

23       In Section 6.5.1.3 they talk about

24   successful revegetation but don't actually

25   say who is going to be determining that.    So

26
                                                       137


 1   that needs to be clarified.

 2       In Section 6.6.3.1 they talk about that

 3   they want to attempt revegetation during the

 4   dry season.   And actually, if you want to do

 5   this, all this is going to ensure is take --

 6   is a complete takeover by knapweed, which

 7   actually flowers and then seeds in the dry

 8   season.   Nothing's going to be able to

 9   compete at that point.

10       And again, many of these areas are not

11   subject to the irrigation, so this is going

12   to be a huge problem.    It's completely not

13   even appropriate.

14       On Pages 34 through 37, the deal with

15   the advisory committee, the Technical

16   Advisory Committee or the TAC, it's clear

17   from what's written here that this is just a

18   figurehead and they have no authority at all

19   to do anything.    They can do some studies,

20   generate some paperwork, but there is no

21   guarantee that EnXco will have to do anything

22   with regards to the recommendations.

23       I mean, this is a group that has really

24   no power at all.    And they should have power.

25   All you need to do is look at the Altamont

26
                                                      138


 1   Pass area to realize this.    They're named in

 2   a lawsuit right now specifically regarding

 3   the biology in those areas.

 4       And this is completely unacceptable and

 5   inappropriate.   And I'll leave the rest of my

 6   comments to this document as well as the

 7   comments of my community neighbors.

 8       Thank you.

 9       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:     Thank you.

10       Who else would speak at this public

11   hearing?    Way in the back, sir.

12       MR. ROGER BERNETTE:      My name is Roger

13   Bernette.   I represent myself and my partner

14   Chris Cole.   And she spoke a little earlier

15   this evening.

16       And yes, we are part of this community.

17       And I would like to make a statement on

18   noise.   I don't know, I'm not an expert on

19   noise, but I've heard that there's a

20   phenomenon in this valley where sound

21   travels.

22       Well, speaking just from our own

23   experience, we have a neighbor that's half a

24   while away, approximately, and when they're

25   in their back yard having a conversation, we

26
                                                       139


 1   can hear them.    And they are a half-mile

 2   towards the site of where the wind towers

 3   will be, which will be about a mile and a

 4   half.

 5       Now, you take the sound of two people's

 6   talking versus the sound of the wind tower,

 7   that's quite a difference.

 8       The railroad track's eight miles away as

 9   the crow flies.   We can hear the train go by.

10   And my partner, she says she can hear the

11   freeway.   I don't.

12       That's my comment.      Thank you very much

13   for listening to me.

14       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:     Thank you.

15       Who else would speak at this public

16   hearing?   Right here on the left side of the

17   aisle.   Right here, sir.   And then straight

18   in the back.

19       MR. DANA LIND:     Hello.   My name is Dana

20   Lind.    My family and I live at 9421 Reecer

21   Creek Road.    I want to welcome the new

22   commissioners.    You guys are brave to take on

23   such an important job, and I know you'll take

24   it seriously and all our comments tonight.

25       We've attended lot of these meetings a

26
                                                      140


 1   lot of times, just like everybody here has,

 2   and it's pretty obvious to me and I think

 3   everybody that it's overwhelmingly -- the

 4   sentiment is overwhelmingly against this

 5   project, and I think that really matters.

 6       I have a brother who has worked in power

 7   production for just about 25 years.   He

 8   recently told me that it costs approximately

 9   a million dollars per mile to build new

10   transmission lines.   It's no wonder that

11   EnXco wants to build their project in our

12   neighborhood.   It's close to existing power

13   lines, and it's obvious that they don't care

14   who it impacts negatively and whose quality

15   of life it'll ruin.   It's all about the money

16   for them.   And for the few landowners that

17   will fill their pockets.

18       If this project were resited to a more

19   remote location, the County would still

20   receive revenue and we would still get to

21   have our quality of life.   It seems so basic

22   and simple to me.

23       I was born in Eastern Washington and I

24   spent about 25 years living in rural Western

25   Washington, and I left there because it's no

26
                                                      141


 1   longer rural.   My family and I moved here

 2   about 11 years ago and I commuted for about

 3   nine years; eight, nine years.

 4         But we didn't move here for money or for

 5   greed.   Both my wife and I took a large pay

 6   cut to move here.   But we moved here because

 7   we wanted to raise our kids in an environment

 8   such as we have here today.   It's a beautiful

 9   place.   For now.

10         We purchased an existing ranch that we

11   love from a true country gentleman whose name

12   was Harvey Shore.   He's no longer with us.

13   When we talked to him, spoke to him about

14   purchasing the place, he said he had to sell

15   it because he could no longer take care of

16   it.   We consider ourselves caretakers of the

17   land, and when we can no longer take care of

18   it, we hope to turn it over to someone who

19   will treat it like we do.

20         I consider you commissioners the

21   caretakers of our valley.    You guys have

22   important, important jobs.    You know, when

23   you mark that ballot -- you know, when I

24   first moved here I thought county

25   commissioners, what do they do?   And I didn't

26
                                                         142


 1   really know.

 2          But the more you get involved, you

 3   realize how important those three positions

 4   are.   You're holding a lot of weight in your

 5   hands, and I know you won't take it lightly.

 6          I think the County made some mistakes

 7   early on before this project was proposed.      I

 8   think there should have been some appropriate

 9   minimum setbacks.   I think we could have

10   avoided a lot of these things.

11          This is -- this has caused a lot of

12   grief for a lot of people.   And just because

13   of the greed of a few we've all had to come

14   to these meetings and put a lot of time -- I

15   know it's part of the process.

16          But I think if this is denied, and I'm

17   pretty sure that it will be, I hope that the

18   County will -- will correct and set some

19   guidelines that will make it less injurious

20   to people in the future for more of these

21   types of projects when they come in.   Maybe

22   give these guys something to chew on before

23   they decide they're going to come in and be

24   that 800-pound gorilla that comes into the

25   neighborhood.

26
                                                        143


 1       They carry a lot -- you know, have a lot

 2   of money and they have a lot of lawyers, and

 3   we're just people that want to raise our

 4   families out there.

 5       And I do buy my groceries in Ellensburg.

 6   I do buy my furniture in Ellensburg.    I don't

 7   have any pictures of rap groups, but I do

 8   live here and I will continue to live here,

 9   and my wife says she'll never sell the place.

10       So thank you for your time.

11       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   Thank you.

12       In the back there.

13       MR. BOB COREY:    I'm Bob Corey.   I live

14   over on Schnively Road.   I represent Bob

15   Corey and Judy Corey.

16       We've had property here for about 12

17   years.   We have lived here for about 5.    It's

18   been a real good place.   There has been a lot

19   of wind.   It isn't consistent enough to

20   warrant this.   We got a drought coming on.

21   You think it's going to power any windmills

22   during this time?   And we don't know how long

23   it might go on.

24       And then if it does develop power, it's

25   going to be shipped off to California or

26
                                                      144


 1   someplace.    This isn't benefiting us.   I

 2   don't see any future in it.

 3       The Planning Commission has said what

 4   they thought ought to be done.   Why can't we

 5   go by them?   That was their job and I think

 6   they done a good job of it.

 7       And you can have these -- I'd like to

 8   see solar power instead of windmill power.

 9   But if we're going to have it, it ought to be

10   up in the hills where it ain't next to these

11   people's homes and ruining their places and

12   their property value.

13       We are about two and a half miles

14   directly away from them, and it's going to

15   affect us with the flitter and all that

16   stuff.   And the beautiful view and the sunset

17   we see off that direction, it's just going to

18   ruin it; and I don't think it's worth it and

19   I don't think the County needs all the

20   trouble this is going to bring them.

21       Thank you.

22       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:    Thank you.

23       Who else would speak at this public

24   hearing?   Mr. Romppel has returned.   Did you

25   wish to speak?

26
                                                      145


 1       MR. DENNIS Romppel:    My name is Dennis

 2   Romppel, and I represent my wife Sharon and

 3   our neighbor Arnold Volger.   Mr. Volger is in

 4   an assisted living right now and is unable to

 5   attend.

 6       And we've had his house up for sale now

 7   for going on six months.   And one of the

 8   questions that most of the time the realtors

 9   are asked is if it's in the area where the

10   windmill's going to be, which is up in the

11   Sun East area.   We live at 1020 Chucker Ridge

12   Road.   Mr. Volger lives on Chucker Ridge Road

13   as well.

14       So it is a definite question on

15   everybody's mind that looked at coming into

16   the valley, so it's of concern for all of us

17   that the majority of our retirement's tied up

18   in our residence.   And we feel that if the

19   windmills go on as planned, we would probably

20   have a problem selling or retiring and

21   recovering our income that we've put so long

22   into these houses and property that we've

23   developed.

24       The other aspect for us is that we moved

25   over in 1980-81 and we bought 206 acres in

26
                                                      146


 1   the hill up there, and we've enjoyed a -- a

 2   nice area that we can sit and look out off of

 3   our deck over the whole valley, and it's a

 4   beautiful view.   It doesn't matter whether

 5   it's in the summertime or in the wintertime.

 6       And we see the power lines below us, and

 7   if the original perspective had been placed

 8   correctly, the windmills would have stood

 9   about three times taller than those power

10   lines.   And so I have an issue with that.

11       We also have several thousand dollars

12   wrapped up in telescopes and equipment that

13   we view the stars with.   We have no yard

14   lights at all up there.   Our closest neighbor

15   is a half a mile away who has had a yard

16   light.   And so we spend time out viewing the

17   stars, which this could be detrimental to our

18   ability to do that as well.

19       And then there is the aspect of the

20   noise.   Now, I have migraines; I've been

21   having migraines ever since I was in my 30s,

22   and it was one of the reasons -- the

23   pollution and stuff like that caused my

24   migraines, and so we left Bellevue for that

25   reason and have been trying to keep those

26
                                                      147


 1   under control.   And noise is a factor for me.

 2       And I do have an issue with the

 3   50 decibels in regards that they were talking

 4   about as if it was a good rating.    In

 5   designing hotels and apartment buildings that

 6   I do, 50 decibels is an attenuation that we

 7   try to strive for between rooms.

 8       And so if you -- if you spent any time

 9   in a hotel traveling and someone has a party

10   next door and if you assume that only

11   50 decibels is coming through that wall and

12   you try to sleep, forget it, because you're

13   not going to.

14       And if you can imagine that going on day

15   in and day out, night after night.   And you

16   know, in our area up there the wind can blow

17   for a month at a time up and down.

18       So we have the aspect of just the peace

19   and quiet that we enjoy now.   The -- we moved

20   away from pollution, and there's many, many

21   forms of pollution.   It can be light

22   pollution, it can be sound pollution, it can

23   be pollution that affects our air, our water.

24   And so why add another pollution to our

25   valley when it's really not necessary?

26
                                                        148


 1       So I appreciate the opportunity to voice

 2   my opinion, and encourage you all to think

 3   about our valley.    The commissioners over the

 4   years have prevented certain types of

 5   industry from moving into the valley simply

 6   because it wasn't fit for the valley.     And in

 7   turn, a lot of us that live in the area feel

 8   that the windmills are not fit for the

 9   valley.    It's not that we're against

10   alternative energy sources, but not in

11   residential areas.

12       So I thank you for your attention.

13       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:     Thank you.

14       Who else would speak at this public

15   hearing?

16       Mr. Carmody.     Jamie Carmody.

17       MR. JAMES CARMODY:     Thank you,

18   Mr. Chairman, commissioners.   My name's James

19   Carmody.   My address is 405 East Lincoln,

20   Yakima.

21       I have been involved in this project for

22   what seems like forever.   And it may well be.

23   I've represented Residents Opposed to

24   Kittitas Turbines and have participated in

25   the resultant proceedings.   This proceeding,

26
                                                     149


 1   all the way back to the original adoption of

 2   the overlay ordinance that you are

 3   administering in this instance.

 4       Presently this county made a decision a

 5   number of years ago to take a look at an

 6   individualized project basis review.    And

 7   that was with an understanding and a

 8   recognition that not every place is great for

 9   wind farms.   There are variables, there are

10   issues that are germane to each individual

11   location.    And while there's an interest in

12   wind farms, that it may not be appropriate in

13   every instance.

14       And that's exactly the circumstance we

15   have here.    The Planning Commission

16   recognized unanimously that this is not an

17   appropriate location.   This thick document

18   recognizes there's problems.

19       There are two sides to property rights.

20   Property rights of an owner and property

21   rights of people affected by land use issues.

22   What you've heard is how this affects the

23   adjoining property owners.

24       Adjoining property owners don't have to

25   accept that if I have a development project,

26
                                                         150


 1   my responsibility is to make sure that I

 2   don't by the use of my property impose

 3   impacts on somebody else that are unfair,

 4   inappropriate.    Yet this project is going to

 5   do that.    We know that.

 6       Take a look when you get an opportunity

 7   just at the complaint resolution process in

 8   Section 7.   What that section tells you

 9   specifically is we know that people within

10   1500 feet are going to have adverse noise

11   impacts.    We know that people within 2000

12   feet are going to have adverse impacts from

13   shadow flicker.   There are residents within

14   2500 feet of the project are going to have

15   interference with television reception.

16       We know those distances from this;

17   they've told you that's going to happen.      And

18   we're talking about -- what they're asking

19   for is a 487-foot setback, 1000-foot setback,

20   and a more appropriate setback is someplace

21   closer to 2500 or more.

22       I've been involved in wind farm

23   projects.    I represented a wind farm

24   developer in Klickitat County that just sited

25   a very similar project to this.   There wasn't

26
                                                      151


 1   a home within a mile and a half.    It's the

 2   same thing, Wild Horse; mile and a half

 3   distance between residences and this.    Those

 4   are appropriate locations.    In Klickitat

 5   County not one member of the public stood up

 6   and opposed that project.    Not one.

 7       But look what we've been through here.

 8   And the reason is just look at what's going

 9   on in that location.   800 homes, 800 parcels

10   within that immediate area.   This is the

11   wrong place.

12       Your overlay ordinance says that sites

13   need to be adjacent, need a big block.    This

14   isn't even close to that.    That's why ones

15   that have large parcels can work, because it

16   can be placed on a single parcel.

17       That's a jerry-rigged deal, and they're

18   fabricating an argument that they're

19   adjacent.    What they're saying is we'll just

20   run some lines between them and everything's

21   all right.

22       That's not what's intended.     You can

23   take the DNR properties and say that those

24   all green circles are all one project.    But

25   they're separated.   People are in between,

26
                                                       152


 1   people are impacted.   You don't even start to

 2   meet the ordinance required in this case.

 3       I agree with the comments made by DNR

 4   officials earlier this evening, is that

 5   setbacks need to apply and buffers need to

 6   apply for all properties whether they're

 7   privately owned or publicly owned.   There's

 8   no reason for a distinction.

 9       So the 1000- or 2500-foot setback or

10   more should apply equally to every property.

11   And they should apply to the property's

12   boundaries.   And that's the norm.

13       In the mitigation there was some

14   comments about noise levels.   The noise terms

15   and compliance standards here are very

16   misleading and I think just flat wrong.    What

17   they've established as a designated level

18   EDNA C, which you heard about earlier, is

19   industrial usage, not a rural usage.

20       You need EDNA A, 50 dB.    And noise is a

21   big deal because each 10-dB increase, if you

22   go from 50 to 60, that's a doubling of the

23   noise.   You go 60 to 70, that's another

24   doubling.   So it's exponential.   So 50 to 70

25   is four times.   50 to 80 is 16 times as much

26
                                                        153


 1   noise.   You do the math.    We're talking 104

 2   dB.

 3         On the specific conditions that are

 4   incorporated in Section 6 with respect to

 5   mitigation measures, just read, if you will,

 6   when you get a chance, 6.15, shadow flicker;

 7   6.16, noise; 6.17, aesthetics.    And see what

 8   that mitigation does.

 9         COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   I need you to

10   conclude your remarks.

11         MR. JAMES CARMODY:    It doesn't address

12   anything; it speaks in terms of unforceable

13   conditions.   Desert Claim shall to the extent

14   feasible.   What in the world does that mean?

15         I would urge you to go through this

16   carefully; but more importantly, I'd urge you

17   just simply to reject the project at this

18   location.   These mitigation measures don't

19   mitigate, they don't address the ordinance

20   provisions.

21         COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   Thank you.

22         Who else would speak at this public

23   hearing?

24         MR. JAMES CARMODY:    I have something I'm

25   supposed to give to you.

26
                                                      154


 1       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   Oh.

 2       MR. JAMES CARMODY:    I'm sorry.

 3       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   Please.

 4       Thank you.

 5       Are there others who would speak at this

 6   public hearing?

 7       Mr. Knudson.

 8       MR. DESMOND KNUDSON:   I just submitted

 9   for the record to -- a letter from Dennis

10   Crane -- or David Crane, who could not be

11   here tonight, and the clerk has it.

12       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   Could we have your

13   name and address for the record.

14       MR. DESMOND KNUDSON:   My name is Desmond

15   Knudson.   My address is 1661 Vantage Highway,

16   Ellensburg, Washington.

17       I'm going to talk about -- what I

18   thought we were talking about here tonight

19   was the development agreement.   Having read

20   through page by page and highlighting some

21   items, I came across a few that concerned me,

22   but all are negotiable.

23       On Page 2 Subsection H:   Agreement with

24   owners of the real property, that's

25   important.   The people that own the property.

26
                                                       155


 1         Page 4, Subsection M:   The County did

 2   issue a draft EIS.

 3         Subsection N:   The County reviewed and

 4   the developer reviewed and met with staff to

 5   figure out the mitigation.    That was done.

 6         Subsection O:    The County did issue a

 7   final EIS.   In that EIS it talks about dBs.

 8   That's decibel levels.    Which we're hearing a

 9   lot about.   And thus science doesn't seem to

10   jive with the EIS.

11         Mr. Carmody and Mr. Slothower, who are

12   legal representatives of some individuals

13   here, they don't support any wind farm no

14   matter how far away.    Remember that.   And

15   remember their dB readings.    I'm looking for

16   mine.

17         So at the safety setback level we're at

18   53.   At 1000 feet with the towers they're

19   talking about using, none measured over, in

20   the report, 8 to 10 dBs.

21         Now, if I had a tape recorder of a

22   motorcycle going up and down the road, I

23   would be closer to the 50 mark.

24         We're not going to make anybody happy

25   that's against these things.    Never will, no

26
                                                            156


 1   matter how much you pay them, train them,

 2   show them facts.    So we got to count on what

 3   the engineers and what the property owners

 4   have come up with to submit to you.

 5       Look at the final EIS and it jives with

 6   the development agreement.    This is a good

 7   agreement.   Your prosecutor, sitting right

 8   there at the end of this bench, worked with

 9   the applicant to come up with this stuff.         So

10   did Mr. Piercy.    And you also gave them

11   advice on this.    It is a good thing for this

12   community.

13       Thank you.

14       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:     Thank you.     Who

15   else would speak at this public hearing?

16       Let the record show there's no one

17   indicating a wish to speak.

18       Commissioners, we need to discuss a

19   course of action as our hour grows late.      In

20   explaining process of break time, as is often

21   the case, I know a number of folks have left

22   as time moved on.

23       What I am going to ask the commissioners

24   to consider, we've identified, and then this

25   week -- the rest of the week is filled with

26
                                                       157


 1   evening hearings.   So we're looking at the

 2   9th, Wednesday, or the 10th, Thursday.

 3       I would ask the board to consider

 4   continuing our hearing to either of those

 5   days.   That would leave the record open to

 6   written comment, and we allow one round of

 7   testimony for those who have not spoken --

 8   underscore those who have not spoken -- at

 9   the start of our next hearing.

10       Written comment by any parties.      It

11   doesn't matter.   You can submit written

12   comments until you're tired of writing on

13   either side of the coin.

14       But we allow one last opportunity for

15   oral testimony, and then I would ask that the

16   board consider, at least, being prepared to

17   enter deliberations at the conclusion of our

18   public testimony.

19       Now, that's my thoughts.     Board, what is

20   your druthers?

21       COMMISSIONER CRANKOVICH:     I can support

22   that.   I want to time to digest everything.

23       COMMISSIONER BOWEN:    I concur.   Ready

24   for deliberations next week.

25       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   And of course at

26
                                                       158


 1   the conclusion of the testimony, we would be

 2   looking for staff -- or excuse me -- well,

 3   staff, for that matter as well, but the

 4   applicant to make the final observations they

 5   would make.   Again, speaking to the matters

 6   that were covered in public testimony.

 7       Staff, any observations before we leave

 8   this evening?

 9       MR. PIERCY:   Mr. Chair, I have none to

10   add to your comments this evening.

11       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   Thank you.

12       Commissioners, I would move to continue

13   this public hearing to Wednesday, March 9th,

14   6:00 p.m. at the Kittitas County fairgrounds.

15   The record to remain open to written and oral

16   comment.

17       COMMISSIONER BOWEN:    Second.

18       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   We have a motion

19   and second to continue this public hearing.

20       Madam clerk, do we have any indication

21   this facility is available?

22       MS. KJORSVIK:   No.   I'll check first

23   thing in the morning.

24       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:      Very good.   Then

25   we'll -- on the bad possibility that it may

26
                                                          159


 1   not be available, we'll try to get word out

 2   to where we will have the meeting.       But we'll

 3   make every effort to have it at this

 4   facility, be it in whatever one of these

 5   rooms.

 6       Mr. Hurson.

 7       MR. HURSON:    We're setting the location

 8   for the fairgrounds.

 9       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   We're setting the

10   location for the fairgrounds.     It may be in a

11   tent outside.   We'll figure out something to

12   make it work.   But we're going to shoot for

13   the fairgrounds.

14       We have a motion and second to continue

15   this public hearing.

16       Discussion to the motion?

17       COMMISSIONER BOWEN:    I'd thank everybody

18   for their time.

19       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   No other

20   discussion.

21       Those in favor of the motion with aye.

22       COMMISSIONER BOWEN:    Aye.

23       COMMISSIONER CRANKOVICH:      Aye.

24       COMMISSIONER HUSTON:   I too will vote

25   aye, and that motion will carry.

26
                                                   160


 1       This hearing is continued to Wednesday,

 2   March 9th, 6:00 p.m. at the Kittitas County

 3   fairgrounds.   The record to remain open to

 4   written and oral comment.

 5       Thank you.

 6             (The proceeding was adjourned at

 7             9:51 p.m.)

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
                                                         161


 1                 C E R T I F I C A T E
 2   STATE OF WASHINGTON )
                         )    ss.
 3   COUNTY OF YAKIMA   )
 4
 5       This is to certify that I, Louise Raelene
 6   Bell,
 7   Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public in and
 8   for the State of Washington, residing at Yakima,
 9   reported the within and foregoing hearing; said
10   hearing being taken before me as a Notary Public
11   on the date herein set forth; that said hearing
12   was taken by me in shorthand and thereafter under
13   my supervision transcribed, and that same is a
14   full, true and correct record of the hearing.
15       I further certify that I am not a relative or
16   employee or attorney or counsel of any of the
17   parties, nor am I financially interested in the
18   outcome of the cause.
19       IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have set my hand and
20   affixed my seal this _____ day of ___________,
21   2005.
22                  __________________________________
23                  LOUISE RAELENE BELL, CCR
                    CCR No. 2676
24                  Notary Public in and for the
                    State of Washington, residing at
25                  Yakima.   My commission expires
                    July 19, 2007.

								
To top