2017-324-Minutes for Meeting October 05,1989 Recorded 6/22/2017Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2017-324
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal 06/22/2017 1:27:31 PM
For Recording Stamp Only
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Bend, Oregon
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Audio Cassette Recording Titled: WORK SESSION REGARDING SURFACE MINING
ZONING DETERMINATIONS.
October 5, 1989; 10:00-11:30 AM.
A meeting of the Board of County Commissioners was held on October 5, 1989.
Commissioners present were Lois Prante, Tom Throop and Dick Maudlin. Also in
attendance were Rick Isham, County Counsel; County Administrator Mike Maier;
and other staff.
This meeting was to go through the process and issues related to various surface
mining sites. Staff has deleted exempt sites, which would be handled differently,
and those sites that are federally owned. There are almost fifty sites that the
Board will not have to address at this time.
This leaves about 85 to 90 sites that will require a decision. There is a list by site
number. A few sites that the Board wanted to address individually are not
included on the list.
The Gambrel sites in Cline Buttes are federally owned, and the Board will not be
involved in how they are handled.
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, October 5, 1989 Page 1 of 5
Central Oregon Pumice has about ten sites and only two of those are subject to
zoning — north of Century Drive and one off Skyliners.
A couple might already be in the urban growth boundary.
(There was a lengthy discussion regarding the various sites by number, while the
Board referred to the list. It is impossible to know what the actual locations are
without being able to reference this list.)
Some sites are considered already depleted, per a DOGAMI report.
Some sites are considered non -resource sites and therefore will not require an
ESEE analysis. Some of these are COID dirt sites.
Some sites have no resource other than stockpiled material, and therefore will
not be mined further. Processing will be allowed as a conditional use, and the
zoning will not be changed to surface mining.
Some locations are owned by the State, ODOT, and there have not yet been
hearings on those.
The Board has to consider the Goal 5 process in these determinations. This has
been discussed at length previously. The Board has to identify the mineral and
aggregate resource and determine its significance, and weigh it against other Goal
5 resources along with its effect on adjacent properties.
The Board can allow the resource without any conflict, to allow both, or not
protect the resource.
Some issues have come up regarding factors to determine significance of the
resource. There needs to be consideration regarding the costs of hauling to
market. For the site to be significant, the Board has indicated that it needs to be
within a fifteen mile radius of the market area. This is a valid consideration but
may not be a determination.
Another issue is the supply of the resource. Goal 5 rules say this has to be
considered. It needs to be significant enough to make sense.
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, October 5, 1989 Page 2 of 5
They can total it out for the County, or break it down into how it fits into the
fifteen -mile market area. (A map was referenced regarding this.)
Some property owners have discussed among themselves making a trade so that
ownership is more logical. The County has considered this as well. This is
complicated, because some sites are privately owned and some is governmental
owned. Some sites would be better off in County ownership, especially near the
River, so that they can be turned over to Park & Recreation or another entity.
County Counsel will look into this further.
Cinders is an abundant resources, while gravel and pumice are not as common.
The main concern will be gravel, since most of it is located in relatively high
conflict locations, including near the River.
Harold Marken purchased forty acres near Knott Landfill, but was too late
submitting it for consideration for rezoning. He wants to mine the property and
then sell it to the County for landfill purposes. However, the adjacent property
owners may object. (There was a long discussion about the future of this
particular situation and location.)
There was a long discussion about the various privately owned sites and how they
break down regarding the type of material and locations.
The Board discussed whether they should take the resources located on federally
owned land into consideration of the overall discussion. However, this material is
not available to anyone on a guaranteed basis. The federal agency may never tap
into the resource or sell or trade the site to someone who might.
There have been conversations with the USFS and BLM, and it takes a long time
for them to commit a resource. This process could be initiated if there is a
pressing need, but it takes at least a year to start the conversation. Perhaps there
should be more work towards using these public sites and preserve the private
resource to avoid conflict. However, a private contractor bidding a job needs to
be able to purchase the material, and that is more likely to be from a privately
owned resource site. And people have a right to sell the material they own.
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, October 5, 1989 Page 3 of 5
There are conflicts regarding the river corridor and other State Goals. These will
be hotly contested. There is a lot of criteria to meet to remove resource affected
by the Scenic Waterways Act. This has gone all the way to the Supreme Court but
has not been totally resolved. Litigation continues.
The comprehensive plan does not preclude this activity, but there is a high bar to
meet. The Board has the authority to protect the resource, but this is elevated to
a much higher status.
Grandfathering sites has also come up. It is frustrating because some sites that
should be regulated don't allow the Board to determine much about them. Pre-
existing sites need to be registered. The Board does not have all the information
it needs to make a good decision on these particular sites.
It should be considered at the time of site plan review, not when the Board is
deciding whether to protect the resource. The site may be historic but still
require some protection as well as consideration of potential conflicts.
The Board will have to consider ESEE analysis and DOGAMI reports that may be
on record. Some sites may supersede any regulation by the County. However,
the County may be able to influence the level of activity, and certainly whether
the operation might be allowed to expand.
The pre-existing activity is relevant, especially if adjacent property owners have
not indicated any conflicts. Perhaps that same level of activity can be preserved
and continued, but not expanded. This is an ESEE type of analysis.
The Board has to do more than determine a property can or can't be surface
mining zoned. There need to be decisions made as to historic use, and whether
there need to be conditions set for future use. This can be determined in part by
testimony of adjacent property owners, and what is contained in the record up to
that point. A DOGAMI permit has a lot of bearing on this type of decision as well.
There will be an additional review once all of the material has been compiled.
The Board may also be able to visit some of the sites if they feel that is
appropriate.
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, October 5, 1989 Page 4 of 5
Staff needs to determine how the record is to be compiled for the public, without
duplicating reams of information. The original files need to be safeguarded and
kept in good order.
Comments can usually be categorized, so perhaps appropriate responses can be
developed to reply to each type of comment.
The Board and staff then spent considerable time working on a schedule for
updates and hearings on this issue. They will try to address these systematically,
based on geographical location.
I certify that the above is a true and accurate record of a meeting, as reproduced from a
cassette tape identified as Minutes of a Work Session of the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners, held on October 5, 1989. This record was completed subsequent to the
presiding Deschutes County Board of Commissioners' tenure.
Bonnie Baker
For the Board of County Commissioners
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, October 5, 1989 Page 5 of 5