After discovery of deed restrictions, OPALCO will not urge the county to revise its code
The governing board of San Juan County’s energy co-op has opted to partially reverse course on a controversial solar project.
The Orcas Power and Light Cooperative Board of Directors voted to respect a Native Growth Area covenant on its Decatur Island property, rather than urge the county to revise it.
The co-op intends to use the parcel to expand its existing solar station on the island, and the board’s vote directs staff to continue the project as proposed but without trying to modify the existing Native Growth Area.
The Native Growth Area, which is 3.82-acres, largely prohibits development. In February, OPALCO asked the county to revise the area, claiming it wasn’t aware of that restriction and one other when it purchased the property a year prior.
The discovery of the deed restrictions raised questions about whether the number of planned panels could fit on the property. However, board members agreed that the project is still viable despite the restriction.
“I think we should respect the original boundaries of the natural growth area, and if that costs us a couple of rows of panels on a project, that is something that we should plan around and deal with,” District 1 representative Mark Madsen said.
District 2 board member Chuks Onwuneme agreed but argued the project needed to maintain enough panels to preserve the low-income community component of the project. The co-op was awarded a $1-million grant from the state to serve low-income residents. The grant parameters, however, require the project to produce a minimum amount of energy.
“That’s a meaningful benefit, especially given the cost pressures many members are facing,” he said.
The measure passed with a 5-2 split. Decatur representative Tom Osterman and Orcas Island representative Wendy Hiester voted against it.
Hiester unsuccessfully attempted to amend the vote to allow staff to explore an additional option for the project that would have cut out a planned 5.56 acres separate from the NGA that will largely need to be clear cut. Madsen, who made the initial motion for the vote, declined to amend it, saying the option wasn’t economically viable.
The board opted not to vote on three other options that would have included pushing to revise the Native Growth Area:
- Continuing with the originally proposed 8 acres and 4,450 panels
- Continuing with just a 2.23-acre area and 1,350 panels
- Continuing with just a 5.56-acre area and 3,100 panels
The vote did not address the overall future of the project, with board directors stressing that they plan to hold off on such a decision until a hearing examiner decides whether to grant OPALCO a conditional use permit for the project and two SEPA appeals are resolved.
“I know that many of you watching this are hoping that we have more in front of us—a go, no-go decision of some kind,” Madsen said. “These projects are never one decision to move forward. They are a myriad of decisions, and the project evolves in response to the feedback…and I want to see that feedback before any other decisions are made.”
Long-time Decatur resident Dawni Cunnington said the board’s vote “a win for those of us who oppose clear-cutting for a relatively small amount of power,” but questioned why it wasn’t postponed until elections for two board positions are finished. Voting closes May 4, and with results announced on May 7. She also expressed concern that OPALCO is pushing to roll back the other deed restriction on the property.
“Why respect one recorded environmental deed restriction while simultaneously moving forward with efforts to alter or remove another?” Cunnington wrote in an email to the Salish Current. “If deed restrictions required by the county can simply be modified or dismissed, it calls into question their purpose altogether.”
Addressing community concerns
The board also addressed concerns about their involvement in the process and calls for accountability.
“Based on what I have read and observed, I am troubled by the lack of transparency and responsiveness, as are many in the Decatur community,” resident Michelle Harden posted in response to a recent op-ed on the matter. “Member communication channels are limited, formal outreach has gone unacknowledged and in public meetings, questions are heard but not meaningfully addressed. For me, this has become a matter of trust.”
Onwuneme stressed that the board has received and reviewed the “significant” level of input from the public.
“We may not have individually responded to a message, but that’s because we operate as a board,” he said. “We speak and act collectively through this process.”
Shaw Island Representative Jerry Whitfield said he’s been “a little bit perturbed” by how some of the public has treated board members over the project.
“You could say, ‘OK, we’re only serving you as our members if we say no,’” Whitfield said, acknowledging that he’s heard most Decatur residents are against the project. “In fact, there’s a much wider choice of members and members’ opinions throughout the whole of the San Juan Islands, and we’ve got to consider more than just the views of people on Decatur.”
Alan Mizuta, a part-time Decatur resident, said members do not have a reliable and transparent way to contact board members.
“The board appears to be asking members to trust that it is listening, while also taking the position that it only acts collectively and does not engage in direct, bilateral communication,” Mizuta wrote in an email. “That is not really listening in any meaningful public sense, particularly for an elected body.”
Board member Tom Osterman, who lives on Decatur, said he’s torn on the project. On one hand, he believes the project will help the co-op’s future abilities to meet members’ needs. On the other, he sees the opposition among his neighbors.
“I’m not as supportive of cutting the trees down and really clearing this property,” he said. “That’s a very difficult statement for me. I really think that it’s important to recognize that all of these projects have significant compromises. There’s no perfect site.”
—By Sydnee Chapman