2003-1155-Minutes for Meeting August 06,2003 Recorded 8/11/2003COUNTY OFFICIAL
TES
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKOS CJ 1003-i�55
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 08/11/Z003 03;28;Z6 PM
111111111 u111111111111 11■11 oil
2003-1358
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
CERTIFICATE PAGE
This page must be included
if document is re-recorded.
Do Not remove from original document.
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1130 NW Harriman St., Bend, OR 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF MEETING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2003
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building
1130 NW Harriman St., Bend
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Tom De Wolf and Michael M. Daly.
Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Kyle Gorman, Watermaster;
George Read and Paul Blikstad, Community Development Department; Anna
Johnson, Susan Ross and Connie Thomas, Commissioners' Office; Renee Warner,
Building Services; Jenny Scanlon, Juvenile Community Justice; and Laurie
Craghead, Legal Counsel.
Also in attendance were media representatives Chris Barker of the Bulletin, Jeff
Mullins of KBND radio, Emily Apel of Z-21 TV, and Barney Lerten of bend. com
and The Bugle; former County Commissioner Linda Swearingen; and eleven other
citizens.
Chair Dennis Luke opened the meeting at 10: 00 a.m.
1. Before the Board was Citizen Input.
None was offered.
2. Before the Board was a Drawing for Winners of Various Prizes from the
County's Fair Booth Entry Forms.
Stop smoking/nicotine patch set: Maria Elder of Bend
Skid car training: Adele Moilanen of Redmond, Beth Wilson
of Tumalo, and Lori Willmon of Bend
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, August 6, 2003
Page 1 of 17 Pages
Lunch with Commissioners: Charles Goddard of Bend, Dustin Hewitt of
Redmond, and Michael Addington of Bend
Two hours hauling/yard cleanup: James Larson of Bend
Commemorative birth certificate: Anna Bighaus of Bend
Backyard composters: Pat Myers of La Pine, Wendie Herkamp of
Redmond, and Dick Bryant of Redmond
Landfill disposal certificates: Tom Whiscarson of La Pine, Garrett Camp
of Bend, Rudy Paulson of Sunriver, Richard
& Diana Frank of Bend, Carol Campbell of
Crescent, and Marianne Goddard of Bend
Dog license or pet ID tag: Beth Wilson of Tumalo, Florence Opliger of
Bend, Jackie Jackson of Redmond, and
Wendie Herkamp of Redmond
Child auto booster seats: M. E. Hanson of Redmond, Mark Johnson
of Redmond, Doris Cain of Redmond,
Jessica Joie of Redmond, Alex Walker of
Bend, Ray & Pattie Camacho of Bend, Jean
Pauley of Bend, Chuck Forward of
Terrebonne, C. Luck of Redmond, and
Shaun Lamar of La Pine
Hand-crafted bird houses: Kim Griffin of Prineville, Jacky Berthold of
Bend, and Myrna Dowse of Redmond
3. Before the Board was the Announcement of the Senate Candidate Selected
to Complete the Term of Former Senator Bev Clarno.
Commissioner Daly read his prepared statement to the audience, as follows.
First, let me say that this was not an easy decision. I would like to comment
about each of the candidates before naming my selection.
Gene Whisnant has a lot of energy. For someone who is retired, you would
never know it. I do not know him personally as well as I know Linda and Ben,
but I have had the pleasure of working with him as Chair of the Board of the
Commission on Children and Families.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, August 6, 2003
Page 2 of 17 Pages
He is also a tireless leader of the local Republican Party, and is well respected
by all of the people who work with him. Gene is an up and coming leader in
the political arena, and we will be seeing a lot more of him in the near future.
I consider Linda Swearingen a friend. When I was elected to this office, even
though I had given her a very hard time during the campaign, and even called
for her resignation at one point, when the vote was over and I had won, she
showed what a true professional she is. She went out of her way to help me in
the transition from private life to public life, and made me feel at home in the
Commissioners' Office even before I officially took over.
Shortly after leaving public life, she went right to work helping women who
were recently released from jail and had nowhere to go. Many of the less
fortunate citizens of Deschutes County are much better off today because of
Linda Swearingen.
Ben Westlund is another person who has made a difference to the citizens of
Deschutes County and the State of Oregon. I remember when he first started
running for State Representative and made appearances before our local
Builders' Association. He was elected on his first try and over the years I have
watched him move up in the leadership ranks of the House to become the
seasoned veteran he is today.
He supported me in my run for County Commission even when it might have
been unpopular in some circles to do so. During my eight years on the Oregon
Construction Contractors' Board, Ben and I worked together on the budget and
legislation pertaining to the Contractors' Board for the benefit of both
contractors and consumers. I think Ben Westlund has proven to be a true
professional in the political arena, and the citizens of Deschutes County are
lucky to have him.
Now, for my decision.
I have no doubt that all three candidates could be effective and would do a great
job if appointed. However, in my mind there are two overriding factors that
affect my decision.
1. It is vital that this Senate seat is filled soon by someone who knows
the process. I know how long it took for me to learn this job to a point
where I can be an effective leader and make informed decisions. It is
not something you learn overnight.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, August 6, 2003
Page 3 of 17 Pages
2. Another big factor in my decision is that there is only one candidate
who has been elected by the citizens of Deschutes County on
numerous occasions to represent them in Salem.
My selection to fill the Senate seat vacated by Bev Clarno is Ben Westlund.
Commissioner De Wolf then gave his statement, which follows.
I would first of all like to thank the Republican Central Committee for putting
forth three really high quality candidates. I think that the organizers at the
Central Committee meeting on Saturday did a terrific job, and they spent a lot
of hours in preparation for that meeting.
In fact, I've actually saved a couple of the voicemails I've gotten because they
are quite entertaining. People have a variety of viewpoints; I've had individuals
suggest that the best thing that we could do in order to get Neil Bryant back in
the Senate is for each of us to pick a different candidate so the Governor would
then choose Neil Bryant.
No matter whom we select today, there are going to be people who agree with
that decision and there are going to be people who disagree with it. That's what
we find out when we run for elective office. You make some people mad, and
you make some people happy, and then sometimes you switch that around. So
I'm perfectly satisfied with the way that the process went and the result of that
process. It's the way it is set up, and it has worked very smoothly.
One of the things that is an overriding factor for me is experience. Gene, you
said yesterday that perhaps experience isn't as important for this position. But
without your experience with the Commission on Children and Families, your
experience leading the Republican Central Committee, and your experience in
the military, there's no way you would have been sitting here yesterday, talking
with us.
And, for me, I don't know if Tip O'Neill was the first one to say this; but the
concept that all politics is local is important. You've gotten your feet wet in
local politics by being on the Commission on Children and Families. And
Linda has been Mayor of Sisters and a County Commissioner.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, August 6, 2003
Page 4 of 17 Pages
And as far as I'm concerned, if I could wave my magic wand there would be no
federal legislator who hadn't first served as a state legislator; and there would be no
state legislator who hadn't first served as a local elected official. The state requires
us to carry on a lot of their mandates, and there are so many people in Salem who
don't understand what it is to work in local government, and to provide human
services to people who need them right here in our local communities.
This was tough and, Gene, I want to encourage you to stay in this and run for
something. It doesn't matter to me if it's the school board, or city council or
County Commission, whatever -- I think it's an important bit of experience for
people to have as they step over to Salem to represent us.
For me, at that point it came down to two other people who I respect very
highly, and they are Linda and Ben. I have no doubt that Gene could do this
job; and in the long term, if all I was considering was the long term, this would
have been a much more difficult decision. But we've got a budget that is
happening right now, and a 15/14 split in the Senate that we need to make
15/15. So, short-term it had to be the person who can best step into this
position.
For me, this came down to Ben's knowledge of the budget and his ability to step
into that; I think this tipped the scales for me. I hope that you put your name in
for this position in the District the next time. I'm also going to support Ben for
this position.
Commissioner Luke then provided his comments, as follows.
As has happened many times in the past, they don't need my vote. Thanks,
guys! (Audience laughter)
All of the candidates are very qualified. There is no question in my mind about
that. They have all worked very hard in the community and have been very
active in the community, and there's no question at all that these candidates
could handle this job.
There's been a temptation as we go through this process to look at the politics of
the Capitol building. Because, clearly, with the selection that has been brought
forward, we'll be short one legislator in there in this session as it is winding
down. And that means a lot.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, August 6, 2003
Page 5 of 17 Pages
There are very few legislators from the East Side to start with, and to be short one
at this time in the session isn't the best situation. In the end, I tried to put myself
in the place of the Deschutes County voters, and who would they choose in their
selection process. And by that, I don't mean just the Republican voters. This
Senator represents not only the Republicans, but also the Independents and the
Democrats, and those who choose not to vote, and those who can't vote because
they are too young or for some other reason. So I tried to put myself there.
One of the reservations I had about Gene is that he was not very specific in his
answers to our written questions and our oral questions. And I think part of that
comes from, and is one of the benefits of, going through a campaign. Because
not only do the voters get to know your views; you have to know yourself. You
come to learn a lot about yourself as you go through a campaign, and what you
believe, and it is put to the test. It's quite an experience, and until you've done
that sometimes it is very difficult bring your issues and views to the forefront.
Linda. After the questionnaire, I was leaning very heavily towards Linda.
Linda is the only candidate of the three that has been elected countywide. She
has been elected by all the voters in Deschutes County. Ben has gone through a
lot of elections, but he has never run within the City of Bend, so almost half the
population of this County has never had an opportunity to vote for him. He
does represent Bend, though. There is no question that anybody who comes
from the Central Oregon area and goes to the Legislature has always
represented the whole area, not just those voters who sent the person there.
Linda is a worthy opponent in debate, and she is also a very strong ally, when
she agrees with you. (Audience laughter) She is very clear in her views, and
she gives you an honest opinion. We have disagreed on some issues, but I don't
think it has ever been personal; I believe it has always been business, and I
respect her for that. She has demonstrated she can make the tough decisions
and move on, and she has a lot of local government experience.
I served with Ben for two years. And in many cases when I was there after the
doors were shut, Ben was there also. He has worked very hard for our area, and
he has experience and an understanding of the legislative process.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, August 6, 2003
Page 6 of 17 Pages
(To the other Commissioners) As we were going out to a meeting at the Solid
Waste Department today, one of the reasons I pulled back and you followed me
into the High Desert Middle School parking lot is that on their reader board, it
says, "Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm." The sea is not calm
over there. And that's the thing that swayed my vote, so I will join my fellow
Commissioners in voting for Ben Westlund to replace Bev Clarno.
DALY: Move that Ben Westlund be selected to fill the Senate position
vacated by Bev Clarno.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Note: A copy of the statement sent to the Secretary of State confirming the
selection of Ben Westlund is attached as Exhibit A.
4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2003-
370, an Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and the
State of Oregon Water Resources Department regarding the Assistant
Watermaster Program.
Kyle Gorman, the Regional Manger for the South Central Region for the
Oregon Water Resources Department, explained that this is an ongoing
agreement for partial funding of the Assistant Watermaster and clerical staff.
He also introduced Jeremy Giffin, the Watermaster for the Deschutes Basin.
Mr. Gorman said that staff doubles when the County contributes; this adds one
person. This agreement enhances the Watermaster's ability to respond to local
water issues.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, August 6, 2003
Page 7 of 17 Pages
5. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2003-
368, an Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and the
State of Oregon regarding the Funding of a Long-term Residential
Treatment Program.
Jenny Scanlon stated that regarding budget impacts, there are none. The
funding is based on the number of youth in the program, and is pass-through
Medicaid dollars. If the funding goes away, there is no obligation to the County
at that point. She then clarified how the therapists' schedules are arranged.
DEWOLF: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
6. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Document No. 2003-
183, an Improvement Agreement for the Estates at Pronghorn Phase 2.
Laurie Craghead said that she has reviewed the agreement, and is only waiting
for some bonding information. She said it is basically the same agreement as
the one for Phase 1, with different dollar amounts. It covers the roads and
utilities within Phase 2.
DEWOLF: Move approval, subject to legal review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
7. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on an Appeal of the Hearings
Officer's Denial of a Conditional Use Permit for a Non -Farm Dwelling on a
Property Zoned EFU-TE (Canyons Land and Cattle Co. — File #CU -01-96).
Paul Blikstad read the preliminary statement, and referred to an overhead that
explained the criteria. (A copy of the preliminary statement is attached as
Exhibit B; and a copy of the criteria is attached as Exhibit C.)
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, August 6, 2003
Page 8 of 17 Pages
Question within preliminary statement regarding pre -hearing contacts, biases
and conflicts of interest:
Commissioner Daly indicated that he knows both parties, and knows where
the property is, but has had no discussions on this particular application.
Commissioner Luke said that he has not had specific contacts regarding this
application, but the whole project was subject to legislative action when he
was in the Legislature.
Commissioner DeWolf stated that he has toured the area.
Question regarding challenges from the public:
None were offered.
At this time Mr. Blikstad referred to an oversized map to help explain the
location of the property to the Commissioners. There are two tax lots, but one
legal lot of record. The ultimate goal is to place one dwelling on the lot of
record.
BLIKSTAD:
The original hearing before the Hearings Officer was held on December 8,
2001. I do need to state for the record that staff could not find the tapes for that
hearing, so we did not require the applicant to provide us with a transcript.
The Hearings Officer denied the application, and based her denial solely on the
fact that she found that the proposed homesite was not generally unsuitable for
farm use. In other words, she found that it was generally suitable for farm use.
The applicant appealed, and as you know, the Sisters Forest Planning
Committee also appealed, but withdrew their appeal and we are proceeding
with the applicant's appeal.
The Hearings Officer did find that the proposed dwelling did meet all of the
other criterion, including the other two important criteria. One of those is that
the proposed non-farm dwelling or activities associated with the dwelling will
not force a significant change in or significantly increase the cost of accepted
farming practices. The other is that the proposed non-farm dwelling does not
materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of the area.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, August 6, 2003
Page 9 of 17 Pages
LUKE:
Did the applicant bring in a soils engineer?
BLIKSTAD:
Yes, but not originally.
LUKE:
So the Hearings Officer did not have the benefit of the applicant bringing a soils
engineer in for the application.
BLIKSTAD:
That's correct. What they did provide us in their latest submittal was a soils
report by Steve Wert of Wert & Associates. He's a consulting soil scientist.
And an agricultural suitability report for the proposed homesite from Miles &
Associates.
It had been our recommendation originally for approval, because we felt the
soils were poor, based on our site visit. And this just confirms what we had
observed. So we are still recommending approval.
LUKE:
Are the soils poor because it is bad ground, or are the soils poor because of rock?
BLIKSTAD:
It's primarily rock. It's really rocky near the cliff, and then it's less rocky as you
get away from the cliff.
DALY:
We're only talking about the actual homesite; just where the house would be?
BLIKSTAD:
Right.
LUKE:
The homesite has to be roughly unsuitable for farming.
BLIKSTAD:
Unless you have any questions or comments, that's all I have.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, August 6, 2003
Page 10 of 17 Pages
NANCY CRAVEN:
My name is Nancy Craven, and I represent the owners of Canyons Ranch. I,
too, will make my comments brief, but I want to advise the Board as to what we
have been doing since the Hearings Officer's decision more than a year ago.
And also to summarize, if you'd like me to, the two soils studies that have been
introduced, since you are hearing this de novo.
At the original hearing, the Hearings Officer didn't have, as you mentioned, the
soils study and the agriculture economist study, with which we have since
supplemented the record. That demonstrates that the lot is predominately class
7, and is unsuitable for crops and agricultural production. The evidence is
uncontroverted, and the other appeal that had been filed has been withdrawn by
Paul Dewey for the Sister Forest Planning Committee. And we appreciate
staff s recommendation initially and also now with regard to the approval.
The Hearings Officer made her decision without a site visit, and didn't have the
benefit of the technical data that we now have submitted. And even she
recognized in her decision that the soils could be 7 and 8, but she really couldn't
tell by the map; and made her decision despite that evidence. I think now, in
front of you, you have significantly better evidence than she did.
I would be pleased to summarize and go through those reports if you would like
me to, but they are in the record.
(The Board indicated this would not be necessary)
CRAVEN:
So, we would urge you to support the staff recommendation and approve the
request for this non-farm dwelling.
Paul Dewey would like to speak to you next week with regard to the withdrawal
of his appeal, and I told him I have no objection to that and will be here next
week in the event that we need to respond to that. But, let me tell you that our
conversations with Paul during the course of the last several months have been
very positive.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, August 6, 2003
Page 11 of 17 Pages
And we have reviewed with him not only this particular non-farm dwelling, but
every other potential non-farm dwelling application that we intend to file for
that project. Our conversations have been wide-ranging; and have resulted in
an agreement with the Sisters Forest Planning Committee; and has also
involved their conversations with other environmental groups and with
neighbors. We were very pleased with the cooperation, and we think the long-
term relationship that will come from those conversations.
To give you a sense of where this project is headed, and I know you are all
familiar with it and aware of the plan, we have specifically provided for the
preservation of all farmland that has been historically farmed on the property.
Within the CC & R's we are providing for their preservation in perpetuity.
We have also agreed with the Sisters Forest Planning Committee and the
Deschutes Basin Land Trust to put all of the land of the ranch that's located on
the east side of the Crooked River into a conservation easement, which will be
managed and preserved by the Deschutes Basin Land Trust. That is a key piece
of land, as it is adjacent to Smith Rock Park and the Grasslands, and it will be
preserved essentially in its natural state with no development on it of any kind.
We have worked with Paul Dewey and the Deschutes Basin Land Trust to
insure that this is completed in the near future, and a binding letter of intent has
already been signed. We have also worked with and agreed with the Sisters
Forest Planning Committee on the siting of future dwellings. We've agreed in
this settlement agreement with Mr. Dewey to insure that all future dwelling
applications, which obviously need to go through a process, will be sited on
class 6 and 7 soils. They will also be reviewed and approved by both our soils
scientist and the agricultural economist.
Mr. Dewey has agreed not to oppose those homesites, assuming that we jump
through those hoops prior to filing the application. He has also taken the next
step, I think, by agreeing to cooperate with us in discussing this project in the
event that people do raise issues with regard to any of our future homesites. He
is prepared to work with us to accommodate concerns or to indicate the benefit
of this agreement in the bigger picture, with regard to anyone who would
oppose the homesites.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, August 6, 2003
Page 12 of 17 Pages
The last thing that's in the agreement with Mr. Dewey is that we have agreed to
undertake significant riparian and river restoration in the Crooked River area.
As you all know, that's an issue that is near and dear to Mick Humphrey's heart,
and he is engaged in conversations with Mr. Dewey; this is included in the
settlement agreement.
So we do intend to proceed with some future applications, and will do those
consistent with the agreement that we've reached here. I think this agreement is
important, and lays the groundwork for how this project will proceed. We
recognize that we have processes to go through to get there, but I think it has
been a very productive period of time to lay out the plan of attack for this piece
of dirt. It's a very important piece for the County, I think, and the agreements
with the Sisters Forest Planning Committee, conversations with others, and then
the conservation easement with the Deschutes Basin Land Trust are also
important steps.
I would be pleased to go through more detail with you about the non-farm
dwelling that is subject to this application, but I believe the evidence in the
record is not contested at this point, and is very complete with regard to its
unsuitability for farm use.
LUKE:
I do have a comment. I am troubled when land use policy that is supposed to be
set by elected officials is set by agreement of private parties outside the view of
the general public during the course of those negotiations. I'm not faulting what
you did, and I understand why you did it.
I just find myself troubled that the ultimate decision comes here, and to avoid
appeals, to do things that may not be in the best interests of citizens. Not that
yours aren't, but there is the possibility that those kinds of agreements could do
things that may not be in the best interests of other pieces of ground. They can
set precedent for other pieces of ground where people may not be willing to
make those kinds of concessions. That troubles me.
CRAVEN:
If I could respond to that, maybe I overstated it. Many of the topics discussed
with Paul Dewey were already agreed to by the applicant. The CC & R's for the
project already provide for the preservation of the farmland, and as you know,
the Meadows out there are already under the CC & R's and were preserved.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, August 6, 2003
Page 13 of 17 Pages
His reaction to the development plan was very positive, in and of itself. A lot
of these other steps documented the development plan. Mr. Dewey recognized
that, and perhaps he will discuss this next week.
DEWOLF:
I have a couple of things. I respect what you said. It seems to me that it is part
of the responsibility of both our staff and attorneys is to make sure that
whatever agreement is appropriate. The example that jumps into my mind is
back when Broken Top was looking at expanding, and there was a bunch of
opposition because of access at the forestlands and whatever, and the
developers got together with the school district, the neighbors, and others who
were opposed, and before they ever went to a public hearing, ironed out
everything. What they brought to the table at the public hearing was something
that everybody agreed to and was happy with.
Technically, you are right, that was done outside of the public process. But I
think that is up to the developer to bring forth a project that is not only going to
keep potential opponents happy, but it is going to pass muster with the law as
interpreted by our staff and our attorneys.
The only other piece of this that I find frustrating is that my understanding is
that every single one of these lots is going to require a separate land use action.
As we discussed yesterday with a couple of the candidates, this is just crazy that
some of the requirements we end up with in land use - protecting what we have
in this state has succeeded quite well. But I think we go 'way overboard
sometimes, and this seems to be a classic case of something where, why can't
we do all the lots at once. It doesn't make any sense to me. That's a frustration
with the law.
CRAGHEAD:
They could be done all at once, but they would still be separate applications.
DEWOLF:
I understand that, but to have all the separate applications, I mean, no matter
what you do they are separate issues instead of one grand master plan.
BLIKSTAD:
You can't do that in the EFU zone outside of a destination resort.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, August 6, 2003
Page 14 of 17 Pages
DEWOLF:
Maybe this should have been a destination resort. That's a whole other issue.
We'd have a sewer system in Terrebonne if we had done this right.
LUKE:
From legal counsel's standpoint, what is the official thing we do here? Is this
hearing recessed?
CRAGHEAD:
It could be continued until a date and time certain, which I am assuming is the
August 13, 10 a.m. Board meeting.
BLIKSTAD:
One other thing. We received a letter from the applicant's attorney's office,
stating that they continued the 150 -day review period to August 31. So we will
have to make a decision by the end of the month.
DALY:
I will be on vacation during the last week of August.
LUKE:
The decision will be made next Wednesday.
CRAGHEAD:
Then it's a matter of it getting written and signed by at least two of you, if it is
approved.
BLIKSTAD:
We were also going to request that their counsel write the decision.
LUKE:
The Chair on numerous occasions has requested that the applicant's counsel
write the decisions for the review of our legal counsel.
CRAVEN:
Is it possible for us to begin working on something with staff this week, in
anticipation of next week, since Mr. Dewey has withdrawn his appeal?
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, August 6, 2003
Page 15 of 17 Pages
LUKE:
I would work on two scenarios if I were you. Yes, you could do that. The
hearing will be continued to August 13, 10 a.m. or as soon as we get to that
agenda item at the meeting. The record is open for written testimony between
now and then.
Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda.
8. Signature of a Letter Appointing Peter Murray of Redmond to the Crisis
Resolution Center Board of Directors.
DEWOLF: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
9. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District, in the
Amount of $450.28.
DALY: Move approval, subject to review.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
10. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County, in the Amount of $424,851.31.
DALY: Move approval, subject to review.
DEWOLF: Second.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, August 6, 2003
Page 16 of 17 Pages
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
11. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
None were offered.
Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair Luke adjourned the
meeting at 11: OS a.m.
DATED this 6A Day of August 2003 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
M. Daly,,Zommissioner
Attachments
Exhibit A: Statement for Secretary of State confirming the selection of Ben
Westlund to fulfill Bev Clarno's vacated Senate position (3 pages)
Exhibit B: Preliminary Statement regarding the public hearing on the Canyons
Land & Cattle Company Land Use Appeal (2 pages)
Exhibit C: The Criteria referred to in the public hearing on the Canyons Land &
Cattle Company Land Use Appeal (1 page)
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, August 6, 2003
Page 17 of 17 Pages
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY
In the matter of
Filling the Vacancy in the Legislative Assembly,
State Senate, District 27
WHEREAS, pursuant to state law, the Republican Party Precinct
Committeepersons in Senate District 27 made nominations to fill the vacancy;
and
WHEREAS, in accord with procedures established by the Secretary of
State, the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County considered the
nominations at a public meeting on August 6, 2003; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public meeting the Commissioners
voted to appoint (nominee) Ben Westlund to fill the vacancy, said
nominee having received the highest number of votes as indicated on the vote
tabulation attached as Exhibit A,
NOW, THEREFORE, Ben Westlund is selected as the appointee to
fill the vacancy in the Legislative Assembly, State Senate District 27;
This Statement shall promptly be forwarded to the Secretary of State as -
required by ORS 171.060(3).
Exhibit A
Page ! of
ADOPTED this 6th day of August, 2003.
By:
Dennis Luke, Chairperson
Deschutes County
Tom DeWolf, Co io
Deschutes County
ike Daly, Commiss' per
Deschutes County
Attest: ( Okty -&
Recording Secretary
Exhibit eq_
Page of
EXHIBIT A
VOTE TABULATION
In the matter of filling the vacancy in the Legislative Assembly, State Senator,
Twenty -Seventh District, the following votes were cast at the public meeting held
on August 6, 2003:
Deschutes County
Board of Conunissioners
Dennis Luke,
Chairperson
Tom DeWolf,
Commissioner
Mike Daly,
Commissioner
NnminPP
Ben Westlund
Ben Westlund
Ben Westlund
Exhibit
Page --3 of -5
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT IN LAND
USE ACTION HEARINGS OR APPEALS
BEFORE THE BOARD
I. INTRODUCTION
A. This is a de novo hearing and is on the
appeal of the Deschutes County
Hearings Officer's denial of CU -01-96, a
nonfarm dwelling on a 55.45 -acre parcel
in the EFU-TE zone.
The Board's decision on this
application will be based upon the
record before the Hearings Officer,
the Hearings Officer's decision, the
Staff Report and the testimony and
evidence presented at this hearing.
IV. ORDER OF PRESENTATION
A. The hearing will be conducted in the
following order.
II.
BURDEN OF PROOF AND APPLICABLE
1. The staff will give a report.
CRITERIA
2. The applicant will then have an
A.
The applicant has the burden of proving
opportunity to offer testimony and
that they are entitled to the land use
evidence.
approval sought.
3. Proponents of the appeal will then be
B.
The standards applicable to the
given a chance to testify and present
application(s) before us are listed on the
evidence. When all other proponents
overhead.
have testified, opponents to the
appeal will then be given a chance to
C.
Testimony and evidence at this hearing
testify and present evidence.
must be directed toward the criteria set
forth in the notice of this hearing, the staff
4. After both proponents and opponents
report as well as toward any other criteria
have testified, the applicant(s) will be
in the comprehensive land use plan of
allowed to present rebuttal testimony
the County or land use regulations which
but may not present new evidence.
any person believes apply to this
decision.
5. At the Board's discretion, if the
applicant(s) presented new evidence
D.
Failure on the part of any person to raise
on rebuttal, opponents may be
an issue with sufficient specificity to
recognized for a rebuttal
afford the Board of County
presentation.
Commissioners and parties to this
proceeding an opportunity to respond to
6. At the conclusion of this hearing, the
the issue precludes appeal to the Land
staff will be afforded an opportunity to
Use Board of Appeals on that issue.
make any closing comments.
Additionally, failure of the applicant to
raise constitutional or other issues
7. The Board may limit the time period
relating to the proposed conditions of
for presentations.
approval with sufficient specificity to allow
the Board to respond to the issue B.
Cross-examination of witnesses will not
precludes an action for damages in
be allowed. A witness who wishes,
circuit court.
during that witness' testimony, however,
to ask a question of a previous witness
Ill.
HEARINGS PROCEDURE
may direct the question to the Chair. If a
person has already testified but wishes to
A.
Evidence to be reviewed by the Board.
ask a question of a subsequent witness,
that person may also direct the question
Page 1 of 2 -Chair's Openning Statement for Land Use Hearings
Exhibit 16
Page / of ;)-
-
to the Chair after all other witnesses observations; biases; or conflicts of
have testified but prior to the proponent's interest to declare? If so, please state
rebuttal. The Chair is free to decide the nature and extent of those.
whether or not to ask such questions of
the witness. B. Does any party wish to challenge any
Commissioner based on ex -parte
C. Continuances contacts, biases or conflicts of interest?
The grant of a continuance or record (Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed.)
extension shall be at the discretion of
the Board.
a. If the Board grants a continuance,
it shall continue the public
hearing to a date certain at least
seven days from the date of this
hearing or leave the written
record open for at least seven
days for additional written
evidence.
b. If at the conclusion of the hearing
the Board leaves the record open
for additional written evidence or
testimony, the record shall be left
open for at least at least seven
days for submittal of new written
evidence or testimony and at
least seven additional days for
response to the evidence
received while the record was
held open. Written evidence or
testimony submitted during the
period the record is held open
shall be limited to evidence or
testimony that rebuts previously
submitted evidence or testimony.
4. If the hearing is continued or the
record left open, the applicant shall
also be allowed at least seven days
after the record is closed to all other
parties to submit final written
arguments but no new evidence in
support of the application.
V. PRE -HEARING CONTACTS, BIASES,
CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS
A. Do any of the Commissioners have any
ex -parte contacts, prior hearing
Page 2 of 2 -Chair's Openning Statement for Land Use Hearings Exhibit
Page of 2.
The following is a list of the applicable criteria for application no. CU -
01 -96. Evidence and testimony at this hearing must be directed
toward these criteria. Testimony may be directed to any other criteria
in the County Comprehensive Plan or land use regulations which any
person believes apply to this decision:
Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, of the Deschutes County Code.
Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use zone — Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone
18.16.030, Conditional uses permitted — High value and nonhigh value farmland
18.16.040, Limitations on conditional uses
18.16.050, Standards for dwellings in the EFU zones
18.16.070, Yards
Title 22 of the County Code, Uniform Land Use Procedures Ordinance
Chapter 22.20, Review of land use action applications
Chapter 22.28, Land use action decisions
Chapter 22.32, Appeals
Title 23 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Oregon Administrative Rules, OAR 660, Division 33, Agricultural Land
Oregon Revised Statutes 215.417, Time to act under certain approved permits
Exhibit
Page �_ of �_