2001-739-Minutes for Meeting September 26,2001 Recorded 10/4/2001COUNTY OFFICIAL
MARYHSUE SPENHOLLOW, COUNTYRCLERKS YJ 2001-739
�.JT E S CO
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
10/04/200108:18:45 AM
A& AA, i - Board of Commissioners
1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752
www.deschutes.org
Tom De Wolf
Dennis R. Luke
MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING Mike Daly
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2001
Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Dennis R. Luke and Michael M. Daly.
Also present were Rick Isham, Laurie Craghead and Mark Amberg, Legal
Counsel; Jenny Scanlon and Susan Mayea Ross, Commissioners' Office; Steve
Jorgensen, Paul Blikstad, Dave Leslie, Kevin Harrison, Catherine Morrow and
George Read, Community Development; Dan Peddycord, Health Department;
Tom Blust and George Kolb, Road Department; Barney Lerten of bend. com, Jeff
Mullin of KBND Radio, and Dana Walters of Z-21 TV; and eight other citizens.
Chair Tom De Wolf opened the meeting at 10: 02 a.m.
1. Before the Board was Citizen Input.
Barry Howarth, one of the representatives of the proposed La Pine Airport
project, presented a check to the County in the amount of $25,000. The check
was from Frontier Resources, LLC, a private company. Mr. Howarth explained
that it is his hope and the hope of many others that a new airport in the La Pine
area will establish a catalyst for a new economic base in southern Deschutes
County; and specifically the La Pine area.
Commissioner Luke explained to the audience that Mr. Howarth has been
working a long time to get an airport study done, and was the driving force
behind it. He located a private individual who put up the $25,000 to help pay
for the study. The La Pine Industrial Park committee put up the additional
$25,000 to do the study, which will look at the feasibility of putting an airport
in La Pine. If it weren't for Mr. Howarth, this study would have never gotten to
this point.
(Applause from the audience.)
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Page 1 of 19 Pages
Quality Services Performed with Pride
2. Before the Board was the Reading of a Proclamation Designating
October 3, 2001 as Elder Abuse Awareness Day.
Chair Tom De Wolf read the Proclamation to the audience (copy attached as
Exhibit A).
LUKE: I move signature.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
3. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Contract between
Deschutes County and the University of Oregon for the Final Year of the
Evaluation of the Community Youth Investment Program.
This item was delayed until Wednesday, October 3, 2001.
4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of an Intergovernmental
Agreement between Deschutes County and the Crook -Deschutes
Educational Service District for the Provision of a Full-time Public Health
Nurse for the Ready -Set -Go Program.
Dan Peddycord said this agreement provides 100% of the funding for this
position, and it is anticipated it will be ongoing. It is a current FTE, approved
in the last budget cycle.
Commissioner Luke asked if the County is fronting the cost for the first three
months. Mr. Peddycord indicated that technically the County does get paid in
arrears, after encumbrances are submitted. Commissioner Luke indicated he
would like to talk about this again before the contract is up for renewal.
LUKE: I move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Page 2 of 19 Pages
5. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Oregon Health
Division Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Grant Revision No. 2.
Dan Peddycord explained that this is a periodic grant revision for this fiscal
year, providing additional amounts for WIC ($20,761), the HIV screening
program ($925), and $17,360 to environmental health for a drinking water
program.
LUKE: I move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
6. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on the Vacation of I A. Foss Road.
George Kolb explained the location of the area to be vacated. He said that to
date he has received no comments, letters or calls. All of the normal public
notifications and mailings were completed as required.
Chair Tom De Wolf then opened the public hearing.
Commissioner Luke asked if the County has no further use for the road; Mr.
Kolb said that it does not. He added that a utility easement has been requested
by Qwest and was added to the documentation.
Being no further comment offered, Chair De Wolf closed the public hearing.
7. Before the Board was Consideration of Order No. 2001-080, Vacating All
of the I A. Foss Road and Road Rights -of -Way.
LUKE: I move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Page 3 of 19 Pages
8. Before the Board was the Second Reading, and Consideration of
Signature, of Ordinance No. 2001-035, Adopting a Clean Air Ordinance
in Regard to the Removal of Non -Certified Woodstoves and Woodstove
Inserts upon the Sale of Structures.
Laurie Craghead stated that she took out the notary and recording requirements
as previously requested by the Board.
LUKE: I move second reading, by title only.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
Chair De Wolf then conducted the second reading, by title only.
LUKE: I move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
9. Before the Board was the Second Reading, and Consideration of Signature,
of Ordinance No. 2001-034, Correcting an Error in Zoning Surface Mining
Site No. 274 and Rezoning of the Property to Exclusive Farm Use
(Cloverdale Subzone).
LUKE: I move second reading, by title only.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
Chair De Wolf then conducted the second reading, by title only.
LUKE: I move approval.
DALY: Second.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Page 4 of 19 Pages
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
10. Before the Board was the Second Reading, and Consideration of Signature,
of Ordinances No. 2001-036, 2001-037 and 2001-041, Adopting a Zone
Change and Plan Amendment for the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area.
Catherine Morrow said the exhibits to Ordinances 2001-036 and 2001-037 have
been changed as requested, and that new maps are being printed at this time.
LUKE: I move second reading of Ordinance No. 2001-036, by title only.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
Chair De Wolf then conducted the second reading, by title only.
LUKE: I move approval of Ordinance No. 2001-036, with the new exhibit.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
LUKE: I move second reading of Ordinance No. 2001-037, by title only.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
Chair De Wolf then conducted the second reading, by title only.
LUKE: I move approval of Ordinance No. 2001-037, with the new exhibit.
DALY: Second.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Page 5 of 19 Pages
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
LUKE: I move second reading of Ordinance No. 2001-041, by title only.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
Chair De Wolf then conducted the second reading, by title only.
LUKE: I move approval of Ordinance No. 2001-041.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
Chair DeWolf congratulated the staff of Community Development for their hard
work on these issues that are meant to protect the groundwater in the La Pine area.
(Applause from the audience.)
11. Before the Board was Consideration of a Decision Whether to Hear an
Appeal Submitted by Tumalo Irrigation District on the Hearings Officer's
Denial of a Plan Amendment and Zone Change (Changing 430 Acres from
Forest Use to Exclusive Farm Use).
Paul Blikstad referred to an oversized zoning map of the area, and explained the
color designations. There was a general discussion of the zoning in the subject
area. He also explained that much of the surrounding land is Bureau of Land
Management land or land belonging to Crown Pacific, and some belongs to the
State of Oregon.
LUKE:
Where is the access to the property?
(At this time, the applicants, Elmer McDaniels and Sharon Smith, showed the
location of the easement on the oversized map that was displayed.)
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Page 6 of 19 Pages
BLIKSTAD:
The second question you had was the uses in the farm and forest zones. They
are pretty similar; however, in the farm zone you can apply to put in an airstrip,
and you can't do that in a forest zone. Also, you can apply to do a bed and
breakfast in a farm zone, but cannot do that in a forest zone. The types of
dwellings in the two zones are different. Everything else is pretty much what is
needed, such as a rural fire station, utility facility, and those types of things.
LUKE:
Is there anything in there that talks about definitions of what is forest and what
is EFU?
BLIKSTAD:
There is in our comprehensive plan.
addressed this in her decision.
Karen (White, the Hearings Of
LUKE:
Is there anything at the state level that defines it even more than ours?
KEVIN HARRISON:
I think that the state's definitions of farmland and forest land are probably more
determinative as to the zoning that took place. Goal 3, which is the Goal that
relates to farm land, addresses soils between Class 1 and Class 6, which are
typically zoned EFU. Forest lands can include a wide range of land, not just
commercial forest land, but other land that has some kind of forest cover. It can
also include land that is necessary to allow forest operations to occur, land that
is necessary for wildlife habitat, and land that is necessary to keep vegetation on
the soil in order to decrease erosion.
This piece of property is really in a transition area. It is possible for county to
zone it one way or the other. The issue in this case is whether they meet the
criteria for a zone change to get from one to another. The Hearings Officer's
finding was that the County could have made a decision either way, based on
the nature of the land. The County made a choice, and zoned it forest land.
The question now is whether the applicant meets the requirements for a zone
change.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Page 7 of 19 Pages
LUKE:
The County reviewed the forestry ordinances a while back because of legislation
that came forth. Was this piece of property looked at then, did you look at all
forestry zoned properties, and what drove your process? Was it, as you look at
this and someone came in and said it should be EFU and not forestry, or did you
just look at every piece, and spent more time on some than others.
HARRISON:
The County did a major re -write of the forest zone in 1992 in response to
changes to the State Administrative Rules. At that point, we found our
ordinance was out of sync. We had to bring it back into compliance. We
looked at all forest zoned lands, and had to make a choice between two forest
zones, F-1 and F-2. We wrote those zones to reflect the changes in state law.
So all we did was put in those categories.
The distinction between F-1 and F-2 is based on the size of property, forestation
in the area, ownership, the dominant land use, the presence of services, and so
on. Most of the public lands and large corporate holdings went into F-1,
properties that were private ownership and others ended up in F-2.
LUKE:
Regarding setting precedent, how many other pieces do you think would fall
into this type of situation?
HARRISON:
I think we have a lot of land falling into the category of juniper woodlands.
Some is zoned EFU, some is zoned forest. A lot of it is in transition areas, in
between commercial forest land and irrigated farmland in production. We have
a lot of juniper woodland surrounding by EFU land that is designated EFU,
because that is the predominate land use.
In terms of precedent, again we have to go back to the criteria that are most
relevant to this case. In order to do a zone change, you have to show that there
was either a mistake in the original zoning, or there has been a change of
circumstances that would warrant a change. If you look at the Hearings
Officer's decision, what she said was that regarding this kind of transitional
land, the County had a choice. Was a mistake made? She said no. It could
have gone either way. Either zone is just as applicable. If the Board finds a
mistake was made, that does have a lot of implications for other properties, as
there are many zoned forest in those juniper woodlands.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Page 8 of 19 Pages
HARRISON:
The other aspect would be change in circumstances. The way I understand the
case is that the applicants' main argument regarding a change of circumstances
is that they would like to sell it and maximize the sales price of the property.
Of course, that has precedent in all zones, since everyone would like to
maximize the value of their land. My personal and professional opinion is that
there are lots of opportunities here for setting precedent.
LUKE:
Was the original zoning in the 1970's?
HARRISON:
1979.
LUKE:
Do you know from the records that this particular piece was looked at again in
the 1990's?
HARRISON:
It would only have been looked at to determine whether it should be zoned F-1
or F-2, not whether it should be zoned EFU or forest.
BLIKSTAD:
It was zoned F-3 in 1979, which is a low, non -production zone.
HARRISON:
The F-3 zone was identified as a transition area.
LUKE:
Is that a classification that is even used anymore?
HARRISON:
No. A choice that we had available in 1979 was removed through changes in
state law.
DEWOLF:
So we need to make a decision whether we want to hear this and, if we do,
whether it is on the record or de novo.
iviinuies or tsoara meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Page 9 of 19 Pages
LAURIE CRAGHEAD:
Under our procedural code, 22.32, the only things you can take into
consideration when deciding whether to hear this is limited to the record, the
Hearings Officer's decision, and staff recommendations.
LUKE:
The request is de novo.
CRAGHEAD:
When deciding whether to hear it, those things are all you can consider. Then
you can decide de novo or on the record. At this time you cannot.
LUKE:
This is tough for me. A lot of things happened in the 1970's when the state was
going through land use planning. There were counties in eastern Oregon that
refused to do it, and state funds were held back, and the state threatened to
come in and take over their planning process and mapping process. We've been
very fortunate in this county, since through the use of destination resorts we
have a lot more mapping done that many of our neighbors.
I'm familiar with this area. Clearly, it kind of reminds me of areas entering
national forest in desert states such as Arizona or New Mexico. F-3 doesn't
mean it will grow very many trees for production. This zoning option is no
longer there. I kind of lean towards hearing this, to perhaps look at the policy.
I would look at hearing it de novo, to see if a change is warranted.
DE WOLF :
I'm opposed to hearing this, because I think it opens a huge can of worms. That
is what is really difficult for me. From what I've read, in both the appeal and
what we have in the record, I don't want to hear it. If you both do, I will keep
an open mind.
LUKE:
I'm not sure I do want to hear it. I would lean toward it to see if there are policy
questions. A lot of times you want to hear it to see if some kind of mistake has
been made.
DALY:
I've never been one to not give people an opportunity to state their case. I am
willing to hear it de novo.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Page 10 of 19 Pages
LUKE:
Do we have to decide this today? What is the time frame?
BLIKSTAD:
They've waived the 150 day time limit.
LUKE:
I would like to see this come back on next week's agenda. That will give us an
opportunity to talk with staff and legal, and look at some of the possible
ramifications.
12. Before the Board was a Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of
Ordinances No. 2001-027 and 2001-028, Removing Surface Mining Site No.
304 from the County's Mineral and Aggregate Resource Inventory;
Changing the Zone Designation from Surface Mining to Exclusive Farm
Use; and Removing the Surface Mining Impact Area Combining
Classification of Parcels in the Area.
Chair DeWolf said that rather than reading the entire standard introduction, we
wished to state the highlights and submit the introduction into the record in
writing. (Copy attached as Exhibit B.)
Chair De Wolf then opened the public hearing on both Ordinances.
It was decided that the staff report would be entered into the record, as it had
already been presented to the Board at their work session held on Monday,
September 24, 2001. (Copy attached as Exhibit C.)
LUKE: I move first and second readings of Ordinance No. 2001-027 by title
only, declaring an emergency.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
Chair De Wolf then conducted the first and second readings.
LUKE: I move first and second readings of Ordinance No. 2001-028 by title
only, declaring an emergency.
DALY: Second.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Page 11 of 19 Pages
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
Chair De Wolf then conducted the first and second readings.
LUKE: I move approval of Ordinance No. 2001-027.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE:
DALY:
DEWOLF
Yes.
Yes.
Chair votes yes.
LUKE: I move approval of Ordinance No. 2001-028.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
13. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the "Cook Avenue
Exchange Agreement" and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No.
2001-075, Regarding the Exchange of Real Property, and Setting a
Hearing.
Mark Amberg stated that approval of this resolution is required in order to
establish a public hearing on this exchange.
LUKE: I move approval of Resolution No. 2001-075.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
A hearing date of November 7, 2001 was then set.
14. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2001-
073, Authorizing the Sale of County -owned Property (off Rickard Road and
Arnold Market Road) to Rose and Associates.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Page 12 of 19 Pages
Commissioner Luke explained that Jim Bonnarens spent a lot of time on this in
order to clean up problems with the roads across the rights-of-way. It came out
to about 1/10 of an acre difference after computing all of the trades.
LUKE: I move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
15. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Correction Easement
Across County Land, Requested for Dan Lundgren, an Adjacent Owner.
LUKE: I move approval of this correction deed.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
16. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2001-093,
Ratifying the Appointment of County Residents to the Board of Property
Tax Appeals.
Rick Isham explained that the names of the members of both lists are identical,
but that they are rotated, and operate with two members in each pool.
Chair DeWolf stated that he doesn't understand this, and would like the order
carried over to the next agenda so that he can obtain further information from
the County Clerk.
Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda.
LUKE: I move approval of the Consent Agenda.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Page 13 of 19 Pages
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
17. Signature of a Contract Renewal between Deschutes County and the
Bureau of Land Management for Sheriff Services
18. Signature of a Contract between Deschutes County and the State of
Oregon for the State to Provide Automated Victim Notification Services
19. Signature of Resolution No. 2001-077, Approving a Grant Application for
Funding from the Alliance for Community Traffic Safety in Oregon to
Address the Problems of Underage Drinking and Driving
20. Signature of an Agreement with the Oregon Department of Human
Services for the Provision of One Full-time Alcohol and Drug Counselor
21. Signature of an Agreement with the Oregon Department of Human
Services for Lifespan Respite Services
22. Signature of a Service Provider Contract between Deschutes County and
the Crook County Commission on Children and Families for Lifespan
Respite Care
23. Signature of an Agreement between Deschutes County and the Oregon
Department of Human Services for the Provision of Services by the
Opportunity Foundation of Central Oregon
24. Signature of an Agreement between Deschutes County and the Residential
Assistance Program to Provide Services as Required by the State of
Oregon
25. Signature of an Agreement between Deschutes County and Central Oregon
Resources for Independent Living to Provide Services as Required by the
State of Oregon
26. Signature of a Quitclaim Deed to the City of Bend for a Strip of Property
Located within the City of Bend for the Extension of Brookswood
Boulevard
27. Acceptance of a Deed of Dedication for a Portion of Bailey Road (Tumalo)
from Property Owners John Bushnell and Robert Holley
28. Signature of License Agreements between Deschutes County and Two
Property Owners for their Participation in the La Pine National
Demonstration Project
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Page 14 of 19 Pages
29. Signature of a Petition to Annex the La Pine New Neighborhood into the
La Pine Water District
30. Signature of Order No. 2001-091, Changing the Name of Doe Lane (in the
La Pine Area) to Red Bear Lane
31. Signature of a Letter Appointing Dwight Smith of Sisters to the Deschutes
County Landmarks Commission
32. Signature of Resolution No. 2001-069, Transferring Appropriations within
Various Funds of the Deschutes County Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-2002
33. Signature of an Oregon Liquor Control License for Sintra Corporation,
DBA Cafe Sintra, Sunriver
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
34. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of
$3,947.23 (two weeks).
LUKE: I move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
35. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2001-
070, Authorizing Tom DeWolf, Dennis R. Luke and Michael M. Daly to
Execute and Enter Into Grant Award Contracts with COIC (Central
Oregon Intergovernmental Council) for the Construction of the OSU
Extension/4-11 Office Building.
Susan Mayea Ross stated that the grant was awarded a year ago. It is
administered by Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council. She explained that
each governing body has to authorize the grant recipient.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Page 15 of 19 Pages
LUKE: I move approval of Resolution No. 2001-070.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
36. CONSIDERATION of Chair Signature of Oregon Community Investment
Board Grant Award Contract Modification No. 2, Regarding Construction
of the OSU Extension/4-11 Office at the Deschutes County Fairgrounds.
Susan Mayea Ross said that this ratifies the extension that is in effect.
LUKE: I move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
37. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the
Amount of $1,896.05 (two weeks).
LUKE: I move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
38. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $1,930,209.56
(two weeks).
LUKE: I move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Page 16 of 19 Pages
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
39. Before the Board were Additions to the Agenda.
A. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of an Amendment to a
Contract between Deschutes County and the State of Oregon, Extending
the Contract for Chemical Dependency Services for Two Months.
Rick Isham indicated this contract is part of the Oregon Health Plan. It allows
for a sixty-day extension, as the State is doing an extensive rewrite of
agreements at this time.
LUKE: I move approval of this extension.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
C. Before the Board Was Consideration of Signature of Chemical Dependency
Treatment Services Contracts.
Rick Isham present four contracts for chemical dependency services, allowing
for a two-month extension of each contract.
LUKE: I move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
D. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Residential Treatment
Services Contracts.
Rick Isham stated that these contracts relating to residential treatment services
also need to be approved.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Page 17 of 19 Pages
LUKE: I move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
E. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Mental Health
Contracts.
Rick Isham explained that this batch of contracts was previously approved,
subject to legal review. He indicated he has gone through a lengthy process to
get them into the proper form.
LUKE: I move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
F. Before the Board was Consideration of the Correction of an Intent to
Award a Bid Contract.
Rick Isham said that an error was made on the notice of intent to award a bid
contract to Hessel Tractor Company that was previously discussed on Monday,
September 24. The date has been changed and the location of any bid protest
was clarified.
LUKE: I move approval of this corrected notice.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
B. Before the Board was Consideration of the First Reading of Ordinance
No. 2001-033, Amending Building Height Exceptions for Agricultural
Structures.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Page 18 of 19 Pages
Commissioner Luke commented on remarks made yesterday at the public
hearing on this Ordinance. He explained that it is his opinion that the problems
the farmers in Klamath County are experiencing have no relationship to what
this Ordinance means to address. Agricultural building height restrictions will
not keep farmers in business or cause them to go out of business.
LUKE: I move first reading by title only.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: No.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
Chair De Wolf then conducted the first reading of Ordinance No. 2001-033.
The second reading and consideration of adoption are scheduled for Wednesday,
October 10, 2001.
Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair De Wolf adjourned the
meeting at 11:10 a. m.
DATED this 26th Day of September 2001 for the Deschutes County
Board of Commissioners.
7—:P� 1
Tom De If, Cham
Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner
ATTEST: M chael A Daly, mmissioner
Recording Secretary
Attached Exhibits:
A. Proclamation Designating October 3, 2001 as Elder Abuse Awareness Day.
B. Standard Introduction of Public Hearing on Ordinances No. 2001-027 and 2001-028.
C. Staff Report on Ordinances No. 2001-027 and 2001-028.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Page 19 of 19 Pages
/M.
j .
�Board of Commissioners
1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752
www.deschutes,org
PROCLAMATION Tom De woff
Dennis R. Luke
Mike Daly
WHEREAS, Nationwide, our elderly citizens are becoming a larger portion of the
population; and in Oregon, this has had the dramatic impact of giving us one of the
highest age per capita in the country; and
WHEREAS, Thousands of seniors and other vulnerable Oregonians are victims of
abuse each year, including physical, sexual and emotional abuse and neglect as well
as financial exploitation; and
WHEREAS, Abuse prevents vulnerable Oregonians from remaining independent,
healthy and living within their own communities; and
WHEREAS, Oregon law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, adult protective
services professionals and community activists are working to prevent elder abuse
and to prosecute those who abuse vulnerable Oregonians; and
WHEREAS, Oregon remains committed to protect vulnerable citizens through
community education, preventative programs and a multidisciplinary response
system.
NOW, THEREFORE, WE, the members of the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners, do hereby declare Wednesday, October 3, 2001 to be ELDER
ABUSE AWARENESS DAY in Deschutes County, and encourage all citizens to
join in this observance.
DATED this.? th Day of September 2001,
Commissioners. /
Attest
Afca'elIMMaly ommissioner
Quality Services Performed with Pride
EXHIBIT A
Introductory Statement for Ordinances 2001-027 and —028
Applicant: Barbara Fraser
Introduction
This is a hearing to consider the adoption of two ordinances:
1. Ordinance No. 2001-027 proposes to amend Title 23,
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, to remove
Surface Mining Site Number 304 from the County's
Mineral and Aggregate Resource Inventory; and
2. Ordinance No. 2001-028 proposes to amend Title 18
Deschutes County Zoning Map, to Change the zone
designation on Surface Mining Site No. 304 from Surface
Mining to Exclusive Farm Use and to remove the Surface
Mining Impact Area Combining zone designation that
extends one-half mile from the surface mine.
The applicant, Barbara Fraser, represented by attorney Robert
Lovlien, has requested a Plan Amendment, PA -00-7, and Zone
Change, ZC-00-4, to change the zoning designation of Surface
Mining Site Number 304 from Surface Mining to Exclusive Farm
Use.
The applications were previously considered by the Hearings
Officer after public hearings held on October 17, 2000 and
February 20 2001. Evidence and testimony were received at
these hearings. The Hearings Officer approved the applications
for the Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
Ordinances 2001-027 and —028 Page 1
EXHIBIT B 9/20/2001
Introductory Statement for Ordinances 2001-027 and —028
Applicant: Barbara Fraser
Burden of Proof and Applicable Criteria
The applicant has the burden of proving that it is entitled to the
land use approval sought. The standards applicable to the
applications before us are displayed on the overhead.
Hearing Procedure
The procedures applicable to this hearing provide that the Board
of County Commissioners will hear testimony, receive evidence,
and consider the testimony, evidence, and information submitted
into the record of this hearing as well as that evidence constituting
the record before the Hearings Officer. The record developed to
this point is available for public review at this hearing.
Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward
the criteria set forth in the notice of this hearing and listed on the
overhead. Testimony may be directed to any other criteria in the
comprehensive land use plan of the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan or land use regulations which any person
believes apply to this decision.
Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue with sufficient
specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners and
parties to this proceeding an opportunity to respond to the issue
precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue.
Order of Presentation
The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will
give a report of the prior proceedings. The applicant will then
have an opportunity to make a presentation and offer testimony
and evidence. Opponents will then be given a chance to make a
Ordinances 2001-027 and —028 Page 2
9/20/2001
Introductory Statement for Ordinances 2001-027 and —028
Applicant: Barbara Fraser
presentation. After both proponents and opponents have made a
presentation, the proponents will be allowed to make a rebuttal
presentation. At the board's discretion, opponents may be
recognized for a rebuttal presentation. At the conclusion of this
hearing, the staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any
closing comments. The board may limit the time period for
presentations.
Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at
the board's discretion. Cross-examination of witnesses will not be
allowed. However, if any person wishes a question be asked of
any person during that person's presentation, please direct such
question to the chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to
decide whether or not to ask such questions of the witness.
Pre -hearing contacts
I will now direct a question to other members of the Board of
County Commissioners. If any member of the board, including
myself, has had any pre -hearing contacts, now is the time to state
the substances of those pre -hearing contacts so that all persons
present at this hearing can be fully advised of the nature and
context of those contacts and with whom contact was made. Are
there any contacts that need be disclosed?
At this time, do any members of the board need to set forth the
substance of any ex parte observations of facts of which this body
should take notice concerning these applications?
Any person in the audience has the right during the hearings
process to rebut the substance of any communication or
observation that has been placed in the record.
Ordinances 2001-027 and —028 Page 3
9/20/2001
Introductory Statement for Ordinances 2001-027 and —028
Applicant: Barbara Fraser
Challenge for Bias, Prejudgment, or Personal Interest
Any party prior to the commencement of the hearing may
challenge the qualifications of the Board of County
Commissioners or any member thereof of bias, prejudgment or
personal interest. This challenge must be documented with
specific reasons supported by facts.
I will accept any challenges now.
Should any board member be challenged, the member may
disqualify himself or herself, withdraw from the hearing or make a
statement on the record of their capacity to hear the applications.
(Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed)
Ordinances 2001-027 and —028 Page 4
9/20/2001
Memo
To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
From: Catharine Tilton, Associate Planner0*1f
Date: September 20, 2001
Re: An ordinance to amend Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, to remove
Surface Mining Site Number 304 from the County's Mineral and Aggregate Resource
Inventory; and
An ordinance to amend Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Map, to Change the zone
designation on Surface Mining Site No. 304 from Surface Mining (SM) to Exclusive Farm
Use (EFU-TRB) and to remove the Surface Mining Impact Area Combining zone
designation that extends one-half mile from Site 304
Attached are two ordinances, Ord. 2001-027 and Ord. 2001-028, that propose to change
Title 23, the Deschutes Comprehensive Plan, by removing Surface Mining Site 304 from the
County's Mineral and Aggregate Resource list; and Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning Map,
by changing the zone designation on Site 304 from Surface Mining (SM) to Exclusive Farm Use
(EFU-TRB).
Staff notified the parties through individual written notice dated and mailed August 31, 2001
of the hearing scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday September 26, 2001. This memorandum
serves as the Staff Report to the Board of Commissioners on the above -referenced ordinances.
Background: The applicant, Barbara Fraser, through her attorney, Robert Lovlien, is requesting a
Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Surface Mining (SM) to Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-TRB).
Surface Mining Site 304 is located along Cook Avenue about an eighth of a mile west of Highway
20 and Deschutes River, and south of Hap Taylor and Sons' mining operations used for
stockpiling, loading, and storage of equipment (see Exhibit B of Ord. 2001-028 for a map of the
property).
The applicant is requesting the Plan Amendment and Zone Change because the mining activities
at Surface Mining Site 304 have terminated, the remaining material is no longer economically
viable to mine, and, as determined by the Hearings Officer, is no longer a significant County
resource. In addition, reclamation to the satisfaction of the Oregon Department of Geology and
Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) has been completed at the surface mining site. No particular use of
the property is proposed by the applicant at this time; however, an existing residence and
accessory structures occur on the northwestern portion of the property and a portion of the site is
being irrigated for pasture use (see attached photographs of property).
A public hearing was held before the Hearings Officer on October 17, 2000, which was continued
at the request of the attorney to submit additional evidence to February 20, 2001. Public testimony
heard at the hearings was limited to the applicant and the applicant's attorney in support of the
application requests. No public testimony objecting to the proposed plan amendment or zone
change request was received. The Hearings Officer approved the plan amendment and zone
EXHIBIT C
change requests, which were finaled on April 16, 2001 (see Exhibit C of Ord. 2001-28 for the
Hearings Officer's decision).
Request: To effectuate the plan amendment and zone change, Section 22.28.030(C) of the
Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance requires that plan amendments and zone
changes involving lands designated for agricultural use be heard de novo before the Board. If
approved and the property is rezoned from SM to EFU-TRB, then the Surface Mining Impact Area
(SMIA) Combing Zone designation that extends one-half mile from Site 304 will no longer be
applicable and will also be removed.
Applicable criteria are listed in the Hearings Officer's decision and will be provided at Wednesday's
public hearing.
Staff will attend the work session on Monday, September 24, 2001 to discuss this matter with you
and be available for questions you may have. Please contact me at extension -6719 or at
cathvtO-)deschutes.org if you have any questions.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance No. 2001-027, amending Title 23, Deschutes County Year 200 Comprehensive
Plan, revising the Mineral and Aggregate Resource Inventory for Deschutes County
2. Ordinance No. 2001-028, amending Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Map, changing the
zone designation on certain property in Deschutes County
3. Photographs of Surface Mining Site No. 304
2
K
t % (���j.�i—(� iij `s� js� "l smart !�',•,~
MEMO
�'. 3 t Rf� �r�t �•' �,IL#`I� ar�£'� X\ j3A r C: -L, ri• -
. ,7'` —� 3 , .i � _e •,�, �'*�7'c . �'. ,� rpt. � r
• �i: r1rt * . .��, s, i. 'f n � c ••.�1�� }.,'�'��f'}'�x.' .y. ;elft 4rrj.
'' �� � !.r! �'�_�� t_ � � f -`+TTS t _��.'Y. [/,.r,� }�'�., _•1`. s �,iC�'• •rA
_ is } • .• '{f�•ts
r r R
Rik,
..
k