1991-03074-Minutes for Meeting December 12,1990 Recorded 2/4/199191-030'4
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
MARKEN SURFACE MINING APPLICATION
C. 1 0IV"", : ,0-,10AECi
C~ '1~ n
i'
v
a, is { { ~
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
December 12, 1990
Chair Throop opened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Board members in
attendance were Dick Maudlin and Tom Throop. Also present were
Dave Leslie, Planner and Bruce White, Assistant Legal Counsel.
Chair Throop gave an opening statement regarding the appeal of the
Deschutes County Hearings Officer's findings and conclusions to
deny plan amendment 90-3, zone change 90-4 and site plan 90-16.
The applicant, Harold Marken, had requested amendments to the
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan map, the County Zoning
Ordinance map, and approval of a site plan to place the site on the
County's mineral and aggregate inventory, to change the plan
designation of that property from agricultural to surface mining,
to change the zoning from exclusive farm use 20-acre minimum to
surface mining, and to approve a site plan for mining select fill
on the property. The concerned property was a 40-acre parcel on
Rickard Road to the immediate east of the Knott Landfill. The
applicant planned to operate an open pit mine for select fill if
these applications were approved. The applications were before the
Hearings Office on May 1, 1990 and June 19, 1990, but were denied
by the Hearings Officer. The applicant had the burden of proving
that he was entitled to the plan amendment, zone change, and site
plan approval.
Concerning the request for a plan amendment, Chair Throop explained
that the county's surface mining program had not yet been
acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission.
Therefore, the Board had to find the applicant's proposals to be
consistent with the applicable statewide land use planning goals
(Goals 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 13). Goal 5, concerning mineral
resources and other natural resources, would be measured by Oregon
Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 16. This rule set the
minimum requirements: that mineral resources be placed on an
inventory, that an analysis of conflicting resources and uses be
made, that economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE)
consequences of mining 'on the conflicting uses and resources be
examined and vice versa, and that a resolution be reached which
would advance the goal of protecting an adequate supply of mineral
resources. The applicant also had to comply with the current goals
and policies of the County comprehensive plan regarding surface
mining in Ordinance 90-025.
The proposed zone change had to be in compliance with Section
10.025 of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance No. PL-15, and
related provisions in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance
provisions concerning surface mining beginning at Section 4.100,
PAGE 1 MINUTES: 12-12-90 KFY' Pt 4ViEQ
FE3
C106 0678
as amended. The proposed site plan had to meet the criteria
beginning at Section 4.100, as amended, of the Deschutes County
Zoning Ordinance.
Chair Throop said the Hearings Officer's decision denied the
application on a number of grounds: 1) that the applicant provided
inadequate information to assess cumulative adverse effects of the
Rose Pit on nearby residential uses and on traffic; 2) that the
applicant failed to address the issue of the adequacy of the Rose
Pit to meet the County's need for select fill; and 3) that the
applicant failed to meet comprehensive plan policy #5 concerning
the need for the select fill resource. The applicant appealed the
Hearings Officer's decision to the Board of Commissioners. He said
the Board would hear testimony, receive evidence, and would also
consider the evidence submitted to the Hearings Officer.
Chair Throop informed the audience that evidence at this hearing
was to be directed toward the criteria he previously described or
to any other criteria in the comprehensive land use plan or land
use regulations which applied to this decision. Any issues not
raised at this public hearing would not be appealable to the Land
Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).
Chair Throop said that if any member of the Board had had any pre-
hearing contacts concerning this matter, they needed to state the
substance of those contacts. He asked if any members of the Board
had had any such contacts. Commissioner Maudlin said he had a
phone call from Donna Tibert, however they only discussed
procedure. Mrs. Tibert had purchased property from his wife, who
worked for the Frank Ruegg real estate company. His wife worked
in the office with Nate York who had an interest in the concerned
property. Commissioner Throop said he had contact approximately
one year ago with the applicant, Harold Marken, concerning whether
the county would be interested in acquiring the concerned property
to add to the adjacent Knott Landfill. Commissioner Throop then
asked Larry Rice, Public Works Director, and Rick Isham, County
Counsel, to look into this proposal. Mr. Isham wrote a letter in
late 1989 outlining some of the issues, and Commissioner Throop
said he raised the issue at one of the Board meetings. He asked
Mr. Rice and Mr. Isham to consider whether it would be of benefit
to the County to have this property for landfill expansion. He
then discovered there was a Midstate Electric easement which ran
between the Knott Landfill and the concerned parcel which would
have made it difficult to incorporate the parcel into the landfill.
He also found out that an application would be filed to change the
parcel from agriculture minimum lot 20 (EFU-20) to surface mining,
and if the parcel was changed to surface mining, the landfill would
not be a permitted or a conditional use in the surface mining zone.
At that point he had no further contact with the applicant and gave
no further consideration to the issue, recognizing that the Board
of Commissioners would probably hear an appeal on this issue. He
said this contact did not bias him in any fashion, and he would
PAGE 2 MINUTES: 12-12-90
C106 001
remain as a member of the Board to hear this appeal. He asked if
anyone wanted to challenge the qualifications of the Board to hear
this appeal because of bias, prejudgment or personal interest. An
unnamed member of the audience said he did not challenge the two
members of the Board but because of their comments, he suggested
that they wait until the third member of the Board was present to
hear the appeal. Commissioner Maudlin said they had expected the
third member of the Board attend the public hearing, but since
there was a quorum, they had to hold the hearing. Commissioner
Throop said he wanted to proceed with the hearing. There being no
challenges, Chair Throop asked for a staff report.
Dave Leslie, Associate Planner for the Community Development
Department, gave the staff report. He pointed out that the Sunday
notice in the Bulletin for this hearing erroneously said it would
be held on Tuesday, December 12. A correct notice was then
published indicating Wednesday, December 12, 1990. He suggested
that the record of this hearing be held open for one week to afford
the 10-day advance notice requirement. He had posted notices the
previous day at the County building and the City Public Works
building apologizing for any inconvenience and indicating
Wednesday, December 12 as the correct date of the public hearing.
He said three letter had been received: two in opposition and one
in favor of the application. He said the Knott Pit was closed for
dirt sales, and there was no intention to reopen it for the sale
of dirt. The Horse Butte site (Moon site) east of town was
considered and approved by the Board in July and contained
approximately 193,000 cu. yds. of aggregate material which was
approved for mining in five acre increments. He said the Marken
site had 400,000-450,000 cu. yds of select material which they
proposed to remove over a three-year period. The Central Electric
Coop. Substation was located immediately to the west of the site
and west of the substation was the Knott Landfill. There was a
power easement crossing the property and the excavation would be
to the southeast of that easement. There was an unvacated road
which crossed on the interior of the parcel, and the Public Works
Department had initiated the process to vacate that road. In
return for that, the applicant had indicated a willingness to
dedicate a 30-foot strip of property along the eastern boundary to
access parcels to the north along McGillvray Road.
Dave Leslie said that after the public hearing on these
applications was held, the Board adopted the Goal 5 inventory and
the package of material was sent to LCDC for review, which had
compounded the decision-making process in this case. He said the
issues raised in the Hearings Officer's decision were appropriate
for the Board to consider. He said the Thompsons proposed cinder
site was southeast of the Rose pit and had been denied by the Board
in July 1990. There presently existed two or three homes within
one-quarter mile of the proposed Marken Site. The Rose site to the
south had been approved for surface mining although no site plan
application had been submitted by the property owner. There were
PAGE 3 MINUTES: 12-12-90
C106 0080
seven other vacant parcels or portions of parcels within the one-
quarter mile area. Subsequent to the Marken application being
submitted, two conditional use permits for single family dwellings
had been approved on property immediately to the east and north of
the proposed mining site. Within one-half mile of the site, there
were seven additional homes, and nine privately owned vacant
parcels, and two county owned parcels. The paramount issue for the
Board to consider concerned Goal 5 and the comprehensive plan. The
Board needed to consider the significance of the site and the need
for the resource versus the level of identified conflicts for uses
and resources in the surrounding area. There was also the issue
of cumulative impact when the Rose site opened. The identification
of the conflicting uses included the potential surface mining
operation being near properties with residences; noise, dust, and
visual impacts resulting from the operation; potential for impact
of large trucks on Rickard Road; potential for wildlife impacts;
inconsistency of the surface mining zone adjacent to the
residential properties; possible expansion of the Knott Landfill;
difficulty in establishing ground cover during the reclamation;
uncertain subsequent use of the property; and inability of the DEQ
to enforce noise standards. The ESEE analysis addressed the
potential conflicts of protecting the uses versus allowing the
resource to be utilized, and the use of the resource and the
subsequent impacts which would occur. The comprehensive plan
policies which were evaluated were primarily those in effect prior
to the adoption of amendments in July 1990. The applicant needed
to address the amendments which were adopted and were currently in
effect. The Board would reach its decision by considering the ESEE
analysis, the comprehensive plan evaluation, and the zone change
requirements which were not altered since the submittal of the
application. The Hearings Officer's decision did not address the
application for site plan due to the denial of the zone change and
plan amendment application, therefore it would be up the Board if
they approved the zone change and plan amendment, to consider the
specific site plan requirements. The County attempted to
discourage the applicant from filing until the County's package had
been acknowledged by the LCDC, however if they wanted to proceed
the County suggested they address the ordinance revisions which
were anticipated at that time and were, in fact, subsequently
adopted. So the original application addressed those standards.
Bruce White, Assistant Legal Counsel, said he wanted to go through
some issues which were raised during the notice of appeal--many of
which were legal issues. Most of the legal issues regarding the
memorandum from the applicant's attorney, which had been received
that same day, concerned the cumulative impacts considering the
Rose site, whether those cumulative impacts were great enough to
support the denial which the Hearings Officer rendered and the
issue of whether there was a need for this site since the Rose site
was already on the inventory. An issue had been raised that the
Rose site had been place on the inventory after the hearing on this
site had been closed before the hearings officer. It was his
PAGE 4 MINUTES: 12-12-90
C106 0081
opinion that even though the package was adopted in July, 1990,
the county had already taken official action to recognize Rose as
a surface mining site and didn't see merit to that argument. Since
this was a de novo hearing, those issues could be addressed at this
hearing. Item number 4 in the notice of the appeal stated that the
hearings officer erred in failing to respond to the applicant's
request for inclusion of the site in the County's Goal 5 inventory.
Mr. White felt that if the Board found there was evidence in the
record establishing a significant resource, that the Board would
have to place the site on the inventory. Item #5 dealt with
comprehensive plan policy #5 in the previous comprehensive plan,
however the current comprehensive plan did not include that policy.
Item #6 he felt had also been superceded by the latest ordinance.
Item #7 raised the issue that the hearings officer erred in
requiring consideration of cumulative impacts based upon a fully
developed Rose site. He said the applicant's attorney would
address the issue of cumulative impacts at this hearing. Another
technical issue was raised regarding the requirement that they file
an appeal and pay an appeal fee. Staff felt it was appropriate to
require they pay the appeal fee and recommended their request for
a refund be denied. There was a statute which stated that all plan
amendments concerning EFU lands had to be heard by the Board, and
therefore, in such cases, applicants could not be charged an appeal
fee since appealing to the Board was a matter of "right." However,
Mr. White said that situation was distinguishable from this case
in that this case also had with it a proposed zone change and site
plan. When those applications were joined with the plan amendment,
the County had the authority to require an appeal. If the
applicants wanted only the plan amendment to be appealed, then it
would be otherwise. But failure to appeal the zone change and site
plan applications would mean that those applications would die, and
they could not reapply for another six months. He assumed the
applicant wanted all of their applications to be before the Board
this evening, and accordingly, the County had the right to charge
an appeal fee. In Mr. Sullivan's memorandum, he indicated that
need was no longer an issue. Mr. White did not agree and said that
need could be used in determining the significance of the resource
and was still an issue which needed to be addressed. If the Board
approved the applications, there was statue ORS 215.298 which
required that before a permit could be issued for surface mining
in EFU lands, the site had to be included on the inventory on an
acknowledged comprehensive plan. The County did not yet have an
acknowledged comprehensive plan, but he believed this statute was
not applicable to this situation because the statute contemplated
situations where surface mining was allowed as a conditional use
in an EFU zone, while Deschutes County required a total rezone to
surface mining. There was an issue as to whether this site needed
to be acknowledged. The applicant had indicated a willingness, if
there was an approval, to postpone the effective date of their
application until there was an acknowledgment, and then proceed
under a post-acknowledgement process. He said these were legal
matters which could be resolved if the applications were approved.
PAGE 5 MINUTES: 12-12-90
G106 0082
Chair Throop asked for testimony from the applicants.
Ed Sullivan, attorney for the applicant, 111 SW 5th, #3200,
Portland, 97204, testified that this application came out of the
Rose site proceedings. The Board denied the aggregate mining on
the Rose site but allowed the select fill because of evidence that
it was a significant select fill site which should be placed on the
County's inventory. The Board also went through the ESEE analysis
and found that the external factors, i.e. noise could be controlled
in an acceptable manner with stringent conditions. It was their
position that the conditions placed on the Rose site made it
incapable of producing the estimated 7 million cu.yds. of material.
It was unlikely that the Rose site could be used at all. During
the Rose site hearings, the issue was raised of other available
property where select fill could be taken. One of the alternative
sites pointed out was the Marken site. The Board and staff had
suggested that the Marken site not be dealt with during the regular
Goal 5 process but in a separate proceeding which was what the
applicants were doing. The Marken site contained a comparatively
rare material called select fill and was in the middle of a 200
acre area which included the Marken site, the Rose site, and the
Knott Pit. The material had been tested on each of these sites and
had been found to be significant. The Board felt that the quality,
quantity and location of the Rose site had been proven and now had
before it evidence that the quantity, quality and location of the
Marken site select fill was sufficient. The Moon site was not
interchangeable with this site, because it was not a select fill
site. They were asking that this site be placed in the inventory,
to amend the comprehensive plan so the site could be used for
mining, to amend the zoning ordinance to zone this site for surface
mining, and to approve the site plan which they presented. If this
site were found to be a significant resource, then the Board would
need to use the Goal 5 process and the administrative rule to make
their decision. In making her decision, the hearing officer had
to consider the existing policies, which were now replaced by the
new ordinance, and the proposed policies which had not yet been
completed or adopted. They were focusing their testimony on those
areas where the hearings officer felt the application fell short.
Commissioner Throop asked if the conditions which had been imposed
on the Rose site would render the Marken site unusable as well?
Mr. Sullivan said it would be more difficult but might not make it
impossible. Commissioner Throop asked if it would be any more
difficult to use the Marken site than the Rose site given the same
conditions. Mr. Sullivan said he felt they could get enough dirt
out of the site to make a profit and still meet the DEQ standards
on noise. He didn't think that could occur on the Rose site.
Commissioner Maudlin asked if the Moon site was the Horse Ridge
site. Mr. Sullivan said yes, they were the same site.
PAGE 6 MINUTES: 12-12-90
C106 0083
Lewis Scott, 13855 SW Barlow Road, Beaverton, OR, 97005, said he
was licensed as an engineering geologist and as a professional
engineer. His specialty was as a materials engineer with 30 years
of experience. The Knott pit deposit was unique in the area. It
was a water laid deposit with an unusual depth. It was coarse
grained material which was completely nonplastic with no clay. The
natural gradation was such that the material could be readily and
simply compacted. These facts made it desirable as a construction
material site. He made a detailed study and determined that the
material covered approximately 200 acres which included the Knott
pit, Rose site, Marken site, and two smaller sites further to the
east which had not been tested. The material was high quality and
could be used as select material which was a form of aggregate
rather than just barrow or selected barrow. It could be used in
the construction of city streets and state and county highways
which an average embankment material could not. Because of its
quality and scarcity (since it was confined to 200 acres), it had
been listed as a significant resource by the hearings officer. It
was also located within one quarter mile or one-half mile of the
Bend urban growth boundary. It would not be as valuable if it were
located 10 miles from the urban growth boundary. There were other
sources of similar material which were located much further away
and had not been tested. He proposed excavating the material with
a loader against a vertical face of at least 15-20 feet in height.
A dozer would be used to strip the surface material or move
material around, and a water truck would be necessary along with
whatever trucks would be necessary to haul the material out. The
top soil on the Marken site was 6-12 inches in depth consisted of
fine grain material which DEQ required the property owner to save.
They proposed to strip all 30 acres at one time, pile it, berm it
along Rickard and Arnold Market Roads, and seed it so it wouldn't
blow away. The select material did not contain dust. The dust
that was coming out of Knott pit was there whether there was
excavation or not and came from the fine material on the pit floor.
This would not happen at the Marken site because the fine material
would be removed all at once with a water truck on hand and would
be saved for further reclamation use. Mr. Marken proposed
excavating 80,000-100,000 cu. yds. a year for three to five years
(approximately 400,000 cu. yds of usable material at the site).
He said there had been a minimal amount of testing on the Rose
site, and an operations and reclamation plan of the site would have
to be developed before it could be used. He said they based the
need for this material based upon County record for past sales at
the Knott pit. When it was announced that sales would cease at the
Knott pit, there was stockpiling of this material, and he had
therefore discounted that time period. He averaged the last three
years, and arrived at a figure of 80,000 cu. yds a year with a
potential population growth of 1-2% over the next 10-20 years. The
hearings officer raised the issue of both the Rose and Marken sites
operating concurrently. He didn't think that would happen because
the Marken site was much smaller, and Mr. Marken was ready to
operate and would probably exhaust his source before the Rose site
PAGE 7 MINUTES: 12-12-90
C106 0084
opened. If the sites did operate at the same time, there was still
a finite amount of material needed in the community each year. So
the sites would split that amount between them, and the resulting
activity would be approximately the same as if only one site were
operating. The Horse Ridge site was a cinder source and was not
usable for select material. It was 17 miles from the Bend area
while the Marken site was one-half mile. Placing the Marken site
on the inventory would prevent a monopoly by the Rose site and
would create more competitive prices.
Commissioner Maudlin asked about the fine material which was being
blown out of the bottom of the Knott pit. Mr. Sullivan said this
fine material was surface soil that had been blow into the pit.
Commissioner Maudlin asked how deep the select material was in the
Knott pit. Mr. Sullivan said it varied from 4 feet to 90 feet.
In the Marken pit, the deepest place they found was 23 feet.
Commissioner Maudlin asked how many acres of the Marken site would
be mined if approved. Mr. Sullivan said 30 of the 40 acres would
be mined. The berms along Rickard Road would be 4-5 feet high and
the additional site obscuring requirement would be met by fencing
since there was not enough material to make berms 10-15 feet high
except on the short section on the east side. Some of the select
material could be used for berms if necessary. The berm material
would later be used in the reclamation process. Commissioner
Maudlin asked if anyone knew how much of the soil taken out of
Knott pit before it closed was still stockpiled and available for
sale. Mr. Scott didn't know. Commissioner Maudlin said that there
had been testimony that at the Horse Ridge site, the soil was
better the further they went down, and that Mr. Scott had said he
would look at the soil. Mr. Scott said he thought the site was at
Highway 20 at mile post 17. He looked there and couldn't find
anything. He, therefore, had not made a comparison of the soil on
the Horse Ridge site.
Commissioner Throop asked Mr. Scott to discuss the reclamation
plan. Mr. Scott said the northern end of the site slopped, and the
lower central portion was almost level. The level portion would
be excavated and then following the upper slope. The surface soil
would be replaced and seeding would be in accordance of DEQ
requirements. The southwest corner was the lowest point on the
site. The berm would receive enough artificial water from the
water truck to make sure that the seeding got started, and it would
be watered as required. Once the site was reclaimed, the grasses
would be able to survive on their own. The southwest corner would
have all of the drainage where a sump would be provided. It would
be a continuous gentle slope. He discussed this reclamation plan
in detail with DOGAMI, and they said it met with their
requirements.
Commissioner Maudlin asked Mr. Scott if he felt the Marken site
would have a monopoly if the Rose site did not come on line in the
next 4-5 years when the Marken site was proposing to do its mining.
PAGE 8 MINUTES: 12-12-90
QOG 0085
Mr. Scott said yes it would.
Commissioner Throop received a question from the audience as to the
depth of the hole after the reclamation plan had been completed.
Mr. Scott said the greatest depth of the hole in the southeast
corner would be approximately 25 feet. There would be a setback
from the existing county road and a 2 to 1 slope leading down to
that. The berm material, when returned would raise it a foot or
so.
Daniel A. Seeman, 512 SW Broadway, Portland, said he was an
associate with Kittleson and Associates, which was a traffic
engineering firm in Portland, had 10 years of experience in the
field, and had conducted over 100 traffic impact analyses of this
type. He was familiar with the Bend transportation issues and
sensitive to the issue of traffic affecting neighborhoods. He
worked with Wayne Kittleson, a registered professional engineering,
on the project to determine the impacts of both the Marken and Rose
sites. He used some graphics in his presentation and submitted
them as exhibits. They conducted a study of the traffic impacts
on roadway operations and safety from activity on the Marken site
in combination with the Rose site. They obtain from the County and
the Forest Service traffic counts of the area. The critical
intersection was at 27th and Rickard Road which was operating at
the "A" level of service at the a.m. peak hour and at a "B" level
of service during the p.m. peak hour which was between 5:00 and
6:00 p.m. Therefore the p.m. peak hour was found to be the
critical hour of the day. Rickard Road was a rural collector with
an asphalt surface of about 24 feet which, he felt, was more than
adequate. It had shoulders on which parking was allowed. 27th
Street was an arterial and had a good surface with more than
adequate width. They measured the site distance that would be
available from the proposed Marken site driveway and found there
would be in excess of 1,200 feet of available site distance in
either direction for a vehicles pulling onto the road system. The
required site distance for a driveway in this area would be about
550 feet. Between the years 1985 and 1990 there were no reported
accidents on Rickard Road. There were three reported accidents
during that five-year period at the intersection of 27th and
Rickard Road. Two of them were property damage only and one was
a fatality caused by a drunken driver and not the physical design
of the road or the traffic. Including the traffic generated by the
opening of the Marken site, the traffic operations of the road
system would remain about the same as they were currently. With
100,000 cu. yds being mined each year for four year, each truck
would hold about 12 yards which would result in about 3.7 truck
round trips per hour. to be generous, they doubled that amount to
8 truck trips in and 8 truck trips out during that peak hour of
between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. They also considered the effects on the
5 p.m. to 6 p.m. time period since it was the peak hour for the
ambient traffic in the area. Because the facility would be closed
during that time, there would probably be one round trip by the
PAGE 9 MINUTES: 12-12-90
X06 0086
water truck and the two employees would be leaving the site during
this time. For an analysis of what would happen if both the Marken
site and the Rose site were opened, they used 16 truck trips. At
27th and Rickard Road, the level would be "A" during the truck peak
and "B" during the ambient peak with both of the sites combined.
Even in February, when there was a significant increase in traffic
at the Knott pit because of its impending closure, the County staff
indicated there had been no traffic operational problems nor safety
problems associated with the higher level of truck traffic (four
times what they would expect to happen at the Marken site.
Albert G. Duble, acoustical engineer, 16905 NE Kings Grade,
Newberg, said he had been a practicing acoustical engineer in
Oregon since 1981 and had 25 years experience in all phases of
acoustics and noise control engineering. He had taught noise
control engineering as a consultant to the U.S. Department of
Labor, OSHA in Chicago for six years. He had been asked to conduct
a detailed study of the effects of the two sand extraction sites
(Rose and Marken) on the residences located along Rickard Road west
of the mining sites and also review a report from DSA for the two
residences east and northeast of the Marken site. The impact on
those two homes was predicted to be within DEQ guidelines if a five
foot berm were erected above the line of sight along the east side
of the property which would create about a 15-foot noise barrier.
The DSA study had not consider the Rose site or the combined truck
traffic on Rickard Road in their analysis, so he fulfilled the
request of the hearings officer to consider the impacts from both
sites in his report. He passed out his report to the
Commissioners. The DEQ had them measure the ambient noise and to
that they were allowed to add or degrade the ambient noise level
by 10 decibels (DBA) which was doubling the loudness as humans
would hear it. The "A rated scale" acted liked the human ear which
was why the DEQ used it. He said the L1 was 1% of the time noise
level, the L10 standard was worth 6 minutes or 10% of an hour, and
the L50 was the mean and represented 30 minutes out of the hour.
The Oregon standards were L1, L10 and L50. The L90 was near the
overall background noise or 54 minutes out of the hour. Automobile
traffic down Rickard Road would be somewhere in the L50 level at
the peak hour with 326 cars and 10 trucks. The trucks would be at
the L10 level because even though the trucks were noisier, they
weren't there as long as the cars. He said to keep in mind that
it was a time-weighted standard. The cars formed the background
noise level, and every five or ten minutes, the peaks above that
level would be from the haul trucks. He studied the existing noise
environment at the Marcotte residence which was the last house on
Rickard Road and was closest to the site. The noise level at the.
Marcotte home varied between L50 and L57. The expected peak truck
hour in the afternoon was approximately 3-4 p.m. since truckers
generally avoided the normal peak traffic times. He said that
automobile and truck traffic noise was just about equal during that
peak hour with more time between trucks than between cars. A limit
on haul truck traffic of seven round trips (14 pass bys) per hour
PAGE 10 MINUTES: 12-12-90
UA106 008 7
would meet the DEQ standard at the Marcotte residence. Currently
there were 4-5 truck pass bys per hour. This volume would also
meet the standards at the Manwiller residence which was closer to
the Rose pit on the south side of Rickard Road. There might be
times when the L10 DEQ standard might be exceeded which would be
in a random fashion depending upon the amount of sand orders
received by the two operations. He suggested some mitigating
controls in his report which would lessen the noise impact even
though it was within legal limits. He suggested having signs
installed on Rickard Road prohibiting the use of truck Jake brakes
at that stop sign since they increased the sound output of a diesel
truck by at least 20 decibels. He suggested that the hauling
operators investigate using larger capacity trucks which would
allow them to haul more sand in fewer trips. He suggested that the
acoustic back up signals, which were annoying to surrounding
residents, be removed and that wheel belts (which made a much less
annoying sound) be installed. At the distance of the closest
residences, the equipment used at the site would be under the DEQ
standard by possibly 3-4 decibels and below the ambient noise
considering the closing possible positioning of the equipment. The
Rose site would be more difficult to control because of the
proximity of the homes on southwest bench overlooking the site.
Without specific controls to the vehicles or very high berms, the
equipment would have to work a long distance from the bench and
the Manwiller home. A low five-foot berm would serve no noise
reducing purposes. The ambient noise measurements included the
existing truck traffic. The future truck traffic which was added
included all the possible traffic from these two pits but did not
include any other increased truck traffic in the area.
David York, 61771 Arrow Avenue, Bend, said he was a general
contractor and was building 16 homes this year in Deschutes County.
They have had a problem getting good top soil to back fill
foundations since the Knott Landfill stopped selling dirt. When
Knott quit, he was spending $66 for a 12 yd. load of back fill
material. He recently got back fill material from the Horse Ridge
site and paid $110 a load, and it was 17 miles east of Bend. This
would increase the costs of housing in Deschutes County, and there
was already a shortage of affordable housing in the area.
Terry Fidler, 20220 Nichols Road, Bend, said he had a small
excavation business and was in favor of the Marken pit. It would
keep him from hauling through the downtown core area and school
areas. Most of the fill material that he was currently getting was
from the west side of Bend.
Dick Marken, 61488 Orion Dr., Bend, said he was a contractor and
a partner in Orien Greens and was in favor of the new site. In the
homes he built in 1990, he started using fill from Demolition but
it wasn't good enough even for that. The Horse Ridge site was
charging $110 a load (or $3,000-$5,000 to completely back fill one
house) making it unaffordable for the home buyer. They needed
PAGE 11 MINUTES: 12-12-90
I~
0100 0088
better dirt now, and felt they needed the Rose pit and the Marken
pit for the future growth of Bend.
Chair Throop closed the testimony for proponents and opened
testimony from the opponents.
Ric Ergenbright, 60380 Arnold Market Road, Bend, testified that he
was owner of TL 2200 which was approximately one mile from the
Marken site and was testifying on behalf of the Southeast Rural
Homeowners group which was opposed to surface mining on this
property and supported the hearings officer's decision. He said
the people speaking in opposition were each taking one issue, but
that they shared a consensus of opinion regarding the concerns
presented. If they failed to individually address each issue, it
should not be construed as a lack of interest in or support of
those issues since they were just attempting to avoid a redundancy
of testimony. He was a proponent of controlled growth and
development. People moved to Central Oregon for the rural
environment and superior living conditions, therefore protection
of the environment must be an important factor in any land use
decision. The area affected by the Marken site, Rose site and
Knott pit was a very desireable rural neighborhood which was why
it was zoned EFU-20. Goal 5 resources in the area which were in
conflict with the Marken proposed action were: abundant wildlife,
spectacular scenery, exceptional air quality, low ambient noise,
and the health and safety of the residents. This area was an
important wild life habitat for deer, coyotes, hawks, owls and
eagles. In the staff report on the Rose site, it was
recommendation that there be a restriction on the size of the
disturbed area because the site was within a winter deer use area
and should be considered a sensitive habitat. The dust from a
surface mine would severely damage the scenic resource. He again
read from the staff report on the Rose site where it said dust
produced as a result of surface mining activities could adversely
affect the scenic view of the high Cascades to the west, Mt.
Washington and Mr. Jefferson to the northwest, Smith Rock to the
northeast, Horse Ridge to the east, and Newberry Crater to the
south. Being higher and more sparsely populated than the City of
Bend, the southeast area enjoyed cleaner air than the rest of the
region except on days when the wind blew into the dump and filled
the air with stench and debris. The Rose site would also add to
the negative impact of the landfill and the Marken site would
compound it. The ambient noise level in the area was so low that
they could hear the pinging of trucks backing up in the landfill
several miles away. The sound of traffic could be heard more than
one mile away. He felt the most serious Goal 5 conflict was the
health and safety of neighborhood residents. A new elementary was
being built across from the County Public Works buildings on 27th
Street. The increased truck traffic would be a dangerous threat
to those already using these roads. The Bend school buses did not
pick up kids who lived close to school, and the children in this
area would attend the new school on 27th. They would be walking
PAGE 12 MINUTES: 12-12-90
G'106 0089
or riding their bikes past the Marken site, Rose site, and the
landfill to get there. This area was often used for adult
bicycling. He asked if a zone change was needed for the County to
purchase Mr. Marken's land for use in expanding the landfill?
Commissioner Throop said that was not an issue, and if this zone
change were made, a landfill would not be an appropriate use for
a reclamation plan since a landfill was not a permitted or
conditional use in a surface mine zone. Mr. Ergenbright said the
southeast rural residential neighborhood was a special environment,
and he urged that the Board uphold the hearings officer's decision
because of the cumulative effect of the landfill, the Rose site,
and the Marken site.
Gary Fowles, 107 NW St. Helens, Bend, testified that he owned
property within the one-half mile radius of the Marken land. He
felt the County had already inventoried a sufficient resource to
meet the needs of the area. The County's Ordinance 90-27 stated
that sufficient inventory was available to meet the housing needs
of Deschutes County, so the Marken site was not needed. He felt
there was conflicting testimony by the experts who testified one
way or the other depending on which side was paying them. Mr.
Scott had estimated there was approximately 2 mil. cu. yds. of
select fill material in the Rose site when it was later determined
to hold 7.5 mil cu. yds. He did not feel that the 5% (400,000 cu
yds) of select fill material at the Marken site was really a
significant amount of resource relative to the already identified,
quantified, and approved site within 50 feet of the applicant's
property. He felt that a site which contained 7.5 mil. cu. yds of
material would be more economically viable than a site with 400,000
cu. yds., since the restrictions on the Rose site would undoubtedly
be placed on the Marken site also. When the top soil was put into
berms and vegetation was removed from the site, the dust would blow
onto all of the adjoining land owners. He asked if the County had
considered how all of the environmental controls discussed would
be monitored, i.e. watering for dust control, since the County
could not control the violations which were already happening in
the County. He doubted that there was a shortage of fill material
in Deschutes County, i . e where did Fred Meyer get its fill? He
suggested that the Board get testimony from contractors who were
not relatives of the applicant to find out if there really was a
shortage of fill material. He didn't think Mr. Marken would sell
fill as cheaply as the Knott pit had and would charge whatever he
could get.
Joan Hale, 60535 Bobcat Rd. Bend, testified that she lived within
three-quarters of a mile of the Marken site and was a real estate
broker. She did not want three, big pits in the area. During a
recent wind storm, she could not see because of the dust and debris
coming from the landfill. It would be an increased hazard,
especially from the children walking and biking on the road.
PAGE 13 MINUTES: 12-12-90
0106 0090
Kevin McBride, 21620 Rickard Road, Bend, testified that he owned
the EFU-20 piece just east of the proposed Marken site. In the
last twelve months, the County had issued between seven and nine
conditional use permits for farm related or nonfarm single family
residences within one half mile of this site--one of which was him.
Three of them were within one-quarter mile of the site. Approving
the Marken pit would demonstrate to the people of the County and
LCDC that there were inconsistencies in planning and zoning in
Deschutes County. He had three boy ages 10, 8 and 7 and came up
from California because of the quality of life. He had a bull
which was worth $600 who died because he ate a bag of garbage but
couldn't digest it and starved to death. Every time the wind blew
from the south or southwest, there was a lot of light, plastic and
paper debris on his property. They would pick up at least one
garbage can full every week when the wind blew. If the Marken site
were stripped of trees and brush, it would create a funnel and more
garbage would end up on his property. From his foundation, five
feet above his line of sight out be 22 feet, and he didn't want to
live next to a pile of dirt 22 feet high. How would they get
trucks up there to water the grass they were planting? He
submitted a letter dated May 8, 1990, from Jean Williamson, a
realtor for Frank Ruegg Realty, in which she said her "immediate
concern was for the value of the residential acreage within the
close proximity of this pit. The homeowners nearby have a valid
concern especially since they were under the understanding that the
LCDC rulings would protect surrounding properties. I hope that
when the time comes to make a decision, that you will examine the
facts, look to your conscience, and realize the effect that your
decision will have on all the adjoining property owners. Please
do not allow Mr. Marken and Mr. York to change the zoning to
surface mining."
Mike Broadbent, 1115 NE Burnside, Bend, said he was testifying
about the economics effects on the surrounding property versus the
economics of the need for the dirt being mined. There was value
to the existing rural neighborhood. Any mining done in the area
would have a negative impact on nearby property values which was
attested to by four real estate appraiser. They would not commit
to any specific figure, but two of them mentioned the Tumalo Rim
subdivision as an example of a good development hampered by the
proximity of a rock pit. Property values were less than they would
have been in the same development without the rock pit, even though
the pit was no longer active. He estimated that if the
desirability value of properties within a one mile radius of this
pit was decreased by 5%, property values would be reduced by a
similar figure. He estimated an average loss in value of $12,500
for each property owner. Since the Rose site had already been
approved by the County, there should be no arguments about the need
for more dirt mines. The Demolition dump had an adequate supply
of a lesser quality of dirt. He felt the east side Horse Ridge
site was an appropriate location for a dirt pit even though it
would increase the costs of new housing. If an average home would
PAGE 14 MINUTES: 12-12-90
C106 0091
take 5-10 loads of back fill, the increased cost would be
approximately $250-$500 which he felt was insignificant compared
to what the surrounding property owners were being asked to
sacrifice.
Bruce Tibert, 60923 Larsen Road, Bend, testified concerning the
environment and energy requirements of the ESEE analysis. The
hearings officer stated that in light of the County's approval of
the Rose pit site, there wasn't sufficient information to
effectively complete the Goal 5 analysis, and that the Marken site
could not be accurately evaluated without reference to similar
impacts generated by the Rose pit site. He said they moved to this
area because of the beauty of the ponderosa pines, the tall
junipers and the sense of tranquility of rural farm life. Over 100
pine trees would be lost if the Marken site were cleared. The top
soil would be exposed to the wind and would be eroded and blown
into the neighboring properties. The truck traffic would be a
danger to the people of the area and the animals. The proposed
reclamation plan was only to plant grass in the big empty pit.
Deschutes County was a growing community, and the Commissioners
should balance growth considering what was special about the area:
trees, wild life and a peaceful farm community.
Christine Kerlin, 21730 Rickard Rd., Bend, testified that she was
within one-quarter of a mile from the Marken site. She felt that
the Marken site should be evaluated assuming that the Rose site
would also be developed since it had been approved for that
purpose. She didn't want to live in a area that was just under the
DEQ noise limits. She asked that those who were in opposition to
the Marken site to stand silently, which they did. She said human
being would be affected negatively by this proposal.
Michael Jeffries, 21725 Rickard Road, Bend, testified that he would
be moving to this address, which was approximately 1,280 ft. from
the Marken site, in January. He presented a petition from the
neighborhood (Arnold Loop, Rickard Road, Larson). He and his wife
purchased the property because they wanted to move to a quiet,
rural area, which would be disturbed by the surface mine. He
concurred with the hearings officer that the site should be denied.
He said that conditional use permit, when authorized in this area,
were to maintain the rural nature of the area, and he did not feel
that a dirt mine would maintain the rural nature of the area. The
noise conflict level would be high, six days a week and ten hours
a day. He was in the building products business and would be
working out of his home. The only road that his daughter could use
to ride her bike or horses was Rickard Road, and he was concerned
with the safety issue. The berms would create a tremendous amount
of dust, and it would be very difficult to get grass to grow on
them. Neighbors who had tried it had trouble even when they had
regular irrigation. The zoning ordinance indicated that the
purpose of a surface mining zone was to allow the extraction of
nonrenewable surface mining material while protecting the health
PAGE 15 MINUTES: 12-12-90
k
`106 0092
and safety of adjoining
be protected because
diminished because of tl
said there had to be a
possible violation, and
would depend on whether
They currently did not
complaints they were z
resources would be dimir
property would be dimir
be used for after the
traumatized because of 1
the area. Manv felt
residences and uses. The health would not
of the dust, and the safety would be
e trucks. When he spoke with the DEQ, they
complaint before they would investigate a
whether they would go out on a complaint
there were resources or manpower available.
have the manpower to act on all of the
eceiving. With Ballot Measure 5, those
ished further. The ability to resell their
ished. He questioned what the site could
reclamation. Some of his neighbors were
he proposed and approved surface mining in
:he Countv would lust "rubber stamp" the
application. One man felt he had a heart attack and two people
were under counseling because of the approval of the Rose site, so
there were social consequences. He had Century West Engineering
do a study of the material at the Moon site, and they concluded
that the material was as good as or superior to the Knott/Marken
material or the Dodds Road pit material. Near the Moon pit, you
wouldn't see the dust or the pit, and there were no residents
nearby. There was only 12 miles difference between the Moon site
and the Marken site. The County Road Department had said the
because the trucks would go both ways on Rickard Road, the Marken
surface mine would have a detrimental affect on the road. Rickard
Road was already crumbling from Arnold Loop down to Gosney. He
agreed with the hearings officer that this mine did not belong in
this community.
Karen Marcotte, 60789 Rickard Road, Bend, said she had not received
any formal notice regarding this proposed site and had heard about
it from her neighbors. She was concerned with the traffic on
Rickard Road because the current traffic was already exceeding the
speed limit. The children waited for their school bus on this
street, and when the new school was built, they'd be walking to
school down Rickard Road and up 27th Street. She was also
concerned about the projected noise level from the trucks being
just one decibel below the DEQ standard. She was on the corner of
Rickard and 27th and knew there had been a number of accidents in
this area. There were times when the dust was so thick that she
couldn't see her neighbor's house. She almost lost a cow that had
swallowed garbage also.
Hugh McGillivray, 60845 Larson Road, Bend, testified that he was
about one-half mile from the Marken site and agreed with his
neighbors. He said Mr. Scott had said that the Horse Butte cinder
pit was 17 miles away from the urban growth boundary. When the
Horse Butte site was only three road miles from his house. A local
contractor delivered over $2,000 worth of fill dirt to him at $45
a truck load from Knott pit, and two week before Knott closed, he
ordered 12 more truck loads and was told it would cost him another
$5 a truck load. He said someone had been advertising cinders in
the newspaper for $45 a truck load and fill dirt for $55 a truck
PAGE 16 MINUTES: 12-12-90
G106 0093
load. Commissioner Maudlin said the add did not say how much dirt
you could get for the $55--it could have been a pickup load.
At 10:35 p.m., Bruce White said he had just received a request for
a continuance from Mr. Sullivan.
Commissioner Throop said they would probably agree to take the
rebuttal testimony this evening, leave the record open for written
response, and then establish at date when the Board would make its
decision. Commissioner Maudlin asked Mr. Sullivan if he had made
the request so that he could submit his rebuttal in writing. Mr.
Sullivan said they could go either way, whatever the Board desired.
Commissioner Maudlin said they would be willing to leave the
hearing open for a few days for the submission of written rebuttal
before making a decision. In response to a question from the
audience, Commission Throop explained that rebuttal was an
opportunity to respond to the other side's arguments which were
heard at this public hearing and did not constitute new testimony
but could contain new evidence. After further discussion, Chair
Throop announced that they would take oral rebuttal from proponents
and opponents this evening, then anyone who wanted to submit
additional information in writing could do so, and a decision would
be made at a prearranged time.
Proponents rebuttal testimony:
Lewis Scott said concerning Mr. Ergenbright's testimony about the
value of the rural environment, that good quality construction
material was also valuable and must be protected. He pointed out
that the use of the Marken site would be temporary and would be
completed in 3-5 years. The Century West report which said the
Rose site had 7.2 million cu. yds. of fill material was based on
"intuition." The only testing that had been done were backhoe test
holes which went to a maximum depth of 15 feet which would compute
out to 1.6 million cu. yds. His original estimate had been 3-4
million cu. yds., and he still felt there was 3 million cu. yds.
at the site.
Commissioner Throop asked if the Marken site were given similar
conditions as the Rose pit, how much material would he estimate
would be available for mining. Mr. Scott said the 3-1 slopes
condition would remove approximately 20% of the material from
mining. The same restrictions had not been previously placed on
the Marken site because it was a much smaller area (30 acres) than
the Rose site, and should be mined all at once time. This would
allow the entire 30 acres to be stripped of the top soil which was
more efficient and would reduce the dust. It would also allow the
site to be completed more rapidly and, therefore, reclaimed sooner.
Commissioner Throop asked if the site could mined in 5 acre cells
and Mr. Scott said it could, but he did not know whether it would
be economical to do so.
PAGE 17 MINUTES: 12-12-90
C106 0094
Mr. Scott said that if there wasn't enough top soil to make the
berms, then the select material would be used for berms and
recovered later. High quality fill was not available at other
sources in the general area. Since this would be a long, sloping,
evenly graded site, it would not be a 2-1 slope all the way around
and would not be a deep hole. It was his professional judgement
that the Rose site could not be used economically because of the
restrictions. If the Marken site was not approved, there would be
a monopoly. If it were approved and operating prior to the Rose
site, the monopoly would only be temporary until the Rose site went
into production.
Daniel Seeman regarding the safety of bicyclist and pedestrians
using Rickard Road and Arnold Loop that only 5% of the truck
traffic or one truck trip per hour during peak traffic would be
headed to the east on Rickard Road. Truck traffic would generally
be going at a slower speed than general traffic. There had been
no reports to the County regarding speeding problems on Rickard
Road, and there had been only three reported accidents in the last
five years. He said the one fatal accident would not have been
avoided had the landfill been eliminated or the road
characteristics been changed since it was the result of drunk
driving.
Commissioner Maudlin said that previously Mr. Seeman had testified
that the site distance both directions from the road, which would
enter the Marken site, was in excess of 1,200 feet. Commissioner
Maudlin said the traffic traveling to the east would take a curve
that was somewhat lower and wondered whether there would be a site
problem for people coming to the stop sign and turning left (to the
west). Mr. Seeman said that vehicles heading northbound and making
a left turn onto Rickard Road would have a problem looking up the
hill to the east. However the truck driver coming out of the site
would be able to see the traffic at the stop sign clearly.
Al Duble said there were low ambient noise levels in the area. On
Rickard Road the automobiles set the background noise at about 63,
and then the trucks would add another 3. During the daytime he
doubted anyone could hear the back up signal unless they were as
close as the Marcottes and Manwillers, and since this equipment
would not operate at night, there wouldn't be a problem then. He
said the berm might have to go higher than 15 feet, he had just
estimated that height. The natural topography protected the house
in the northeast quadrant, so a berm was not needed there. The
elevation of the mining site was a gentle slope down from the
houses which was a better situation than at the Rose site where
there were numerous homes on the southwest bluff overlooking the
pit site. He didn't believe the Rose site could supply sand for
14 years and meet the DEQ regulations because of noise. Mining in
five acre increments was one way to reduce noise, but the Marken
site would be able to use semi-permanent noise barriers to block
PAGE 18 MINUTES: 12-12-90
Q06 0095
the noise. He said the trucks were relatively slow coming away
from the stop light even when empty. The fastest truck he clocked
was about 37 mph. The average automobile speed was 44-45 mph with
the highest at about 50 mph. With those speed relationships, he
found the noise level to be 63.
Commissioner Maudlin asked if the increased noise level on the
bluff southwest of the Rose site would also happen on the rock
bluff that was located on the northeast section of the Marken site.
Mr. Duble said he didn't think it would be as much because the
Marken site had a gentle slope up to the northeast corner of the
property while the bluff on the Rose site was abrupt.
Ed Sullivan said the Century West Engineering report indicated
there was "good stuff" on the Horse Ridge site. Aside from the
distance issue, what about quantity, quality and factoring this
site through the Goal 5 process. This site shouldn't be allowed
to be brought in this process at the end. The environmental issues
were matters for the Board to balance in the ESEE analysis. He
felt the hearings officer's opinion would have approved the Marken
site if it had been looked at without consideration of the Rose
site. The site was not within a wildlife corridor. He said the
Board had to consider tradeoffs--how to deal with the need for fill
and select fill within the urban growth boundary for construction.
They were not sure the Rose site could be used and certainly not
to the extent of the 7.5 million cu. yds. which had originally been
estimated at that site. Mr. Scott said that given the restrictions
on the Rose site, there was only 3 million cu. yds. of minable
material at the Rose site. ORS 215.185 allowed the County to
enforce site conditions. Fred Meyer got its fill from the Dodds
site which was now depleted.
Chair ThrooQ asked for opponent rebuttal testimony.
Bruce Tibert said this wasn't Portland and the noise levels that
would be considered good in Portland weren't acceptable in his
area. He was concerned that a two-to-one slope would be too steep.
It was difficult to get grass to grow without lots of water and
fertilizer. They would like to keep the community from further
development of pits. There was no evidence that the Rose site
would not be developed.
Ric Ergenbright said that when Rose & Associates realized they
couldn't use their site for residential development, because of the
Knott Landfill, they petitioned to have the site zoned for surface
mining. Commissioners Maudlin and Throop said they had not
remembered this coming out in the testimony for the Rose site. Mr.
Ergenbright was concerned that the closest property owners to the
surface mining sites would decide to request surface mining zoning
for their property rather than live next to surface mines. He felt
the Marken site was not the only available dirt pit with high
quality dirt. He said the environmental Goal 5 resources should
PAGE 19 MINUTES: 12-12-90
G job 0096
be equally considered. His property was over a mile from the
landfill, and he could hear the noise from the landfill even during
the day. He had never seen a truck going as slow as 35 mph on
Rickard Road. He read an article about the Bend area pointing out
that most visitors came to the high desert because of its quiet,
small-town ways, and the quality of life and clear air. He said
the County's July 12, 1990, report to LCDC stated that the County
inventory was complete.
Karen Marcotte said there were a number of accidents in this area
which were not reported. She felt the residents of this area had
already had their share of trade-offs with the landfill and the
Rose pit.
Michael Jeffries said he would be moving into a home that was 1,280
feet from the proposed site. He said there was available material
at the Moon pit which was not 17 miles from the urban growth
boundary but was 17 miles from the center of Bend and 13 miles from
the urban growth boundary. He felt the neighbors' need to maintain
the current rural setting was greater than that of the building
industry. The excavators had been spoiled because the Knott pit
sold dirt for $1.50 cu. yd. The costs would not increase that much
with each house. He felt there was a danger to the substation
should the wall cave in. Trucks coming from the east went very
fast when unloaded, and he had clocked one at 70 mph. Most cars
went 55 mph. He said shoulders on Rickard Road only went from 27th
to Arnold; the remainder was crumbling all the way to Gosney. He
wondered what assurance they had the DEQ standards would be met and
enforced.
Kevin McBride said that the Commission should plan for the future
of this growing community and place surface mining pits further out
of town.
Gary Fowles said the trucks did not go slower than the cars in this
area. He thought the County had reliable data when it included the
7.5 million cu. yds. of dirt at the Rose site. He had two children
who would be going to the new school which was being built across
from the County Public Works Department, and he was concerned about
the children walking on roads without shoulders with big trucks
going by. He felt the increase in the costs of buying dirt at the
Horse Ridge site was a small price to pay to have the conflicting
issues out of the residential area.
Chair Throop said that written comments would be accepted until 5
p.m. on Thursday, December 20, 1990; and the decision would be made
on Friday, December 21, 1990. No testimony would be taken at the
meeting on December 21, 1990, however everyone was welcome to
attend.
PAGE 20 MINUTES: 12-12-90
C106 0097
DESCHUTE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
To Thro Chair
Lois Bristo Prante, Commissioner
r
Dick Maudlin, Commissioner
BOCC:alb
PAGE 21 MINUTES: 12-12-90