Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-09-24 Business Meeting Minutes Minuets of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, September 24, 2012 Page 1 of 13 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 MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 _____________________________ Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend __________________________ Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack and Paul Blikstad, Community Development; and five other citizens. Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT 3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on Applications for a Plan Amendment and Zone Change on 380 Acres, Changing the Comprehensive Plan Designation from Agricultural to Rural Residential Exception Area and Rezone from EFU to Multiple Use Agricultural (Applicant: Oregon Department of State Lands). Chair DeBone opened the hearing and read the opening statement (a copy of which is attached for reference). In regard to pre-hearing contacts, bias or conflicts of interest, the Commissioners acknowledged there was a public work session on this issue and a representative of the applicant was present. He was asked only about the location of the pipeline going through the property. Paul Blikstad presented a PowerPoint presentation (a copy of which is attached for reference). He referred to an oversize map of the property as well. Minuets of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, September 24, 2012 Page 2 of 13 Chair DeBone asked about the rural residential exception area and the densest possibilities. Mr. Blikstad said it is next to the City’s urban growth boundary, so they could conceivable go from one dwelling on ten acres to one on five acres, in a planned unit development type of scenario. Laurie Craghead stated that in the case of a planned unit development, more open space has to be left elsewhere, as 65% of the property has to be left open. Commissioner Baney said this is the zoning piece, and they don’t have to consider about the development part now. Ms. Craghead indicated it has to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan later and any potential impacts. Mr. Blikstad said that staff agrees with the Hearings Officer on this issue. Doug Parker, Asset Planner with the applicant (the Oregon Department of State Lands), gave an overview of the land use application. It was considered acceptable to CDD staff, as it was with the Hearings Officer who responded to specific concerns from opposition. No neighbors, regional groups or environmental groups have indicated concerns; just an attorney who owns property miles from the subject property. The burden of proof and supplements demonstrate this is not agricultural, and that the zoning request is appropriate. It meets all legal requirements, or staff and the Hearings Officer would not have recommended approval. The reason for the plan and zone change is to prepare for the future, if the City of Bend decides to bring in the property. It will be eligible only if rezoned. They have no immediate plans for this property. They acknowledge the site abuts urban infrastructure, and there are various public facilities in direct proximity of the site. They identified what is in the record to date. He presented the State Land Board’s documents for review, showing the conceptual master plan to assure compatibility of this property with others. They have worked with the County to make sure these changes would not interfere or conflict with adjacent users. Following the natural gas pipeline would result in a very uniform boundary area. It is not agricultural soil and has no irrigation available. They request the Board affirm the Hearings Officer’s findings. Commissioner Baney asked if they are engaged in the Bend UGB process, which has been delayed for some time. Mr. Parker stated that they have not been invited to participate in this process yet. Mr. Kropp said the State needs to acknowledge the natural gas to energy project planned at the landfill. Mr. Parker stated they are aware of this and are supportive of the project. Liz Fancher, representing the opponent, Newland Real Estate Group, provided a handout at this time. Newland wanted to raise concerns. They also want to file a land use application under a non-agricultural lands designation. They feel this should be included in the comprehensive plan. They don't want to come before the Board and be told that it does not work for them, when their land is similar. There is no attempt to have this happen under a Goal exception. They want to be sure this is a solid decision and justified. There was a previous case that the DSL relied upon. There is new language in the Comprehensive Plan regarding rural residential exception area, but includes language on the Goals. They are asking for a label saying this is an exception. This was not applied to this case by the Hearings Officer. They agree no Goal exception should be needed for non-agricultural land. She pointed out that it is going to be confusing to have rural residential exception areas with different rules. All documents, including the comprehensive plan, call for a ten-acre minimum. It will be confusing if it is not in the comprehensive plan. However, the State seems to be comfortable with this change. She asked questions in her submission relating to these concerns. She stated that Mr. Blikstad indicated this is one legal lot of record; she fees it is two and that the smaller parcel was obtained by the County from the federal government for landfill uses. (The lower left-hand corner ofthe portion on the map is shown as DSL property.) The County may have some potential liability for material left on the site. The State intends to sell the property and this could be a problem. There is a question about the density of the property. Code allows one residence per five acres or two-acre lots with appropriate open space. Minuets of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, September 24, 2012 Page 3 of 13 Minuets of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, September 24, 2012 Page 4 of 13 The Bend UGB map was submitted into the record. However, the map was remanded and is no longer applicable. The City has put this on hold while the State revises the UGB process. Also, regarding utilities being available, the City’s plan shows an intersection but the general understanding i s that this would have to serve this property. She agreed with the soil designation not being agricultural, but the Hearings Office relied upon the soil types. They should rely on the percentage of the type. Half was said to be class 7 and not suitable, but some was not examined. If half is type 6, the whole property should be classified as class 6. She said that they show a soil complex of class 7. There are classes 6, 7 and 8. But all is considered a 7 because the one type is felt to be predominate. There is information on the entire property that is different from what the NSR says about the soil. The report needs to be reviewed by the LCDC. Tim Elliott, representing a property on the opposite side of the City, Anderson Ranch, then spoke. The ultimate result by the State and others that follow are efforts to bring this land into the UGB. There is an interesting dichotomy, when both want to come into the UGB. The reason for the opposition by Newland is due to the application perhaps not being substantial enough. They want to do the same type of application but want clarification to avoid errors or information not supported thus far. He feels that the Hearings Officer erred. He disagrees that Newland may be able to come into the UGB. They participated in the UGB process previously but nothing much is happening with this process right now. There are no findings from the Hearings Officer considering the effect of asbestos. Finding all this information is difficult. He pointed out tha t it is required by law to determine if this land is suitable for this type of use. The applicant’s summary states that the most likely exposure concerns are direct contact to asbestos. Two samples indicate a high risk on future development of the property. Ms. Fancher testified that a portion used as a landfill may be larger than what was designated. All of the parties in the chain could potentially be liable. He asked where is the asbestos, how much of it is there, and should this be excluded from the application in general. Minuets of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, September 24, 2012 Page 5 of 13 Mr. Elliott did not agree that this application could be approved as it is. His client appeared at hearings in prior proceedings. If the Newland application comes up, he will oppose it. He pointed out the language used by the Hearings Officer indicates that the DSL has a history of protecting large lots of agricultural lands. It is implemented through OARs and statute, to preserve the maximum amount of agricultural lands in large lots, to protect the agricultural economy of the State. The Hearings Officer found that the soil service is sufficient to determine the type of soils as 7 and 8; and that no DLCD review is required. The Hearings Office decided that this has class 7 and 8 soil; the NRCS takes a 50% approach. That is what is adopted. A certain portion of the land is not identified at all (15%), and a decision was made that 50% is class 6 soil. He does not think that having some 7 and 8 is supported by the record. If there is 50% class 6 soils, the NRCS would assume the whole property is class 6. His recollection is that there were conditions of approval proposed, but these were not addressed in the Hearings Officer’s findings. It may be that DLCD declined to participate due to the conditions of approval. The State won’t develop it; it will sell it. Mr. Elliott asked if what happens would apply to Newland. There is no designation for the property; is it one house per five or ten acres. Newland wants the same thing as the State but is not sure it can be done. He indicated that he feels the decision at this point should be denial, based on a lack of information on some pivotal and important issues such as asbestos. Mr. Parker, for the applicant, came forward to offer rebuttal. He said that the information from Ms. Fancher’s material was from the DEQ approved study that the State did of the former landfill that is posted on the State’s website. There is no toxic gas or concerns; there was buried asbestos from household uses and some broken glass. They put an additional cap over the area and posted what is there. The master plan as submitted identifies this area as open space, and the posted DEQ study says that a decision will be made when the property is developed how this will be handled: encapsulated or remove any asbestos. These are development issues. Minuets of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, September 24, 2012 Page 6 of 13 There was information on Section 11 as being an important block of farmland. Unlike the Newland properties, it has never been actively farmed and cannot sustain farming. It has never had irrigation rights. Regarding the soils evaluation of the site, the NRCS is the gold standard. If an individual goes to this site and maps it out, there is no option to choose which type of soils. This is mapped according to what the NRCS has already had in place. It cannot be manipulated. Roger Borreen is the preeminent soils expert in this part of the world. Newland hired him as well. Mr. Boreen has found it is not agricultural land. The survey shows it is not. Most important, DLCD said there is no need for this to be reviewed if NRCS says it is not agricultural land. The Newland properties conflict with the NRCS survey. The people who created the rules and created the maps say the subject property is not agricultural land. Staff and experts agree with these professional findings. It is noteworthy staff has found no conflict; and the Hearings Officer and staff consistently have different interpretations of the comprehensive plan policies than the opponents. There just has to be a set -aside of the right acreage. Showing the prior UGB expansion plans from the City is not to trick anyone into what is going to happen, but to show how the City is approaching this process. Finally, he said they appreciate the Newland’s concerns about appropriately addressing this application. We believe it is consistent with the requirements of law. John Russell, Asset Manager of DSL, commented that the County does not own the old landfill. There might have been a permitted use it but not ownership. There are attempts occurring to tie things up. The best soils scientist around has been hired. Their ultimate objective is urbanization of the land, as it makes sense in the Bend UGB. They are monitoring the property and do not participate in the UGB process. Mr. Parker noted that the County wanted another classification of land. The DLCD and State agencies have met regarding this and DLCD feels the County will act upon this in good faith, and that this is not a pivotal issue in this case. Minuets of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, September 24, 2012 Page 7 of 13 Ms. Craghead asked about Roger Boreen, and the parceling out of different types of soils. She asked if this is on the map, what is 6, 7 or 8. Mr. Parker said that NRCS maps the soils; this is not being manipulated. The record shows that the NRCS feels it is non-agricultural. There is a complete soils investigation in the record , one for the entire 620 acre site, and another of the sub-set of 180 acres. Ms. Craghead said the comprehensive plan says they need to go through the exception process. Mr. Parker said it has been demonstrated that it is not agricultural and there is nothing to take exception to. The Hearings Officer looked at the historic pattern and this is the designation that should be assigned to this site. This designation is the only one available to respond to this. He agrees with the Hearings Officer and staff. Ms. Craghead asked about the map showing the landfill areas as open space. Mr. Parker said there is a master conceptual plan for proposed land use types which identifies this area as open space. That was done voluntarily for the DEQ and the findings of the study are to put a cap on parts of the property. At time of development it will be determined how this will be handled. Mr. Russell said it will be appropriately mitigated at the time of development. Mr. Parker stated they would not know where the roads and utilities will go until then. There are a number of caves and bats on site, and those areas will remain part of the open space as well. Commissioner Baney said that she sees from the master plan that it shows residential in that area. She is concerned that this does not reflect the same thing. Mr. Parker stated that there is a buffer to the County property. Commissioner Baney noted that some is shown as commercial and residential. Mr. Parker replied that it is conceptual. Commissioner Baney asked if they would be willing to allow conditions to mediate this at time of rezone. Mr. Parker said that the question was regarding the past landfill area. Mr. Russell added that when one develops this land, there are different levels of mitigation depending on the use. All will be taken into account at the time. Minuets of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, September 24, 2012 Page 8 of 13 Commissioner Baney stated that the County is not unfamiliar with remediation. It is important to discuss how this looks in the future. Mr. Pa rker said the DEQ study does not identify that the site is not appropriate for the approved uses. This should not be an impediment to the plan. Ms. Craghead said a condition of approval might be having DEQ approval of any proposed use. Mr. Russell said this would be acceptable since they probably won’t own it. Ms. Craghead said it could go with the land. Mr. Blikstad stated that there is talk about the new comprehensive plan with verbiage regarding rural residential exception areas. The comprehensive plan language was written by Teri Hansen Payne, who looked at the language referring to future zone changes. This was background text that was not intended to set new policies. Also, regarding legal lot of record, this was from prior staff records. Ms. Craghead said the language is not in the policies but in background material. Mr. Lelack stated that it is not clear regarding the comprehensive plan. They want to conduct a non-resource land review in the work plan. DSL and DLCD see this as a priority, but it will be the Board’s decision. The DSL knows that the work program could take a year or longer. Even if the Board wants them to start this now, there won’t be immediate answers. Mr. Lelack added that the second issue is the Bend UGB. There are a number of moving parts. For County purposes, they need to view this property as being anywhere, and that being next to the City has no bearing on this review. Also, they worked closely with the farm and forest specialist of the DLCD, Catherine Daniels. She did not feel the State would need to review the soils issue but could rely on her expertise. Commissioner Unger said Deschutes County has a lot of public lands. In his opinion, when BLM land was designated, it was either EFU or mining. All else was forest. Not a lot of thought was given to this process at the time. Minuets of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, September 24, 2012 Page 9 of 13 Mr. Lelack said that is his understanding. It was the default zoning and some property owners did this for the tax break and supported it. The County designated a lot as EFU and forest in the late 70’s, and a window of opportunity was allowed for some. Other lands in public ownership were not identified. This should be reviewed at some point, but they are under the current code, comprehensive plan and State laws now. Commissioner Baney asked for the best way to proceed and what happens with other applications. Mr. Lelack said staff interprets that the rural residential designation is the catch-all for non-resource lands. This could end up at LUBA. Based on the outcome of this application, it could open the door for others to be in this catch-all designation if appropriate. If not, the current application won’t set precedence. Mr. Blikstad said Rose & Associates submitted the same application at one point, and the same Hearing Officer recommended denial. This has not come before the Board. The difference is that the Rose property has some farm use with pivot irrigation and cattle. The DSL lands obviously were never farmed. Ms. Craghead asked if Catherine Daniels said this did not have to be considered. Looking at ORS, it seems to imply it should go to DLCD. Mr. Blikstad said he would have to look at the record. Ms. Craghead stated that this addresses nonagricultural land. Chair DeBone asked if all that is EFU now, should be a rural residential exception area. RR-10 and MUA-10 are the others. He asked if RREA is a land use designation. Ms. Craghead said one is a comprehensive plan designation and another is zoning. Mr. Blikstad said there were three choices for Deschutes County when this was all being laid out in the late 1970’s: farm, forest or an exception area which includes rural service areas. Deschutes County had a unique history, with thousands of parcels plotted in the past, most of which were RR-10, and some had larger sized platted lots from two to ten acres. These were determined to be MUA, large enough for a hobby farm and a home. From a planning standpoint, MUA-10 and RR-10 were exception areas. Minuets of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, September 24, 2012 Page 10 of 13 Ms. Craghead said that under a comprehensive plan, a city will put a main category and underneath that will be the uses. Commissioner Baney asked for direction on the asbestos issue. There were not a lot of comments from the Hearings Officer’s findings. She would not have extracted that it was a big consideration. It is more around the actual use at some point. Mr. Blikstad said conditions of approval could have a deed restriction addressing this. He does not remember any specific discussion during the hearing. Commissioner Baney stated that a soils issue was raised in another case and wants to make sure this is not overlooked. Mr. Lelack said that it can be required to be remediated to DEQ standards but not restricting future end uses. Commissioner Baney does not want to tie the hands of developers but this needs to be on the record. Mr. Blikstad stated there was no opposition from any neighbors to this zone change. Ms. Craghead asked how long the record should remain open. Liz Fancher asked if the record could remain open for a couple of weeks. John Russell asked for the same amount of time for rebuttal. UNGER: Move the oral record be closed; the written record will remain open until 5:00 p.m. on October 10, with the rebuttal period open until 5:00 p.m. on October 26, 2012. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. __________________________ Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. BANEY: Move approval of the consent agenda with the exception of the minutes of Sept. 7 and August 30 minutes. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Minuets of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, September 24, 2012 Page 11 of 13 Consent Agenda Items 4. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-112, Appropriating a New Grant in the Public Health Fund (LAUNCH Program) 5. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-113, Appropriating a New Grant in the Public Health Fund (Health Educator) 6. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-114, Appropriating a New Grant in the Public Health Fund (Critical Care) 7. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-115, Appropriating a New Grant in the Public Health Fund (My Future, My Choice) 8. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-116, Appropriating a New Grant in the Public Health Fund (Tobacco Program) 9. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-117, Transferring Appropriations in the County School Fund 10. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-119, Transferring Appropriations in the Sheriff’s Office Fund 11. Approval of Business Development Forgivable Loan Grant (Job Creation) Consumer Cellular. - $50,000 12. Approval of Minutes: Board Meeting of September 12, 2012 Work Sessions of August 20, and September 5, 7, 11 and 12 (two) Joint Meeting of County and Bend City Council, August 30, 2012 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 13. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2012- 118, Transferring Appropriations in the Deschutes County 911 County Service District Fund. UNGER: Move signature. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Minuets of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, September 24, 2012 Page 12 of 13 14. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $9,961.66. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 15. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District in the Amount of $1,304.34. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $942,187.59. UNGER: Move approval, subject to review. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. 17. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None were offered. Being no filrther items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 a. m. DATED this /0 Dayof O~ 2012 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Anthony DeBone, Chair Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTEST: ~~ Recording Secretary Minuets of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday,Septanber24,2012 Page 13 of 13 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., MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 Commissioners' Hearing Room -Administration Building -1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. 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. Please complete a sign-up card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject ofa public hearing will NOT be included in the official record ofthat hearing. 3. A PUBLIC HEARING on Applications for a Plan Amendment and Zone Change on 380 Acres, Changing the Comprehensive Plan Designation from Agricultural to Rural Residential Exception Area and Rezone from EFU to Multiple Use Agricultural (Applicant: Oregon Department of State Lands)­ Paul Blikstad, Community Development Suggested Actions: Open hearing; take testimony. CONSENT AGENDA 4. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-112, Appropriating a New Grant in the Public Health Fund (LAUNCH Program) 5. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-113, Appropriating a New Grant in the Public Health Fund (Health Educator) 6. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-114, Appropriating a New Grant in the Public Health Fund (Critical Care) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, September 24, 2012 Page 1 of6 7. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-115, Appropriating a New Grant in the Public Health Fund (My Future, My Choice) 8. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-116, Appropriating a New Grant in the Public Health Fund (Tobacco Program) 9. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-117, Transferring Appropriations in the County School Fund 10. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-119, Transferring Appropriations in the Sheriff's Office Fund 11. Approval of Business Development Forgivable Loan Grant (Job Creation) • Consumer Cellular. -$50,000 12. Approval of Minutes: • Board Meeting of September 12, 2012 • Work Sessions of August 20, and September 5, 7, 11 and 12 (two) • Joint Meeting of County and Bend City Council, August 30, 2012 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 13. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Resolution No. 2012-118, Transferring Appropriations in the Deschutes County 911 County Service District Fund 14. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 15. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extensionl4-H County Service District RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, September 24, 2012 Page 2 of6 17. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other executive session items. 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. ifyou have questions regardinga meeting, please call 388-6572.) Monday, September 24 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, September 26 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Saturday, September 29 3 :00 p.m. Forest Restoration Event -Skyliner Lodge Monday, October 1 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Wednesday, October 3 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Thursday, October 4 8:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the Sisters City Council, Sisters City Hall Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, September 24,2012 Page 3 of6 ------ • Wednesday, October 10 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, October 15 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Thursday, October 18 8:30 a.m. (Tentative) Tobacco Survey Results Discussion Monday, October 22 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, October 24 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, October 29 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, October 31 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, November 5 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting -----._­ Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, September 24,2012 Page 4 of6 Wednesday, November 7 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session{s) Monday, November 12 Most County Offices Closed to Observe Veterans' Day Holiday November 13 through 16 Association of Oregon Counties Conference Monday, November 19 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) November 22 & 23 Most County Offices Closed to Observe Thanksgiving (November 23 Unpaid Furlough) Monday, November 26 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, November 228 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, December 5 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Wednesday, December 7 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, September 24,2012 Page 5 of6 Wednesday, December 12 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session( s) Monday, December 17 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other executive session items. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, September 24, 2012 Page 6 of6 ------------------------------------- ------------------------------- BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Date q/~4/(2Agenda Item of Interest f~ t'~~?r:: Name /JO(}G-p~j<d2-~ ~l )0/1V1 ~ Address ().s L ~fr!kM Phone #s 93 tt g~ ~a. 40 E-mail address tl~V, )4' ~ . ~'f t<.((! r @.s~-Ph", ~. U~. 1&1 In Favor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 0 Yes 0 No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest ____~-\-...:>.---'3~_______ Date ~IL Name L \"L. ff\t--....>CM<=.=n Address (p4t NYj b\ t;C,clWcw st­ :2 ~d I t IS '11101 \ Phone #s ~1-.)13 S--0 ~.J E-mail address o In Favor 00 NeutrallUndecided D Opposed / ~ Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 0 Yes D No ./ /" ------------------------------------------ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REOUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item ofInterest V Date >h¥~ Name ~?;(/,-{)-lA, Address Phone#s E-mail address V~VVl&CCLVLt-fo~lI/e....y 5} ( ~ / ~ o In Favor ~eutral/Undecided ~sed __ Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 0 Yes []-No /' ,/ Introduction This is a public hearing on applications for a Plan Amendment and Zone Change, to amend the comprehensive plan designation on 380 acres from agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area, and a Zone Change from Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use Agricultural (PA-11-7, ZC-11-2) submitted by the Oregon Department of State Lands. These applications were previously considered and recommended for approval by the Deschutes County Hearings Officer in the written decision dated July 10, 2012. Deschutes County Code 22.28.030 requires that for lands which are designated farm or forest use, a de novo hearing shall be conducted by the Board of County Commissioners. This hearing constitutes the required de novo hearing. Burden of proof and Applicable criteria The applicant has the burden of proving that they are entitled to the land use approval sought. The standards applicable to the applications are listed in the previously issued Hearings Officer's 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. Additionally, failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to the proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the Board to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Hearings 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, and will be the basis for their decision. The record as developed to this point is available for public review at this hearing. Order of Presentation The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a staff report of the prior proceedings. The applicant will then have an opportunity to make a presentation and offer testimony and evidence. All others will then be given a chance to testify. After both proponents and opponents have testified, the applicant will be allowed to present rebuttal testimony, but may not present new evidence. At the Board's discretion, if the applicant presented new evidence on rebuttal, 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. Cross-examination of witnesses will not be allowed. A witness who wishes, during that witness' testimony, however, to ask a question of a previous witness, may direct the question to the Chair. If a person has already testified but wishes to ask a question of a subsequent witness, that person may also direct the question to the Chair after all other witnesses have testified, but prior to the proponent's rebuttal. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the witness. Continuances: The grant of a continuance or record extension shall be at the discretion of the Board. If the Board grants a continuance or record extension, it shall continue the public hearing or leave the written record open to a date certain. If, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Board leaves the record open for additional written evidence or testimony, the Board shall establish the time period for submittal of new written evidence or testimony and for additional for response to the evidence received while the record was held open. If the hearing is continued or the record left open, the applicant shall also be allowed time after the record is closed to all other parties to submit final written arguments but no new evidence in support of the application. Pre-hearing Contacts, Biases, Conflicts of Interests Do any of the Commissioners have any ex-parte contacts, prior hearing observations, biases, or conflicts of interest to declare? If so, please state the nature and extent of those. Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner based on ex-parte contacts, biases or conflicts of interest? (Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed.) I