Loading...
1990-01375-Minutes for Meeting August 15,1989 Recorded 1/11/1990[ 0 0 - 1033 90-013'5 DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS rVWI® SURFACE MINING HEARINGS August 15, 1989 Deschutes County Administration Building 6:30 PM Call to Order Chair Prante called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. Also p sellt were Commissioner Tom Throop and Commissioner Maudlin. Staff members present were Karen Green, Community Development Director, and George Read, Planning Director, and Sue Stoneman, recorder (arrived at 8:30 PM). Public Hearing Chair Prante outlined the purpose and procedures of the hearings. Sites to be heard tonight are 304, 306, 287, 288, 290, 291, 292, 293, 357, 393, 526. The order of the hearings was determined. Chair Prante called for any declarations of conflict on any of these sites. There were none, except Chair Prante noted she lived in the Johnson Road area and would not participate in decisions on sites in that area. There were no challenges. Site 304 George Read gave the staff report. The site is located on O . B . Riley Road off of Tumalo Reservoir Road and is presently zoned SM and LM, just south of the Bend Aggregate and Paving Co. headquarters. The site is owned by Oliver Fraser, and consists of 10 acres of ODOT quality aggregate estimated at 150,000 cubic yards. Staff had identified conflicting uses as land for open space and fish and wildlife habitat. Staff recommended that this site be allowed with conditions, and that processing be allowed on site. The Planning Commission concurred with this recommendation. The site has a recent DOGAMI report which includes a reclamation plan. The photos in the file do not indicate that there has been significant levels of mining on the site. Chair Prante called for neutral testimony. There was none. She then called for proponents' testimony. Jim Curl, 63925 Old Deschutes Road, stated that he is one of the owners of Bend Aggregate and Paving Co., which is just north of this site. This is listed as belonging to Oliver Fraser, who is his uncle and was a principle of the company. They recently purchased it from Mr. Fraser. He stated there is a significant resource on the site. The total site is about 37 acres. The DOGAMI permit area involves approximately 15 acres. Immediately south of their existing processing area is the 15 acre area, which is bordered on the west by a high ridge that goes up Tumalo 1 100 - 1034 Reservoir Road and is bordered on the east by O.B. Riley Road and east of that is the Deschutes River. There is a 15 acre buffer zone which they are not including in the permit that is immediately south and runs to the "y" of O.B. Riley and Johnson Road. In concurrence with the State Parks Division, that will remain as a buffer zone. He submitted the permit and maps for the record. He stated that there has been no mining on this site. He stated that he thought the State Parks Division would submit testimony as to the conditions they would like to see apply to the site. They concur fully with those conditions. Chair Prante then called for testimony in opposition. Jan Ernst, Oregon State Parks, stated they are not really in opposition. She had written testimony to submit which refers to all the sites on the agenda tonight they were concerned with. They request that the buffer zone remain and that material processing be done at the existing Bend Aggregate plant and that there be 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM operating hours. Road access to the site should be limited to the north boundary and that vegetative screening be retained on the east side of the site. She stated that notification must be filed with their agency prior to any mining due to the site's proximity to the scenic waterway. Site 306 George Read gave the staff report. The site is located along Johnson Road southwest of the intersection with Tumalo Market Road, presently zoned SM and consists of 90 acres owned by R.L. Coats. The site contains aggregate and quarry rock resources which meet ODOT specifications, and contains an estimated 150,000 cubic yards. Conflicts include open space lands, fish and wildlife habitats and outstanding scenic views. There are also conflicts with residential dwelling units in the area. Staff recommended allowing the use with standard conditions. Planning Commission approved the staff recommendation, allowing processing for one year as long as it is reclaimed after mining. Chair Prante called for neutral testimony. There was none. She then called for proponents' testimony. R. L. Coats, 63285 Skyline Ranch Road, stated that this site was mined prior to 1972, so it was grandfathered in. The site is pretty well mined out, about 150,000 cubic yards of rock remains, which is about enough for one more job. He thought one year was adequate and he would like to mine it out in a year and then reclaim it. He did not feel that 5 acres would be enough to set up the processing plant, they would need ten. They would allow excavation only in the five acre site. There is now a reclamation plan on the site. If it were not zoned SM, he would have to go back in and reclaim it now. He can keep it in the state it is in if he pays his $385 annual fee each year. There is a stockpile of 2 1.00 1.035 aggregate in it now. The remaining resource is located in the northwest corner, which is the furthest distance away from the houses. He showed the location of the deposit on the map. This site has already been partially reclaimed. Chair Prante then called for opposing testimony. Jan Ernst, State Parks, stated that they are not opposed but they are asking for some additional restrictions, to include 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM hours of operation, vegetative screening on the southeast portion of the site along Johnson Road, and that placement of the processing equipment be at such a location on the site so as to maintain DEQ sound and dust standards. Parts of the site are within a quarter mile of the river. Rob Rinks, 64150 Tumalo Rim Drive, stated that he was opposed to mining at site 306. He asked when the proposed mining would begin. Mr. Coats said that would depend on when contracts were out. The single year would be triggered when he had a job in the area. He asked what the operating hours would be. Mr. Coats responded they would be from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM. He requested that mining hours be limited from 8:00 to 5:00 Monday through Friday. Mr. Rinks asked if planned to do any blasting. Mr. Coats stated he plans to do dynamite blasting and would have a rock crusher on the site. Mr. Coats will do crushing on Monday through Friday. Mr. Rink asked for an assurance that mining will be completed within a year. Mr. Coats affirmed that he would. Denise Newbold, 19615 Tumalo Rim Court, stated she was opposed to this pit mine, she asked that if it is mined that it be reclaimed better than the one mine that exists now was. David Newbold, 19615 Tumalo Rim Court, stated his opposition to the mining of site 306 on the grounds that it would change the quality of his life and his neighbors' lives. He asked questions about regulating the operation of the pit, he asked how noise abatement measures would be enforced and what guarantee they would have that they would enforced. Ms. Green responded that county conditions are enforceable by the county. The county adopted DEQ noise and dust standards. If DEQ chooses not to enforce, the county would. He was reminded that these issues would be addressed during site planning, which is also a public process. Mary Dyer, 19135 Buck Drive, stated she is a licensed sales associate for Bachelor Realty. She has been approached by numerous people in the Johnson Road area asking what would be the consequences of having this occur in their area, and what would be the impact on their sales. She stated that last Sunday a man from California came in looking for real estate, but said that he wouldn't look at anything within one half mile of a mining site. She felt that if many buyers took this position it would affect the value of these properties. She felt the public had decided a 3 100 - 1036 house near a mine was not worth as much as a house that wasn't near a mine. There was no further testimony on this site. At this point, Commissioner Throop agreed to take over as chair since Chair Prante was having difficulty speaking due to illness. Site 287 George Read gave the staff report. This site is located SW of Tyler Road, and is presently zoned F2. It is in a wildlife area combining zone and a landscape management combining zone. It is 40 acres in size containing 120,000 cubic yards of aggregate. It is owned by T.C. Lyster. Identified conflicts are open space, fish and wildlife habitats, it is within the Tumalo Winter Deer Range, outstanding scenic views. There is some residential conflicts in the area. Staff recommended that the use be allowed with conditions and that processing not be allowed on site. The Planning Commission concurred with that recommendation. Chair Prante declared a conflict on this site and that she would not be voting. Commissioner Throop stated that he had a contact with Mr. Lyster today who indicated he would not be able to be here this evening. He has letters on file with his testimony. They did not discuss the content of the hearing, just process. Commissioner Throop called for any challenges. There were none. Commissioner Throop called for agency or neutral testimony. There was none. He called for testimony in favor. R. L. Coats stated he owns 80 acres adjacent to it that is presently zoned SMR. He stated that there is 6 to 8 feet of real good aggregate on that site. Commissioner Throop then called for opposing testimony. John Bell, Johnson Road, stated that he bought his property from Ted Lyster. He understood at that time that the natural scenic area would be maintained. He stated that someone's own home is their most important investment. He stated that this site affects more than a few homes. This site sits at the bottom of an attractive view site. He was concerned about the dust. He has an offer on property in the area, and he has a letter from the offeror stating that if this goes in the party will withdraw their offer. He noted that Goal 3 states they must protect agricultural land, and this would be in conflict with Goal 3 and Goal 5. This will not enhance the value of property in the area. 4 1 00 - 1037 Dan Kearns stated that since the last meeting they have formed a committee which represents the nearly 200 people on the petition plus the approximately 300 people they have talked to since that time. They are all opposed to any mining in Tyler Canyon at all. His testimony will refer to all three sites in this area. Twelve years ago, he was told by Mr. Coats that there wasn't much good gravel on the site. They are concerned about heavy industrial traffic on their residential streets and damage to their streets. They were also concerned about the noise pollution from shifting trucks and the dust from the prevailing winds which come from the west and southwest most of the time. If these sites are mined, the dust will cover most of Tumalo. There is about an 8 foot overburden that will have to be stripped off and stored, and it will blow off. One of his personal concerns was if the mined sites go below the grade of the irrigation canal, the grades will fill with water by capillary action. He had some experience with this in California, where they found it very expensive to control. This site is located on the main Tumalo Irrigation canal. He stated there were Goal 4 conflicts on this site since it is forested land and is a scenic corridor and wildlife habitat. They were also concerned about the conflicts within Goal 5, such as open space and views. There are 11 other goals within Goal 5, not just aggregate. Most of the people living in the area live on large parcels, which is in concert with Goal 5, strip mining is not. They will change the value of the traffic and the character of the use in the area by allowing this site. He felt that this constituted downzoning for the surrounding landowners. He stated that none of the goals were "equaller" than others, and they should value the other goals as much as this aggregate resource. Kelly Smith, 63570 Johnson Road, stated that he had input from a couple of sources, he is representing the Bend Chapter of the Oregon Hunters Association and the Board of the OHA Bend Chapter has voted to oppose this because of the lack of protection of wildlife habitat. This site is within the winter deer range which is being encroached upon all the time. If it is approved for mining, they would request that the county require more stringent reclamation than in the past. Crested wheat grass doesn't do deer much good. They would like to see more and some cover go in. The staff report states reclamation can improve the habitat for wildlife. He stated that he has yet to see that occur in other reclaimed sites. They need cover and forage and protection. The staff report also states that property values are found not to be affected by surface mining. He questioned the validity of that finding. Traffic is another concern. He was also concerned about land erosion and the possible effects of silting or water quality impacts. Erosion can affect other wildlife in the area. He agreed with the opposition based on noise, traffic, and scenic quality of the area. Doug Crist, 64145 Tyler Road, stated that he was totally in agreement with Mr. Kearns' testimony. He rides this road a lot on 5 I®0 1038 his bicycle and he dreads the time he gets next to the sand and gravel site because of the dump trucks. He asked that they not zone this site for mining. This site is mainly juniper, pine and brush at this time. John Gill, Rock Springs Guest Ranch, stated his concurrence with Mr. Kearns and Dr. Bell. Rock Springs is only 3/4 mile north of the site. He is concerned about the traffic, heaving equipment, noise, dust, and quality of life in the valley. John Weesman, 63815 Tyler Road, stated that he borders on Lyster's property and one of the other sites. He is opposed to mining these sites because of the impacts of heavy equipment working right next to their property. He has seen two pair of nesting great horned owls, pair of bald eagles, four golden eagles, osprey, red tailed hawks, turkey, coyotes, deer and elk coming through there. He thought there was more to be taken into consideration. There is money to be made, but they are infringing on their rights and asking them to give up a lot in order to mine these areas. He stated that north winds do blow up over the ridge, and the dust raises. This will ruin the furnishings and carpeting in their homes. They will take the loss on it, it is their investment. Dick Northon, 19273 Tumalo Reservoir Road, stated that he originally wasn't going to testify on this site, although he is opposed to it. He was here earlier when Mr. Lyster stated that he was opposed to any surface mining on this site or in the area, but that if Mr. Coats got his site zoned for mining, he wanted to get his in too since it neighbors that site. Jim Atterholt, 63735 Johnson Road, lives due east of site 287. He wanted to go on record with specific evidence of the owners' position on this. The Board received a letter on 5/31/89 from Mr. Lyster stating his surprise at the site and that he is opposed to mining on his property or other sites in the valley and listing the reasons. Mr. Atterholt stated his strong position opposing this from the standpoints of environmental impact and the economic impacts on the property surrounding these sites. He questioned the ability to control noise and pollution in compliance with standards, and doubted that it would be enforced given past experience with other sites in the area. He spoke of the condition of Johnson Road from Shevlin Park to the Tumalo Reservoir Road, and questioned its viability for truck travel since the blacktop is in marginal conditions and the shoulders are eroded badly. He stated that there has been no testing on Lyster's property. This is a guess based on a road cut and estimates on other sites in the area. He noted that Tyler Road is being improved, but it feeds into Johnson Road which is substandard. He felt that it would be remiss of the county to consider destroying the environmental value of the area to enhance the profits of one individual. 6 10~ 1.039 John Cronin, 18696 Kuhlman Road, stated that he understands there has been no testing to determine quantities. Commissioner Throop indicated that they are relying on information that the landowner has provided, since the county cannot go out and get their own estimates on all 400+ sites. Mr. Cronin stated that they are making decisions on economics based on guesses. Mary Dyer, 19135 Buck Drive, wished to respond to Kelly Smith about the reference to no loss of property values. She stated that it was from where they studied Klippel Acres and found no loss in values. She did not feel that this was valid information because houses were withdrawn from the market for this period, so the losses weren't recorded. Dan Kearns stated that Mr. Lyster applied by letter and was surprised that this parcel was on the agenda. He had never really determined any quantity on this site. Site 288 George Read gave the staff report. This site is located on Tyler Road about 1/4 mile west of Johnson Road and is presently zoned EFU-20 and wildlife area combining zone. It is 20 acres owned by Tumalo Irrigation District and contains 250,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate resource. Conflicting resources are open space, fish and wildlife habitats, outstanding scenic views, and impacts on surrounding residential uses. Staff recommended allowing zoning with conditions and that processing not be allowed on the site. The staff report was amended after the Planning Commission hearing to indicate that any processing on the site would be restricted to the northeast corner of the site. Chair Prante indicated that she had a conflict as she lives in the area and would not participate in the decision making. Mr. Read stated that there has been no mining in the past on this site and there are no permits on the site. The quality and quantity was estimated by Tumalo Irrigation, no testing had been done. Commissioner Throop called for neutral testimony. There was none. He then called for proponents' testimony. R.L. Coats stated that he tested this site about 12 or 13 years ago and they probably got that information from him. He dug test holes. He stated that it does have good aggregate. Commissioner Throop then called for testimony in opposition. Kelly Smith, 63570 Johnson Road, stated that he believes all his comments on 287 are also applicable to this site. It is also within the Tumalo Winter Deer range and would seriously adversely 7 100 1040 affect the quality of the range. He also opposes the site personally as he lives in the area because of the impacts on quality of life, both to wildlife and residents. He indicated some information on record indicating small amounts of resource had been removed from the site. He stated that this site is on a very steep slope. Commissioner Throop asked Mr. Read if there has been mining to his knowledge on this site. Mr. Read responded that he has no first hand information to that effect, and there is nothing contained in the file to so indicate. Mr. Smith stated that there is a letter dated 5/27/80 from Jan Boettcher to Brian Christiansen stating that small amounts of gravel had been removed for district repairs. The record did not indicate when that activity took place. Gene Moyer, 63914 Tyler Road, stated that he has lived there for 17 years and that was before they came in there. He estimated that was done 25 years in the past. The district used what would appear to be dirt for repairs. Dan Kearns, 63950 Tyler Road, stated that as far as the mining of the site, the person they bought from did take some fill and aggregate off the site for their own personal use. He reiterated that they are opposed to this site for the same basic reason, it is forest land and it is a scenic corridor. The Planning Commission decided to place the crusher on their south line. They are opposed for all the reasons he stated before, and they don't want a crusher in the area. John Weesman, 63815 Tyler Road, asked to have his previous testimony apply to this site with more emphasis since he lives closer to this site. He spoke of the wildlife he had photographed in the area. Doug Crist asked to be on record as opposing this site. Jim Atterholt stated he was opposed to the development of this site for the same reasons he had indicated on site 287. He noted that there has been $158,000 in road improvements in order to straighten the road through the Moore property, and he questioned what the impact on that road would be if they allowed surface mining in the density that is being proposed and asked who would compensate the county for the wear and tear on that road. John Gill, Rock Springs Guest Ranch, wanted to go on record as being opposed to this site. Randall Moore, 63810 Tyler Road, stated that they have owned this land for about 40 years. He is concerned because he has springs on his place and they are running. He runs these springs for 8 1 00 - 1041 livestock all winter long. In all the years he's owned it it has never run dry. He stated that if they mine this site it will ruin this spring. At this point, the meeting recessed at 8:23 until 8:25 PM. Chair Prante left the meeting at this point due to illness. Site 290 George Read gave the staff report. The site is located off of Tyler Road on the south side of Kuhlman Road. It is presently zoned SMR and is in a landscape management corridor and a wildlife area combining zone. The site is 80 acres owned by R. L. Coats and contains 1,500,000 cubic yards of aggregate resource. The site is in the Tumalo Winter Deer Range. Identified conflicts are open space, fish and wildlife habitats, outstanding scenic views, and surrounding residential development. Staff recommended allowing mining with conditions with no processing on site to be allowed. It was not clear whether the Planning Commission deleted or allowed processing on site. Commissioner Throop called for neutral agency testimony. There was none. He then called for proponents' testimony. R.L. Coats came forward. He stated that he is a registered engineer and has been in the aggregate business for 30 years, on that basis he qualifies himself as an expert. He has located these sites in the county. When he bought this site he bought it for aggregate. He tested the site at that time. He cleared the trees in preparation for mining and planted alfalfa on it. He stated there was never any wildlife in that area until he planted the alfalfa, and after that they got rodents and eagles and deer. Since people have moved in, they don't have the wildlife. He said that people letting their dogs run is a greater threat to wildlife than mining. In response to Mr. Kelly's testimony about a steep hill, he stated that it was a different site. He stated that people are building expensive homes right next to mines so they must not be that bad. He stated that miners are controlled by DEQ and the county on everything they do and the noise and dust will be controlled by them. With regard to comments about being required to improve the road, he stated that they pay PUC for every load which goes for road improvements. He stated that this site only has enough for three to four more years for concrete aggregate. He said that the reason he had made previous statements indicating that there was no good aggregate out there was that he did not want to inflate the value of the land in the area. He stated that the site has two feet of overburden and in some places it is about one foot. Commissioner Throop then called for opposing testimony. 9 10u - 10 42 Dan Kearns, 63950 Tyler Road, stated that there are verifiable addresses on the petition submitted. He took Mr. Coats at face value when he said the site would be a farm and a hayfield. He noted that Goal 3 requires preservation of agricultural resources. He stated they are now in the process of revising the soil classification study, and soils at this site will be listed as Type II soil. He requested that this remain a farm. He indicated he received the soil information from the Soil Conservation Service and it was verified by Chuck McGraw. Mary Dyer, 19135 Buck Drive, outlined how many residents, including those in neighboring subdivisions, would be affected by this use and other mining uses in the area. Selma Denecke, 7746 SW Barnes Road, Portland, stated that they own land to the south with six others. She stated that they were among those not notified in 1979, although they had purchased the property in 1978. They bought this property with the intention of building a vacation home on it and if they don't do that it will be up for sale and if they sell it they want the highest value they can get. She stated that the only way to do that is to maintain the surrounding property in a manner as described by everyone who has testified. Kelly Smith, 63570 Johnson Road, stated that the map incorrectly shows the site as a 40 acre site, but it is an 80 acre site which extends to Johnson Road. He noted there had been previous testimony indicating that it costs 20 to 25 cents per mile to haul gravel. He asked if this meant the price doubles every time they go ten miles. He stated that $4 to $8 is roughly the market value, and according to that formula, it would cost $4 to haul gravel 16 miles. He stated that as a representative of the Bend Chapter of the Oregon Hunters Association, he opposes this site due to habitat impacts. He stated that he has lived there since before alfalfa was planted, and he observed deer in the area then because there was plenty of bitterbrush for them to feed on. He stated there are many other types of wildlife in the area in addition to deer. He stated these impacts would reach far beyond just one half mile of the site. He stated that his testimony on sites 287 and 288 also applies to this site. He stated that the staff report and the Planning Commission had stated that processing should not be allowed on the site. Samantha McCleary, Horse Butte Road, stated that her site is number ten on the list but she has to get up at 5:00 AM. Commissioner Throop indicated that if she is not able to stay to testify she can submit written testimony. Dr. John Bell, 63727 Johnson Road, stated that the LCDC goals and guidelines say that Goal 1 has precedence over Goal 2, etc., and that Goal 3, the agricultural goal, should take precedence over Goal 5 resource values. He then read aloud Goal 9, which discusses 10 10a ~ 1043 the economy of the state. He stated that he was against mining for the reasons mentioned by those testifying before him. John Cronin stated that the site was purchased 13 years ago for aggregate use. Since that time, the county has changed and that use is no longer appropriate to the area. He asked how the rock crushing had gotten into the recommendation and if this had been done in a public hearing. He asked that this not be allowed to operate from 7:00 AM to 10:00, but less, the ideal being not at all, but no more than regular working/business hours on weekdays. He stated that in other parts of the country, strip mining is illegal and he felt there should be better reclamation. Bern Wisner, 18697 Kuhlman Road, stated that he takes exception to something Mr. Coats had said about the quality of aggregate at that location. He stated that Doug Coats had told him that he had been involved in digging test holes, and that the rock was poor quality and hardly worth mining. Jan Kaley, 19251 Tumalo Reservoir Road, stated that she has ridden horseback in that area extensively in the winter in 1974 and 1975 and saw very many deer in the area then. She stated that the rock crusher would impact residents much further away than one half mile. She stated that she can hear Rock Springs clearly from her house because of the topography, the sound travels up the canyon. John Weesman stated his opposition to this site and testified that sound carries very well through that canyon. Doug Crist, 64145 Tyler Road, stated his opposition to this site. He stressed that the landowners received notice showing only 40 acres. Of sites 287, 288, and 290, he stated that site 290 is the one he is most opposed to. He stated that he can hear the site in Tumalo when they have the rock crusher operating. He stated the noise impacts would affect very many people. He stated he was even more concerned for the wildlife impacts. John Gill, Rock Springs Guest Ranch, stated that one of the LCDC goals was for destination resorts and dude ranches. He noted that sound does travel very well in the area. He stated they can hear people talking on the deck of the lodge a quarter mile away. He had gone into one of Mr. Coats' pits and he did not see a lot of wildlife, he did not think this use would be compatible with wildlife. He stated that if this pit was to replace the one at the confluence of the Deschutes and Tumalo Creek, he would be very concerned.. Scott McRae, 63415 Saddleback Place, talked about the additional traffic burden on Johnson Road and the hazards. His property borders this road, and he stated there are no shoulders on the road and there is a threat to the bicyclists who use the road, some of whom are schoolchildren. 11 100 1044 Gene Moyer, 63945 Tyler Road, confirmed that R. L. Coats had dug test holes on the property when he bought it. He thought Mr. Coats' real estate agent had told him it could be mined in the future. Ken Johnson, 64144 Tyler Road, stated that he was opposed to sites 287, 288, and 290. He felt they should all be the same site since they were adjacent to one another, and they should all be the same decision for approval or disapproval. He stated that he was one of the people who had gone around to notify people on Memorial Day weekend. He also helped circulate petitions, and they collected over 200 names. Dan Kearns, 63950 Tyler Road, stated that when he said there was six to eight feet of overburden, he had used the well logs as the source of that information. Jim Atterholt, 63735 Johnson Road, stated his opposition to site 290. He noted that he had given testimony in opposition to this site in May. He asked if they had verifiable data presented by a third party to substantiate the quantity and quality estimates. Staff responded that they only have the information submitted by the applicant until or unless other information is received. Mr. Atterholt suggested that an independent analysis be done on this site. He did not feel that Johnson Road could handle heavy truck traffic and noted the shoulder problem. He asked if this would benefit a few individuals at the expense of himself and others. He felt that the economic impacts would be significant to all of the surrounding neighbors. There was no further testimony on this site. Site 291 George Read gave the staff report. Johnson Road bisects this site diagonally. The site is now zoned SMR. It is 38.6 acres in size and is owned by Deschutes County. It contains an estimated 100,000 cubic yards of aggregate. Identified conflicting uses are open space lands, scenic views (Tumalo State Park is in the area) and fish and wildlife habitats. The site is in the winter deer range. The site also has impacts on residential uses. Staff had recommended allowing SM zoning with conditions. Staff had also recommended not to allow processing on the site. The Planning Commission recommended approval and not to allow processing on site. Commissioner Throop called for neutral testimony. There was none. He then called for proponents' testimony. There was none. He then called for opponents' testimony. Kelly Smith, 63570 Johnson Road, stated that he represents the Oregon Hunters Association, Bend Chapter, and they oppose SM zoning 12 100 - 1045 on this site because it is in the Tumalo winter deer range. If it is allowed, he asked that there be a winter operating restriction on the site. He stated that even during the other months there would be a significant adverse impact on wildlife. Bill Moore, 63394 Fawn Lane, stated that the sites have multiplied, the quantity of aggregate has grown and the quality has improved. He asked that they not keep putting more land in a war zone and he is against war. He stated that the entire area is under attack and he questioned the social responsibility of this. Paul Rigloski, 19155 Klippel Road, stated that one of the reasons he moved there was for the scenic views, and showed a map indicating Johnson Road is a scenic road. He stated that this mining development would ruin the scenic value of the area. Dan Kearns stated that they are opposed to any surface mining in this southwest Tumalo area. They are especially concerned about the roads. There was no further testimony on this site. Sites 292 and 293 George Read gave the staff report on Site 292. Mr. Coats stated that 292 is not correct, he thought it was confused with site 293. Mr. Read stated that this is an 80 acre site but the map may not reflect the full 80 acres. He noted some errors in the staff report. This site is zoned EFU-20, landscape management, and wildlife area combining zone. The site is owned by R. L. Coats and contains 326,000 cubic yards of aggregate which meets ODOT specifications. Staff had identified conflicting Goal 5 resources as open space, scenic views, and fish and wildlife habitats because of its location within the Tumalo winter deer range. Staff had recommended approval subject to conditions. The Planning Commission had also recommended approval with no processing to be allowed on site. The recommendation was that processing be allowed on site 293 for all of these sites. He then stated that this was a 40 acre site. George Read gave the staff report on Site 293. Site 293 is 160 acres and contains an estimated 3,000,000 cubic yards of aggregate. Confusion remained about the staff reports for the two sites, and Mr. Read stated that he would clarify these later. Processing will be allowed only on taxlot 500 of these three sites. That is the site furthest to the east. He stated that site 292 is presently zoned EFU-20 and part of site 293 is zoned SMR for the west one half of the parcel and zoned SM for the east part of the parcel. Commissioner Throop called for neutral testimony. 13 100 - x_046 Jan Ernst, State Parks Division, stated that the report they got didn't include taxlot 500 so they did not comment on it. They will submit written testimony later based on this new information. Commissioner Throop then called for proponent's testimony. Robert L. Coats, 63285 Skyline Ranch Road, stated that he just bought site 292 in the last five to six years. He stated that it has some aggregate but not as much as the others. He doesn't want to process on this site, his processor is on taxlot 600. He stated that taxlot 500 goes across Tumalo Creek. He stated that these sites are grandfathered in. Taxlots 500, 600, and 700 have had about 500- to 600,000 cubic yards of material extracted. There has been activity on the SMR site. He stated that there has been no activity on site 292. He stated that his estimate was 300,000 cubic yards of resource on the one site. He stated they are mining on the east edge of taxlot 600 or 700, and there has been no activity on taxlot 800 in the past. He stated that this was a field of alfalfa he planted for the interim period and it was not a farm. He stated that farming isn't economically feasible in Deschutes County. He started mining one site in 1964 and got just across the creek. He stated that he did all of his hauling on Johnson Road for five to six years then built a private road. He stated that there isn't much traffic on Johnson Road. He stated that site 293 has a commercial concrete sand resource on it. It needs to be washed in order to meet specifications, and that is an expensive process. He stated there had been a real estate developer who had wanted to put in a subdivision next to the site, and he didn't want this next to the aggregate site. Commissioner Throop asked if he was going to mine this site or use it as a buffer zone. Mr. Coats responded that it would be used as a buffer zone because of the cost of reclamation. He stated that it was worth more as homesites unless there is a lot of rock there. Commissioner Throop then called for testimony in opposition. Dr. John Bell, 63727 Johnson Road, asked if any sites had not been approved for mining and requested a list of those. He stated that neither he nor Brent Lake were aware of any sites that were not recommended for mining. He felt this represented downzoning. He questioned placing this use ahead of the goals for agriculture and forest use. He stated that the only resident elk in Deschutes County live in site 292 and that the deer herd was declining. He felt this area should be protected. He stated his opposition to rezoning 292 and 293 because this is forest land. Paul Riglosky, 19155 Rlippel Road, stated that he would like to see these land uses remain as they are now and zone to mitigate the effects of mining on the grandfathered sites. He referred to a staff report from the 70's which made a recommendation that no two mining sites be within one mile of another. He asked that they 14 100 1047 don't develop the site until the existing sites have been depleted and that there be at least one mile between sites. Scott McRae, 63415 Saddleback Place, asked for clarification on why this was put into one site when it is two taxlots. Besides his previous testimony on traffic, he would like to see the site which borders Johnson Road maintained as a buffer. He asked that site 292 be left as EFU-20. Kelly Smith, 63570 Johnson Road, requested that his previous testimony on his own behalf and that of Oregon Hunters Association be applied to these sites as well. Dan Kearns stated that he went to the Planning Commission hearing on site 292 and there was considerable discussion and they limited Mr. Coats to a nine acre parcel. He stated that the Planning Commission had turned the whole thing down, recommending that 292 not be approved for mining. He stated that the front portion of site 293, which is the west side of taxlot 800, should be protected as a farm under Goal 3. He did not know the soil type, but guessed it was between type II and III. Mary Dyer, 13195 Buck Drive, stated she thought they should strip mine fence to fence and turn the whole area into an unsalable slum so they could get urban renewal money from HUD. She stated she was going to place an ad in the Los Angeles Times offering to place this land for sale in order to launder money. Stanley Svakey, 63474 Gold Spur Way, stated that he was opposed to 292, 293 and all the others for the same reasons he had stated in the Klippel Acres hearings. He doesn't think this area is suited for this. He questioned the legality of the proceedings in 1979 and was concerned that they were going into these sessions with limited information. He questioned the board's ability to make well-reasoned decisions under these circumstances. Doug Rasmussen, 19110 Buck Drive, was concerned about the mines and the noise. Someone from DEQ had told him they couldn't place a crusher within 250 feet of his home. He felt they would have difficulty meeting the noise standard if the crusher were 2,000 feet away. He stated his opposition to mining in residential areas. Paul Rigloski stated that he had submitted some testimony on DEQ regulations at the Klippel Acres hearing that could be used for this site. John Caldwell, Vancouver, Washington, stated they bought a lot in Saddleback and had hoped to retire there, but they now wonder what they are getting into. He stated that he is against strip mining in a neighborhood. 15 [ 0 0 - 1048 John Bell stated there are four exceptions that must be met in order to do this and he read these aloud. He did not think any of these exceptions had been met. Mr. Read explained that the exception process doesn't apply in this case. Doug Crist, 64145 Tyler Road, stated that Dan Kearns and his committee had spoken for him. There was no further testimony on this site. Site 357 George Read gave the staff report. The site is located on the south side of Laidlaw Butte near Tumalo and is owned by Tumalo Irrigation District. The site contains 500,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate. He stated that the Cascade Pumice sites are included with this. Staff had identified conflicting resources as open space, fish and wildlife habitats, and outstanding scenic views. This area has been impacted with mining for a number of years, and activity has occurred at this site since prior to 1977. Staff had recommended approval subject to the standard conditions and to include seasonal operating conditions. The site is described as 16-11-10, 400, and the resource estimates were changed to reflect 1,000,000 cubic yards of cinders, 500,000 cubic yards of pumice and 500,000 cubic yards of aggregate. The entire site is now zoned SM. Commissioner Throop called for neutral testimony. There was none. He then called for proponents' testimony. There was none. He then called for opposing testimony. Dick Northon, 19273 Tumalo Reservoir Road, stated that their primary concern is that they live directly south of the Cascade Pumice mine. They don't want to see enough mining being done to undermine Laidlaw Butte. His concerns were also primary health concerns resulting from large amounts of pumice dust. He submitted some photographs showing the pumice dust blowing and the same vantage point taken on a day when the dust isn't blowing. The dust blowing completely obscured the horizon. He said that a lot of this dust comes from reclaimed land and that trees are never replaced during reclamation. He stated the dust will blow in plumes covering 15 to 20 square miles. The dust causes his voice to become hoarse. He asked that this not be zoned for mining. Jan Kaley, 19251 Tumalo Reservoir Road, confirmed Mr. Northon's testimony. She is concerned about Laidlaw Butte because at least half of the butte is in the area that is to be mined. She asked how they could reclaim the butte. She did not want to see this landmark disfigured. 16 1.00 1049 Dan Kearns, 63950 Tyler Road, stated that he was speaking as a spokesperson for their committee. His understanding is that this is already approved as a grandfathered site and that the county will take some control of it. He was mostly concerned for the traffic and dust. He stated that the dust problem is at its worst in the afternoon. Chuck Clark, Cascade Pumice, stated that they have a cinder pit there and they mine pumice there. They have been getting cinders on the west side. They were in the south and west half last year. He estimates they will be done mining pumice in one year on the south half of section 36 and then will be in another section for five to six years. He stated that the other half of section 36 wasn't talked about in previous hearings, there is some gravel in there but not much. They plan to stay on the butte mining cinders for longer than our lifetimes. They take 30,000 to 40,000 cubic yards from this site each year. They haul it to the west on a private road. They will put dirt and seed in over the pumice site after it is mined to cut down on the dust problem. There was no further testimony on this site. Site 393 George Read gave the staff report. This site is located on the east flank of Horse Butte and is 60 acres in size. It is owned by Blue Rock Concrete Products, Inc. and Babler Brothers. It contains 12.5 million cubic yards of cinders. Staff had identified conflicting resources as open space, fish and wildlife habitats, and rural residential uses. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. He read aloud a letter from Babler Bros., Inc. stating that they no longer wish this to be zoned SM. The file also contained three letters in opposition. Commissioner Throop called for proponents' testimony. There was none. He then called for opponents' testimony. Sam Dolan, 22155 Calgary Drive, stated that he lives less than one half mile from the site. He questioned the estimated amount of resource, saying he thought most of this was on the national forest. He recommended that this not be zoned SM. Commissioner Throop noted that this site existed prior to 1972 prior to reclamation laws. They can seek a zone change and sell the land for rural residential property. Richard Frank, 60385 Arnold Loop, stated that he has lived there for one year and hasn't seen anyone take cinders out during that time. He was opposed to tearing down the landmark of Horse Butte. There was no further testimony on this site. 17 J00 -1050 Site 526 George Read gave the staff report. This site is a Deschutes County site located south of Burgess Road one half mile west of Pine Forest Grange. It is a five acre stockpile and storage site. Staff had identified primary impacts as rural residential uses. Staff recommended that the site be zoned SM subject to conditions. This site is strictly a stockpile site with a cyclone fence around it. It is an existing stockpile site. They are requesting SM zoning for it. Commissioner Throop called for neutral testimony. There was none. He then called for proponents' testimony. There was none. He called for opposing testimony. Hap Davie, LaPine, stated that this was started in 1975 and that neighbors had not received notice until Friday. Mr. Read responded that the notices were mailed three weeks ago. Mr. Davie was present as Chairman of Concerned Citizens. When he heard that notices weren't received he surveyed the neighbors. He submitted a list of the people he had interviewed indicating which ones had received notice. He stated that William and Elizabeth Phelps had requested that he testify on their behalf. He stated that the reason not too many people showed up was because they were elderly and don't go out at night. They are opposed to bringing in the heavy equipment. The backup alarm can be heard for a half mile. Those living in the area are bothered by dust from the site. He stated that one person's house is within 30 feet of the fence, and they took out trees and want to take out more trees from neighbors property. He stated that the site is bordered on three sides by nearby houses, and there are four to five homes that have backyards contiguous to the fence. Commissioner Throop asked what a good alternative to the site would be. Mr. Davies suggested a site south of Wickiup Jct. that is within two miles of the present site. There was no further testimony on this site. Adjournment Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:27 PM. COMMISSIONERS /ss 18