2010-2789-Minutes for Meeting August 04,2010 Recorded 8/17/2010DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlII
II VIII I~
2 10-2780
CLERKDS CJ 20+O~L189
081171201011;09;56 AM
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2010
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney.
Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy
County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Tom Anderson, Paul
Blikstad and Peter Russell, Community Development; media representative Hillary
Borrud of The Bulletin; and six other citizens.
Chair Luke opened the meeting at 10: 00 a. m.
1. Before the Board was Citizen Input.
Kerry Downs, who lives off Dodds Road, explained that there is a situation that
concerns him and his wife, which has to do with weddings on private property.
He has spoken with various people at Community Development, and said that
he and his wife are no longer hosting weddings and other events as a
commercial enterprise.
He recalls that it was said there is not a problem having events with family and
friends. He disclosed last year the dates they were holding weddings for
commercial purposes, which were booked in 2008. He got a letter that told him
to provide the contract dates up to a certain date. He disclosed a couple of
private events and a baby shower that were not commercial in nature.
He did not want to go through a repeat this year for personal events, so he
disclosed earlier this year that there would be some activities involving friends
and family. They were not being paid and these were not commercial in nature.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Page 1 of 10 Pages
He stated that he received an e-mail back and was told there could be a Code
violation anyway. He had a personal wedding, and found out that there were
several dates when an officer had come out to follow up. He was told that this
was at the discretion of the officer as part of an ongoing investigation. The
officer indicated that this was initiated by Community Development.
He spoke with Mr. Grundeman, who said that they had no way of knowing
whether these particular events were commercial in nature. He and his wife are
well established in the area, have a lot of family and friends here, and four
weddings is not out of the ordinary for them. He won't tell family and friends
they are not welcome to use his property for these kinds of things.
He wants to know why County resources are being used in this manner, since
he already said what he is doing there. There are some people who don't have
anything better to do than watch what he is doing. The County was aware of all
but one of these personal events.
Commissioner Baney stated that it appears that there might be some over-
zealousness if this is the case. She does not believe that this is in the spirit of
what they had discussed in the past. Commissioner Luke stated that he'd like to
hear both sides of the story.
Commissioner Unger said that this is a difficult issue that has been a problem
for some time. The Officer is probably trying to validate or follow-up on any
calls that come in. It is a State issue and the State is not helping with it, which
leaves the County in a difficult place. He does not see a resolution yet, but this
is an issue throughout the State and is not unique to Deschutes County. It could
be that others hosting events say that they are having private events but aren't,
and it is hard to find a balance. People are very sensitive about this issue.
Commissioner Baney stated there is an outdoor mass gathering law, depending
on the size of the gathering. She assumes that the private events he his hosting
are not big enough to fit into that.
Mr. Downs stated that he disclosed in advance what he would be doing so that
there would be no misunderstanding. If he was having commercial events, it
would be busy every weekend. He resents having a case file number and being
watched over in this manner when he is just hosting family and friends for
weddings, birthday parties and other personal events.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Page 2 of 10 Pages
Commissioner Baney will seek clarification, since if this is the case it could be
happening to others.
No other citizen input was offered.
2. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of an Order Directing the
Permanent Closure of Deschutes-Pleasant Ridge Road at the Intersection
of Highway 97.
Tom Blust and Pat Creedican and Joel McCarroll of the Oregon Department of
Transportation came before the Board. Mr. Blust said the Board held a work
session on June 29 to discuss this issue. ODOT has officially requested
permanent closure of this road for safety reasons. The turning movements and
high speed on the highway make it a hazardous location. This does not solve
all the safety issues there, but it should help. ODOT held an open house to get
public input. Mr. Creedican said there were probably 20 to 25 attendees at the
open house, and no one seemed strongly opposed to this closure.
Most of the citizens were more interested in the future of the area regarding a
potential access road or a median barrier. A few residents wanted the road to
remain right-out only, but there are few people living on Deschutes-Pleasant
Ridge Road that are impacted. Mr. Blust stated that the Sheriff's Posse asked
about the right-out only as well, but the Sheriff's Office is supportive of
permanent closure.
Commissioner Luke stated that the Board has discussed this issue in a work
session, and he has attended transportation meetings at which this situation was
addressed.
Mr. McCarroll gave an overview of the accident history of the intersection.
This would reduce the number of conflict points. Some were weather related.
Mr. McCarroll discussed what is being contemplated for the west side of
Highway 97. A frontage road has been discussed which would connect 61 '
Street straight down to Tumalo Road. It would require some redesign. The
most interest is from the residents who would be impacted by the frontage road.
No timeframe has been established because the cost is not known and other
projects have priority. It is still an important area to address due to the potential
for high speed traffic conflicts off Gift Road.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Page 3 of 10 Pages
Commissioner Luke said that the State Transportation Commission wants to
reduce access to the highway as much as possible, and this is a dangerous
section of road. It may be possible for a frontage road or other changes to be a
demonstration project, which would bring it up on the schedule. Many of the
property owners would be willing to give up right of way if it meant that they
would have better use of their property.
Commissioner Unger indicated that he has been told that the deceleration lane
for Tumalo Road going south on the highway is too short. Mr. Credican said
the same complaint has come in regarding the deceleration lane for Gift and
61St. Commissioner Unger would like more attention given to using refuge
lanes and other enhancements to come up with a model interchange for the
future.
Peter Russell said that he and Mr. Blust attended the public meeting, which was
well-received. Mr. Blust stated that he has spoken with Emergency Services
about installing a gate, and they said that a cul-de-sac and barricade would be
adequate and a gate is not needed. Therefore, the Order was revised to reflect
this.
Commissioner Unger said that the Sheriff's Posse was concerned that they were
not directly contacted. Mr. Blust stated that the Sheriff's Office was involved
but evidently they did not share this information with that group. Mr.
Creedican said that ODOT is working with them on access issues.
Upon being asked whether a public hearing is needed, Laurie Craghead stated
that this is not a land use issue and a hearing is not required. Commissioner
Luke said that it appears that ODOT is working with the Sheriff's Posse group
already.
Mr. Creedican stated that the school district is drawing up its transportation
plan, and wants to know this is to be closed prior to notifying parents.
Commissioner Luke indicated that in all likelihood this closure will happen.
The Order will be addressed at the Wednesday, August 11 Board business
meeting.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Page 4 of 10 Pages
3. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of an Order Establishing
a Rural Solid Waste Collection Area near Sisters.
Timm Schimke and Brad Bailey of High Country Disposal came before the
Board. Mr. Schimke said that turning over some responsibilities to the service
providers helps with County funding. High Country Disposal is working with
the City of Sisters to change the operation of the depot there. This would
establish curbside recycling in Sisters.
Mr. Bailey said that they will begin cart pickup of recycling next week. Mr.
Schimke stated that the areas were established in conjunction with the
collectors. There will be a rate increase but more services offered to customers.
Commissioner Unger asked if the City of Sisters is supportive of the changes.
Mr. Bailey said they are, and are helping with some surveillance to keep the
cost down.
BANEY: Move signature of Order No. 2010-044, Establishing a Rural Solid
Waste Collection Area near Sisters.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY:
UNGER:
LUKE:
Yes.
Yes.
Chair votes yes.
4. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No.
2010-546, Findings and Decision regarding a Landscape Management Site
Plan and Lot Line Adjustment (Applicant: Eitel).
Laurie Craghead gave a brief overview of the item. Commissioner Unger
expressed concern about the location of the structure. He asked if the process
had been followed, would the neighbor have any say over where it would be.
Ms. Craghead said that as long as it fits the setback criteria, it is allowed. It
also met the applicable landscape management zone provisions.
Commissioner Unger asked how the second story of the building would be
used. Ms. Craghead said that it cannot be used for living quarters. Tom
Anderson stated that it was stubbed out for plumbing and that is allowed for a
shop or garage. When a set of plans looks like it might be a residence, the
applicant has to sign a statement that it won't be used for that purpose. Ms.
Craghead added that the criterion is whether it has a full kitchen, but plumbing
is allowed.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Page 5 of 10 Pages
Commissioner Luke said that he has a real concern about the quality of the
footings, which were not inspected when installed. Mr. Anderson replied that
he has asked the inspector about this, and was told that it is exposed enough for
adequate inspection. The Building Division on a regular basis inspects
foundations after the fact, and it is felt that a satisfactory inspection can be
done.
Ms. Craghead said that the Board does not have authority over building code
issues anyway.
Mr. Kanner stated that the applicants have two years to carry out the approval
process. Ms. Craghead said that Code requires two years because it is part of
the land use process. Commissioner Luke does not like the idea of giving them
two more years.
Mr. Anderson said that the violation before the Board requires allowing two
years. However, he does not think the building code violation has to wait that
long. The Eitels have paid for most of the permitting and engineering, and he
feels they will proceed quickly. They have to get the boundary survey done
first. He does not think they will wait to proceed since they have no reason to.
Ms. Craghead said the land use portion addresses whether the building can
exist. The building permit code compliance is not part of this action as the
Board has no authority over building permits. Mr. Anderson stated that they
will work with them on the permitting process.
BANEY: Move Chair signature of Document No. 2010-546, the Eitel site plan
decision.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
5. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of an Order Amending
Order No. 2010-006, Limiting Deschutes County Financial Assistance for
Installation of a Nitrogen-reducing Onsite Wastewater System to the Cost
of the System.
Mr. Anderson said this only applies to the area subject to Order 2010-006,
having to do with septic system failures and other issues. This came up when
discussion occurred regarding proposed NeighborImpact programs.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Page 6 of 10 Pages
VOTE: BANEY:
UNGER:
LUKE:
Yes.
Yes.
Chair votes yes.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
10. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District (two
weeks) in the Amount of $9,095.07.
BANEY: Move approval, subject to review.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY:
UNGER:
LUKE:
Yes.
Yes.
Chair votes yes.
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
11. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County (two weeks) in the Amount of
$19803.314.07.
BANEY: Move approval, subject to review.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY:
UNGER:
LUKE:
Yes.
Yes.
Chair votes yes.
12. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
A. Before the Board were Deliberations and a Decision of a LUBA Remand of
the County's Decision regarding a Plan Amendment and Zone Change
from Exclusive Farm Use to Surface Mining (Millican - 4R Equipment).
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Page 8 of 10 Pages
Paul Blikstad provided a brief overview of the item. Letters were received but
the information brought up in the letters did not apply to the items that were
subject to the LUBA remand.
Commissioner Luke read a statement to the audience (a copy of which is
attached for reference).
Commissioner Baney agreed with his statement. She would like to see some
coordination between the parties regarding the timing of blasting and grazing.
Ms. Craghead said it is proper to address this aspect. The original decision does
condition for blasting upon prior written notification of the neighbors. This can
be added to the decision.
Commissioner Unger asked when the applicant has to submit a restoration plan.
Ms. Craghead said that this was not part of the hearing process at this time.
DOGAMI issues those permits, and this is a long time out in the future.
B. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Letter Appointing
William J. Rainey to the Deschutes County Planning Commission (Sisters
Area Representative), effective September 1, 2010 through June 30, 2014.
The Commissioners commented that all applicants were good and it was a
difficult choice.
BANEY: Move approval.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
The meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Page 9 of 10 Pages
DATED this Day ofG 2010 for the
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
D nnis R. Luke, air
614., uvt~,,-
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Alan Unger, Vice Chair
(*5M2
Tammy Baney, Com ' sioner
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Page 10 of 10 Pages
o BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest 01"e'`1 Date
Name UL/A"
Address 2 7 9 3r
Phone #s S-q
E-mail address
3~2.. X53 ~
In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided
Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? tom Yes F-] No
Meeting Si n-In Sheet
Project: Deschutes Pleasant Ridge Road
Meeting Date: July 29, 2010
Closure / US 97 Corridor Plan
Location: ODOT Region 4 Deschutes River
PLEASE PRINT!!
Conference Room
Name -
city
6-GCS'
Qua I~N~QI
elt ::p
Y
f~A C9 Se.r
Op aT
Ir
o
kO~~-14
v S- tJ'S
,P /Z
h'1 can
DA,VHD
v
44 V b~,hb9
F6;
AN n y Lo 1
~G'~1 f
US 97 Deschutes Pleasant Ridge Road - Safety Improvements Along US 97
Public Contact Information and Input
Name
Interest or Organization Yl$ (~7 l ( 6' I
Email Address
ff,,
Phone Number(s)J' ✓~~o~' y~ ~7~' y~'
Street Address or P.O. Box 73'ld
City 8,5-Ad
State `ML
Zi code % 7 7d
County c t'hG~
Best way to contact you (circle all that apply): Mailings Email Phone
Newspaper or radio Other:
What is important to you?' (Your concerns, needs, etc)
/Z;
l0 rh'-tf
/J
7
ideas, observations, others to contact, etc.)
What information do you have that could be important to us? (Your
y~
A, &Pte,
Please return this to: Rex Holloway, c/o ODOT, 63020 OB Riley Road, Bend, OR 97701
US 97 Deschutes Pleasant Ridge Road - Safety Improvements Along US 97
Public Contact Information and Input
Name
Interest or r anization
Email Address
Phone Number(s)
Street Address or P.O. Box
City
State
Zi ode
County
_4 Iql ell
v • 06 21
Best way to contact you (circle all that apply): Mailin Email Phone
ther:
Newspaper or radio
ncerns, needs, etc)
What is important to you? (Your c
o
44/
44 4
YL S5 jb_,4d7
,
04U4t~-e r ~'Pekl lw
contact, etc.)
What information do you have that could be Important to us? (Your ideas, observations, others to
~
plc
s i G AX W,
-elj
17
7'e - x, jVt
Please return this to: Rex Holloway, c/o ODOT, 63020 OB Riley Road, Bend, OR 97701
Y
~L:Gc~/ G~vc! C ~l CGGLf2tr ~j CSI f ` f`ly S .
US 97 Deschutes Pleasant Ridge Road - Safety Improvements Along US 97
Public Contact Information and Input
Name t' 1 ` a ,
Interest or Organization
Email Address
c, , 60-'e l
Phone Number(s)
Street Address or P.O. Box 53.3
s w IX l '
City
l
State C-W
zipcode -7-756
Coun PS G2 S
Best way to contact you (circle all that a 1)
n Phone
Newspaper or radio Ot
her:
What is important to you? (Your concerns, needs etc)
Xacee- UXOk ct
.~5 d y f q
/~'lf S ~4 N e ~'c~'s
zan -e
C/Gser- o~-- 00 ec~saii
r ~t pct
~Z So u~~l o uN~k
e- S 1,12 a
at
Cc e t t'.~ tx / i v
l~ i' ~I ivct
What information do you have that could be impo
rtant to us? (Your ideas, observations, others to contact, etc.)
Please return this to: Rex Holloway, c/o ODOT, 63020 OB Riley Road, Bend, OR 97701
4-R Equipment 2"d Remand Hearing
Dennis Luke Statement
Page 1 of 3
I vote to approve this application for the plan amendment and the
zone change from EFU to Surface Mining because I believe the applicant
met its burden of proof in showing that the impact area chosen by the
Board in the first decision is appropriate. While I understand the concerns
of the Nashes regarding their cattle grazing near the mining site and the
affect the mining might have on the Sage Grouse in the area, I believe that
the reports submitted by the applicant during this process on remand to be
more convincing.
LUBA remanded the decision a second time on the grounds that the
BOCC failed to consider grazing allotments outside the originally chosen
Y2-mile impact area. In that case, the Walkers argued that the County
failed to evaluate conflicts with the grazing allotments in the "Flat Pasture"
area on the Nashes' property. The applicant's consultant did evaluate the
Flat Pasture and the possible conflicts and did so adequately enough to
convince me that the BOCC's decision to limit the impact area to'/-mile
was appropriate. Additionally, the testimony by the Nashes about the
restrictions to their cattle because of possible impacts to the Sage Grouse
from the surface mining appears to me to be primarily speculation as
opposed to direct evidence of the likelihood of such impacts. The
4-R Equipment 2"d Remand Hearing
Dennis Luke Statement
Page 2 of 3
applicant's consultant provided a sufficient response in the applicant's
rebuttal that the sage grouse is no longer an issue. Thus, I do not believe
the surface mining activities will have an impact on the sage grouse such
that the grazing Nashes allotments will be affected.
I also agree with the consultant's response in the July 28, 2010 e-mail
that the LUBA remand was to reevaluate only the effects of the mining on
the Evans Wells Ranch. Nothing in that LUBA opinion addressed any other
surrounding grazing allotments and the issue was not raised at LUBA.
Therefore, the BOCC need not address that issue in this third round.
LUBA remanded the decision also on the grounds that the BOCC did
not adequately evaluate the affects of the surface mining on the grazing
allotments within the chosen Y2-mile impact area, including the noise from
the surface mine. Again, the applicant's consultant evaluated those
allotments and the noise impacts as well as the Flat Pasture and the
consultant's conclusions convince me that the surface mining activities will
not significantly affect those grazing allotments.
Therefore, for a third time, I vote to approve the 4-R Equipment
application. In addition, I find that, because of the narrow issues on
remand, any testimony about the sage grouse and its habitat is
4-R Equipment 2nd Remand Hearing
Dennis Luke Statement
Page 3 of 3
inadmissible except for the possible impacts on the nearby grazing
allotments. Furthermore, additional testimony regarding the pictographs
and the Pine Mountain Observatory are also inadmissible at this stage of
the process because LUBA denied the Petitioners' (Walkers') assignments
of error on those issues and they cannot be argued again now.
July 28, 20 10
Neil R. Bryant
Robert S. Lovhen
John A. Berge
Sharon R. Smith
John D. Sortie
Mark G. Reinecke
Melissa P. Lande
Kitri C. Ford
Paul J. Taylor
Kyle D. Wuepper
Jeremy M. Green
Helen L. Eastwood
Peter A. Christoff
Melinda Thomas
HAND DELIVERED
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW WALL ST.
BEND, OR 97701
Re: Walker vs. 4-R Equipment, LLC (Second Remand Hearing)
File No.: PA-04-8/ZC-04-6
Dear Commissioners:
This letter is being submitted as the Applicant's response to written public
testimony that was submitted in the above-captioned matter.
The issues raised by Minerva Soucie, Frankie Watson and Tammie and Clay
Walker have essentially been resolved in the prior decisions of the County
591 S.W. Mill View Way Commissioners.
Mail: P.O. Box 880
Bend, Oregon 97709 The letter from Keith and Janet Nash did, in fact, address issues that are before
Phone: (541) 382-4331 the County Commission in this remand hearing.
Fax: (541) 389-3386
Enclosed with this letter is the response from Roger Borine regarding the Nash
WWW.BULAWYERS.COM letter. We would ask that these comments be made a part of the record in this
matter.
Aside from that, Applicant has no further comment. Please call me if have any
questions.
Very truly yours,
Ltv~
ROBERT S. LOVLIEN
RSL/alk
Encl.
cc: 4-R Equipment, LLC
6829-084 110
g 2 E
010
JFlLQIU~L,
COMMISSION
ERS
AD14INiSTRAT10N
Bob Lovlien
From:
Roger Borine [rborine@bendbroadband.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:59 AM
To:
Bob Lovlien
Subject:
RE: 4-R Equipment/Spencer Wells Pit
Good Morning Bob,
I have reviewed the four letters of opposition for the 4R application.
I have no comments on the letters from Walker, Watson or Soucie.
Comments regarding the Nash letter:
1. P-2 Para 1 - I do not interpret that LUBA clearly defined the impact area as the Nash letter states. In the Nash
letter P-1, paragraph 1 "Remand is necessary .....and to determine the size of the impact area etc." One
reason for the remand was to determine an impact area based on whether "factual information indicates
significant potential conflicts" with grazing on those allotments and the "Flat Pasture" was determined to be the
impact area.
2. P-2 Para 3 - The remand did not ask to address the Millican or Pine Mtn Allotments. The permittees for these
allotments did not participate. Apparently they determined there would be no negative impacts on their cattle or
ranching operations.
3. P-2 Para 4 - Sage grouse appear to be an issue for the EWR management more than the SWM. It would
appear from the Nash letter their operations are being restricted as a result of grazing impacts on sage grouse
and if the SWM would negatively impact sage grouse they may face additional restrictions. Not knowing all the
background from the burden of proof and testimony, it would appear that BLM and ODFW have provided input on
sage grouse and issues have been resolved and are no longer an issue with LUBA.
4. P-2 Para 6-8 - The methodology used for determining range condition is consistent with that used by BLM.
During my discussions and reviews (3/23/2010) with the BLM Range Manager, there was no reference to allowing
supplemental feeding on the allotment. The planned use period and season of use for grazing were also provided
by BLM. No additional restrictions were identified in management plan for the Horse Ridge Allotment. I would
hope that EWR has an updated supplemental plan approved by BLM, but it has not been produced as evidence.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Roger
From: Amber Kirk [mailto:Amber@bijlawyers.com) On Behalf Of Bob Lovlien
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:06 AM
To: rborine@bendbroadband.com
Subject: 4-11 Equipment/Spencer Wells Pit
07/27/10
Roger: Attached are copies of opposition letters that the County has received. Please review these and give me a call
with your comments. Robert S. Lovlien.
July 22, 2010
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St
Bend, Or 97701-1960
RE: Second Remand Hearing from LUBA Appeal- 4-11 Equipment
Commissioners Baney, Luke and Unger,
Thank you for this opportunity for further testimony. As we stated at the hearing, this has been
a long process, with expensive legal counsel the entire time, but illustrates the degree to which
we fear harm if the zone change is allowed.
This application was flawed from the beginning; as we said at the first hearing in Dec 2004, Staff
was not even aware of the Walker residence, or the Sage Grouse issues. A valid case can be
made to ask the applicant to start over and reapply with all the information on the table.
IMPACT AREA
LUBA's order states the "county determination regarding the size of the impact area is flawed."
Remand is necessaryfor the county to consider all relevant evidence regarding all Evans Wells
Ranch grazing allotments that are in the vicinity and potentially affected by the proposed
mining operation, and to determine the size of the impact area based on whether 'factual
information indicates significant potential conflicts" with grazing on those allotments.
The Hearings Officer allowed a sizeable impact area; county commissioners chose to reduce it.
LUBA goes on to state:
Even if it presumed that the one-half mile impact area chosen by the county is justified for
purposes of OAR 660-023-0180(5) (a), remand is necessary in any case, because the county's
findings regarding conflicts with agricultural uses under OAR 660-023-0180 (5) (b) (E) also
appear to be based on the misapprehension that the only grazing within the impact area occurs
on the adjacent 40 acre parcel.
However, the Nashes submitted specific testimony regarding noise impacts on their grazing
operation, and the county's findings neither address that testimony nor demonstrate that
fencing and a 200 foot buffer area are sufficient to ensure that the mining operation will not
conflict with agricultural practices for purposes of OAR660-023-0180(5)(E)."'
BORINE REPORT
The applicant submitted an agricultural report that is deeply flawed, substantially incorrect.
The report calls the Flat Pasture the "impact area," though the LUBA order clearly defines the
impact area as all the pastures in the adjacent allotment, and the conflicts with agricultural
uses.
Petitioners are correct that, for the purposes of identifying conflicts with agricultural uses within
the impact area under the second step of Goal 5 process at OAR 660-023-0180 (5)(b)(E), the rule
is not concerned with the relative value significance of the agricultural use. Petitioners are also
correct that, as required under the third step of Goal 5 process, the county's decision does not
address ORS 215.296. or make any explicit effort to determine whether there are proposed
measures that would minimize conflicts to agricultural practices under that statute.
The Borine report failed to note the other two allotments adjacent to the mine, Mallots to the
north, Roth's to the south. Both would be affected in the same manner we would. Again, the
initial staff report recommending approval failed to recognize these uses.
Although the Borine report is correct in that the optimal period for grazing would be March-
May, that is not the reality. The Horse Ridge Allotment is in a winter grazing rotation. We are in
the Flat Pasture Nov-Dec., and are highly monitored as to usage level. BLM has identified Flat
Pasture as "critical" for Sage Grouse as a wintering area. If conditions on Pine Mtn. and
surrounding areas become too harsh, the birds move to Flat Pasture for cover and water,
provided by our stock water at Smith Well.
Historically, we have grazed Flat Pasture Oct-Jan, but have watched our allotted time there
shrink as the needs of the birds have taken precedence. In the draft Comprehensive Plan,
there is a report suggesting a 3 mile "no disturbance zone" around Sage Grouse leks in
Deschutes County. An indication of the level of importance the Planning Department must
place on these birds.
The Borine report indicates our range condition as "poor to fair condition," for bunchgrass. He
may be correct regarding bunchgrass, but by BLM standards, we are in the "improving"
category, as BLM now manages for Sagebrush Steppe Community, again to improve habitat for
Sage Grouse. In 1992 when the Management Plan Mr. Borine used as his reference was
written, BLM management goals were different.
The water developments are 2 miles from the proposed mine, but cattle can and do travel
much further when snow is on the ground, sometime only returning to water one time per
week. We are allowed supplemental feeding (contrary to Borine's report,) by the 1992 Leslie
Ranch Management Plan (BLM).
Borine also states grazing is continuous. It is not. When the plan was written nearly twenty
years ago, it had a different use. In our 14 years here, it has been winter use only, shorter each
year.
NOISE IMPACTS
Noise from a mining operation would have a negative effect on Sage Grouse, and therefore a
negative effect on our ranching operation. If BLM counts fewer birds, they will (and have)
placed restrictions on our grazing use, forcing us to use less desirable areas (difficult winter
water) and increase the cost of supplemental feeding.
The noise level from blasting, crushing and transport of basalt rock would be a significant
increase in the noise level of the valley. Walkers have submitted testimony regarding the
unique way sounds travels in the cold layers of this bowl shaped valley. Not only would the
cattle be impacted, but also the Sage Grouse and other wildlife that drive so many decisions
made by BLM in the management of our grazing allotment. Without the allotments, we would
not have a viable ranch.
CONCLUSION
Nowhere in any of this discussion has 4-11 offered any kind of mitigation or recourse if any of
the surrounding current uses are damaged. What mitigation or recourse do we have if our 100
year old wells are damaged by blasting is this unique geologic area? What mitigation do we
receive by the lowering of our property values? The county has already seen to a reduction in
property values by allowing paintball courses illegally constructed of solid waste, then approved
after the fact, sewer lagoons that receive nearly daily code complaints, and now an open pit
mine. But the county disallowed the possibility of a residence on 160 acres, saying they
couldn't allow a zone change that might "change current agricultural practices" in order to give
a family a home. But the county will consider a zone change with deep and lasting changes to
the Millican Valley and its residents to feed a need that currently doesn't exist.
We would suggest that 2 remands from LUBA indicate Deschutes County has not properly
addressed the issues in this application. Either start over and get it right, or deny this
application now.
Respectfully submitted,
Keith and Janet Nash
EVANS WELL RANCH
25700 Spencer Wells Rd.
Bend, OR 97701
evanswellranch@yahoo.com
541-576-2922
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
10:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2010
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
CITIZEN INPUT
This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's
discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Citizens who wish to speak
should sign up prior to the beginning of the meeting on the sign-up cards provided. Please
use the microphone and also state your name and address at the time the Board calls on you
to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject
of a public hearing will NOT be included in the record of that hearing.
2. CONSIDERATION of Signature of_an Order Directing the Permanent
Closure of Deschutes-Pleasant Ridge Road at the Intersection of Highway 97 -
Tom Blust, Road Department
Suggested Motion: Move signature of Order No. 2010-042, directing the
permanent closure of Deschutes-Pleasant Ridge Road at Highway 97.
3. CONSIDERATION of Signature of an Order Establishing a Rural Solid
Waste Collection Area near Sisters - Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Department
Suggested Motion: Move signature of Order No. 2010-044, Establishing a
Rural Solid Waste Collection Area near Sisters
4. CONSIDERATION of Chair Signature of Document No. 2010-546, Findings
and Decision regarding a Landscape Management Site Plan and Lot Line
Adjustment (Applicant: Eitel) - Kevin Harrison, Community Development
Suggested Motion: Move Chair signature of Document No. 2010-546, the Eitel
site plan decision.
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Page 1 of 7 Pages
5. CONSIDERATION of Signature of an Order Amending Order No. 2010-006,
Limiting Deschutes County Financial Assistance for Installation of a Nitrogen-
reducing Onsite Wastewater System to the Cost of the System - Tom Anderson
and Todd Cleveland, Community Development
Suggested Motion: Move signature of Order No. 2010-039, regarding financial
assistance for onsite wastewater systems.
CONSENT AGENDA
6. Signature of Order No. 2010-043, Rescinding Several County Policies
7. Signature of Document No. 2010-389, a Services Agreement with Marc
Williams, M.D. to Provide County Health Services
8. Approval of Minutes:
. Work Sessions of July 26 and 28
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 911 COUNTY SERVICE
DISTRICT
9. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
the 911 County Service District (two weeks)
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
10. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
the Extension/4-H County Service District (two weeks)
RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
11. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
Deschutes County (two weeks)
12. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Page 2 of 7 Pages
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
(Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of
Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions
regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572)
Monday, August 2
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
3:30 p.m. Regular meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council)
Tuesday, August 3
10:00 a.m. Interview Sisters Area Planning Commission Candidates
Wednesday, August 4
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) - may include a
quorum of Planning Commission members
Thursday, August 5
10:00 a.m. Discussion and Decision regarding Sisters Area Planning Commission Candidates
Wednesday, August 11
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Monday, Aug ~ ust 16
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
12 noon Regular meeting with Department Directors
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Page 3 of 7 Pages
Wednesday, August 18
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Monday, August 23
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Tuesday, August 24
2:30 p.m. Triennial Review Debriefing
Wednesday, August 25
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Monday, August 30
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, September 1
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, Sep
tember 2
10:00 a.m.
Regular Update with the District Attorney
11:00 a.m.
Regular Update with Community Development
1:30 p.m.
Regular Update with the Road Department
Monday, September 6
Most County offices will be closed to observe Labor Day
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Page 4 of 7 Pages
Wednesday, September 8
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, September 9
7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Redmond City Council - Redmond Council Chambers
11:00 a.m. Regular Update with Health and Human Services
3:00 p.m. COACT Meeting - COIL, Redmond
Wednesday, September 15
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, September 16
9:00 a.m. Regular Update with the County Clerk
10:00 a.m. Regular Update with Community Justice
Monday, September 20
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, September 22
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, September 23
9:00 a.m. Regular Update with the Fair & Expo Manager
10:00 a.m. Regular Update with the Assessor
11:00 a.m. Regular Update with the Commission on Children & Families
2:00 p.m. Regular Update with the Sheriff
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Page 5 of 7 Pages
Monday, September 27
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, September 29
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Monday, October 4
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
3:30 p.m. Regular meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council)
Wednesday, October 6
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, October 7
8:00 am. Regular Joint Meeting with the Sisters City Council, Sisters City Hall
Wednesday, October 13
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Monday, October 18
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, October 20
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Page 6 of 7 Pages
Monday, October 25
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, October 27
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Monday, November 1
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
3:30 p.m. Regular meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council)
Wednesday, November 3
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Page 7 of 7 Pages
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora
ADDITIONS TO BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA
DESC1 UTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
10:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2010
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
CONSIDERATION of Deliberations and a Decision of a LUBA Remand of the
County's Decision regarding a Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Exclusive
Farm Use to Surface Mining (Millican - 4R Equipment) - Paul Blikstad
Signature of a Letter Appointing William J. Rainey to the Deschutes County
Planning Commission (Sisters Area Representative), through June 30, 2014
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda - Addition Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Pagel of l Pages
