1988-27570-Minutes for Meeting November 09,1988 Recorded 11/29/19880094 0545
88-215'70
PUBLIC HEARING J'
'29,
SURFACE MINING GOALS AND POLICIES''
November 9, 1988, 7:00 p.m.
Hearings Room, County Administration Buildin
Chairman Maudlin called the public hearing to order at 7:05 p.m.
Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Lois Bristow Prante,
and Tom Throop. Also present were Karen Green, Assistant Legal
Counsel; Craig Smith, Planning Director; and Chuck McGraw,
Associate Planning Director.
Commissioner Maudlin stated that the purpose of the public hearing
was to consider the adoption of the proposed surface mining goals
and policies. Upon adoption, the goals and policies would become
a part of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. These goals and
policies would provide general guidelines for the County in
determining which sites in the mineral and aggregate resource
inventory would be zoned for surface mining and under what
conditions mining would be allowed on those sites. The Deschutes
County Planning Commission has held a public hearing on the goals
and policies and has recommended adoption. Chairman Maudlin stated
the Board would leave the public record on the goals and policies
open until 5:00 p.m on Wednesday, November 23, 1988, to allow
anyone to submit written testimony; and, after reviewing all
testimony in the record, the Board would adopt goals and policies
at it's regular meeting at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 30,
1988.
Craig Smith indicated that the Planning Commission had revised the
goals and policies taking into consideration oral and written
comments, and then recommended that the Board of Commissioners
adopt the revised goals and policies.
Chairman Maudlin stated that the topic for the public hearing was
surface mining goals and policies, and that individual sites would
not be discussed until hearings held after the first of next year.
Eric Schulz, 939 NW Bond, Bend, Chairman for the Coalition for the
Deschutes, stated that the latest goals and policies document
adequately addressed their previous concerns with one exception.
They felt that zoning should be prohibited within 1/4 mile of the
Deschutes River.
Richard Angstrom, Managing Director, Oregon Concrete and Aggregate
Producers Association, 3000 Market Street, NE #222, Salem, stated
concern that the goals and policies should allow for the
utilization of the aggregate resource. He interpreted Goal 5 to
mean that whenever possible, counties must provide for the
utilization or protection of resources. He felt this was
particularly important in Deschutes County because of the limited
SURFACE MINING GOALS & POLICIES: PAGE 1
S--y((
0094 0546
amount of quality aggregate close to Bend. He stated that
substantiating data needed to be submitted before it would be
possible to do an accurate ESEE analysis. He also stressed that
clear and objective standards needed to be used when defining what
constituted a conflicting use. He encouraged the use of current
mined land reclamation, environmental quality and water resource
statutes and rules as standards whenever possible to avoid
duplication and needless costs in obtaining any County permits.
He felt it was especially important that the mined land reclamation
statute definition of "processing" be used which would include
ready mixed concrete and asphalt batching plants in the definition
so that the producer would not have to have separate zoning and
bonding to be concerned about.
Bill Moore, 63394 Fawn Lane, Bend, had some questions about the
inventory and was told by Chairman Maudlin that the public hearing
on inventory had already been held but that if he had questions or
concerns, he could still submit them in writing.
Ted Keener, 65711 Twin Bridges, Bend, felt the current goals and
policies were a considerable improvement from the original ones.
He suggested that protection of the Deschutes River be specifically
mentioned.
Bill Kenzie was concerned about when the policies would become
effective, and whether they would affect the zoning and inventory
that was currently being developed. He was concerned that we were
doing things in the wrong order.
Karen Green, Asst. County Legal Counsel, stated that the goals and
policies under consideration were general guidelines which would
affect the conflict resolution hearings on the individual sites
that were coming up in 1989. More specific policies would be
identified for adoption through the ESEE analysis process which
would be reflected in the zoning ordinance rather than the
comprehensive plan. She stated that the inventory would be adopted
before the goals and policies were adopted.
Steve Janik, lawyer representing Bend Aggregate and Paving, 101 SW
Main, Portland, stated that they had two objectives: (1) to make
sure the policies that were adopted were consistent with Goal 5 and
(2) to make sure the policies had a clear set of directions as to
what the policies were leading to. They felt the policies didn't
capture the true spirit of Goal 5. He indicated that Goal 5
protection of aggregate minerals, which were going to be used, was
completely different from the other Goal 5 resources, like
important wildlife habitats, which were protected from being used.
He felt that once a site was on the inventory, it was a Goal 5
protected resource. He interpreted Goal 5 to say that the County
must look at the other uses adjacent to the protected aggregate
resource and see how they conflict with the aggregate resource, not
how the aggregate resource conflicts with the other adjacent uses.
SURFACE MINING GOALS & POLICIES: PAGE 2
0094 054'7
Steve Janik went on to interpret the administrative rules to say
that if adjacent uses were found to be conflicting with the
protected use, there would only be three alternatives to resolve
the conflict:
(1)
The aggregate resource
could be used, and the
conflicting use
would not be used.
(2)
The aggregate resource
could be used, and the
conflicting use
could also occur when the conflicting use was
important, even
though it might have
an adverse impact on
the protected
resource.
(3)
The aggregate resource
could be used, but the
conflicting use
would be allowed only
under certain condition
s.
He stated that saying the protected resource could not be used was
not one of the alternatives since the conflicting use was not
protected under Goal 5.
Commissioner Throop ask what would happen under his theory if there
were multiple protected uses at a single site. Steve Janik stated
that each of them would merit equal protection and, therefore, the
County would have to go through a balancing ESEE process to
evaluate them and attempt to accommodate all of the protected
resources.
Karen Green stated that the alternatives in the administrative
rules were: (1) protecting the resource fully, (2) allowing the
conflicting use fully, and (3) limiting conflicting uses. She
asked Steve Janik if, in his opinion, alternative #2 would enable
the Board to allow a conflicting use to the total exclusion of a
Goal 5 resource. He said absolutely not.
Commissioner Throop asked if Mr. Janik's interpretation was that
the County did not have the legal capability to deny aggregate
extraction on an inventoried site. Mr. Janik said yes, but that
the County would have some authority on when and how the resource
could be developed.
Commissioner Prante indicated that if inventory sites were going
to carry that much weight, the County should be looking very
carefully at which sites were put on the inventory.
Mary Dyer, 19135 Buck Drive, Bend, felt that if Steven Janik's
reasoning were used, Drake, Juniper and Pioneer Parks would be
inventory sites and protected by Goal 5.
Bill Kenzie spoke again and stated that maybe the best way to head
of possible problems was not to put it on the inventory in the
first place.
Commissioner Throop pointed out that we could not delay the process
because the State Land Conservation and Development Commission was
SURFACE MINING GOALS & POLICIES: PAGE 3
0094 0548
pushing the County to implement the direction that was provided by
the Court of Appeal's Decision.
John Hancock, Stop the Pit Committee from Klippel Acres, asked how
Mr. JanikIs interpretation would affect a resource on Federal land,
and Commissioner Throop stated that he felt Mr. Janik was speaking
of private land. Mr. Hancock stated that it was the feeling of his
committee that the latest goals and policies' document was one of
the nicest things that the County had done so far.
Chairman Maudlin closed the public hearing
8:05 p.m and restated that the Commissioners
testimony through November 23, 1988.
DES,CHUTES,COUNTY B ARD OF COMMISSIONERS
is /Bzistow Piante, Commissioner
Commissioner
Dick Maudlin, Chairman
BOCC:alb
for oral testimony at
s would accept written
SURFACE MINING GOALS & POLICIES: PAGE 4