Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-25 Business Meeting MinutesDeschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701 -1960 (541) 388 -6570 - Fax (541) 385 -3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2009 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Nick Lelack, Paul Blikstad and Kevin Harrison, Community Development; Lt. Gary Decker and Sue Brewster, Sheriff's Office; media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin; and ten other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was Consideration of Second Reading, by Title Only, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2009 -005, Amending County Code Violation Procedures, Adopting Statutory Provisions, regarding Issuance of Citations. Sue Brewster said that there have been no changes since the first reading. LUKE: Move second reading, by title only. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Chair Baney did the first reading, by title only. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 1 of 19 Pages LUKE: Move adoption. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. LUKE: Move approval of the Consent Agenda, with the exception of items #3 and #4, as he would like the order of the Resolutions switched. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. LUKE: Move approval of Resolution No. 2009 -017. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. LUKE: Move approval of Resolution No. 2009 -016. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items 3. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -016, Appointing a Financial Assistance Administrator for Public Health Contracts with the Oregon Department of Human Services 4. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -017, Appointing Scott Johnson as the Deschutes County Public Health Administrator 5. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -018, Transferring Appropriations in the RV Park Fund Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 2 of 19 Pages 6. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -019, Transferring Appropriations in the Fair & Expo Center Fund 7. Signature of a Letter Appointing Alan Unger to the Board of the Deschutes River Conservancy 8. Economic Development Grant Request: • Latino Community Association — Intercultural Festival — Commissioners Unger and Baney each granted $500. 9. Approval of Minutes: • Business Meeting: February 11 • Work Sessions: February 4, 11 and 18 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2009- 005, Recommending Approval of the Revised Sunriver Service District Credit Card Policy. 11. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2009- 006, Recommending Approval of Amendments to the Sunriver Service District's Financial Management and Investment Policy. County Legal Counsel has indicated that these two Resolutions do not need to go before the Board and can be handled internally by the District. Mark Pilliod said that there are existing policies in place, and apparently the SRSD administrator, who was working with the County's Finance Manager to modify the policies. The County helped the District form the policies initially. Commissioner Luke indicated that originally the District did not want to follow the model rules at first. He feels the Board should approve their policies. Mr. Pilliod stated that he would like to verify historic actions and clarify that the Board would be involved in overseeing Managing Board policies. He does not think all of the parties are clear about this process. Therefore, no action was taken on these two Resolutions at this time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 3 of 19 Pages CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9 -1 -1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 12. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9 -1 -1 County Service District in the Amount of $9,843.22 (two weeks). LUKE: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION /4 -H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 13. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension /4 -H County Service District in the Amount of $2,116.06 (two weeks). LUKE: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 14. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $1,940,896.23 (two weeks). LUKE: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 4 of 19 Pages 15. ADDITION TO THE AGENDA Before the Board were Deliberations on a Decision (continued from February 23) regarding Files CU -07 -102, SP -07 -46 (MA -08 -3, MA -08 -4, A- 08-14 and A- 08 -20) for Latham Excavation, regarding an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision on an Application to Expand Mining Activities at a Site Located off Johnson Road. Commissioner Luke noted that a letter was received from the applicant's attorney extending the time frame for a decision to March 31, 2009. Laurie Craghead recommended that each appeal item be addressed one at a time. She started with the appeal from the Hoffmans, reading off the pertinent points. The Hoffmans have argued that in order to do this expansion of the mining site, the applicant needs to file for an amendment to the ESEE. Commissioner Unger said that he feels that the ESEE still stands, and works for the changing circumstances. Commissioner Luke stated that he does not disagree with this. Commissioner Baney stated that a lot has changed in the area since 1989. There has also been a change in scope and material. They know more now than they did then; it was a long time ago. It is important to base policy on the most accurate information available at the time. With these changes, the premise of the ESEE should look at this. She would like to err on the side of having more information rather than less, and it has been nearly 20 years since first ESEE. Commissioner Unger said that things have changed, as the rural character is now more residential, around this and other mining sites. This creates more pressure on compatibility between residential, mining and agricultural uses. As he looks at the ESEE, the issues that are important are those that have to do with the effects of the mining character outside of its mining footprint. Those are dust, noise, and maybe water issues. They still are covered under this ESEE in terms of language; it covers changes in circumstances, noise, visual and dust impacts. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 5 of 19 Pages Commissioner Luke noted that the other thing that has changed is the legislature recognized the importance of mining and encroachment from other uses. When someone builds a home, they know what's next door. He is sensitive to the issue because of his in -law's involvement in farming. The ESEE covers the issues that need to be protected. He agrees with Commissioner Unger that the current ESEE is sufficient. Commissioner Baney said that there is a different magnitude of material coming off of the site, not covered in the old ESEE. A lot of development has happened predicated on the amount of work to be done. She feels a new ESEE would be more relevant. Commissioner Unger stated that it is his understanding that the ESEE does look at the mining condition, and he feels addresses the issues regarding dust, noise and reclamation. All three are important. As this mining occurs, perhaps in five -acre increments, that five acres will be a mining activity which will ultimately get reclaimed. As they move along, the footprint and the operation will stay much the same. Base to a 2 to 1 opinion, Staff understood that they are to accept the Hearings Officer's finding on this point. Staff explained that the County has no say on the reclamation plan, which may be exclusive to DOGAMI. Code requires the applicant to provide information on the reclamation plans, however. The Hearings Officer found that this was based on the entire site being under DOGAMI review. Even if DOGAMI exempted some areas from reclamation, that does not make those exempted areas subject to County review. Mr. Blikstad said that the site as a whole is subject to DOGAMI control. The only mention of the County is regarding post - reclamation plans for the site, which the County does not have. Ms. Craghead stated that the property is zoned mining with no EFU underlying zone. It will stay the same until a different zone is requested. Commissioner Luke noted that it would be hard to put an EFU zone on it if there is no soil or water. For a rezone, DOGAMI should sign off that the reclamation is done. Ms. Craghead said that DOGAMI approves and enforces, and the County does not have much of a say in it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 6 of 19 Pages Commissioner Baney asked how to assure that the process is taking place. Mr. Blikstad replied that activities that occur along with the work take up a substantial amount of space. It is hard to determine where the active five acres are at any given point. Commissioner Baney said that in order to be able to mine in this type of environment, they need to have a plan on what that looks like. The County needs to know where work is taking place and which areas are complete. Ms. Craghead noted that this is covered under item #6. Commissioner Unger stated that there is some frustration with DOGAMI, which typically deals with industrial reclamation but also has to handle sites where residential is nearby, with issues relating to erosion, dust control and safety. Ms. Craghead said that some Ordinances do cover noise and dust. Commissioner Luke stated that his philosophy is if you don't like the law, change it, but not at one decision at a time. The law only allows so much. The Board looks to staff and others to help educate them. DOGAMI's job is to make sure the appropriate laws are followed, and they have the expertise on reclamation. He assumes they will do their job; nevertheless, the County does not have the authority. Ms. Craghead said that as they move, they have to reclaim the old site. This does not happen overnight, though. Commissioner Luke said that DOGAMI probably does not require reclamation until the work is over, rather than one area at a time. Commissioner Baney said the Board should request that when they move to the next area, they should get a copy of a document showing that DOGAMI has been to the site. Mr. Blikstad stated that he did request that DOGAMI attend the hearing. Commissioner Unger noted that he also is frustrated with the DEQ and DOGAMI, as they are rather loose and don't easily share information. Commissioner Luke said that there is a huge difference between creating a new site or working on an existing site. This is their job. Commissioner Baney stated that the County has a right to know what is happening, as do the applicants and the opponents. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 7 of 19 Pages Ms. Craghead said that the Hearings Officer felt that DOGAMI has exclusive jurisdiction. Commissioner Luke reiterated that it is their job, and the County does not have the expertise. Commissioner Unger concurred. He said the big issue is not when the reclamation occurs, but the dust that is present. He would be happy if the County could enforce that aspect. Commissioner Luke stated that he has no problem holding their feet to the fire, by the County cannot take on this work as it is DOGAMI's responsibility and expertise. Commissioner Unger pointed out that he would like to make sure that they do what they say they will. He would like to have a discussion with them at some point to clarify this issue. Ms. Craghead said that another issue brought up by the applicant was that the Hearings Officer erred in approving crushing, as the ESEE did not prohibit it; and whether ESEE designated crushing as a use. This is on pages 9 and 10 of the decision. Code allows crushing on site as a conditional use. The opponents feel that no specific sites were designated for cruising on the ESEE, so it is not part of processing. Commissioner Unger said that he feels this is a part of processing. The issue is dust control. Commissioner Luke agreed with the Hearings Officer's decision except when she talked about the road and not the house. The opinion of the Hearings Officer was well researched. Commissioner Baney stated that she thinks a new ESEE would speak to this and add clarity. Crushing is part of processing, but the County is making a determination on something that could be clarified through a new ESEE. In regard to item #4, the justification for a rock crusher for incidental aggregate material, the opponents say there is no reason for this. Commissioner Baney said that the concern was that rock was going to be brought onto the site. Commissioner Luke added that rock should not be brought in; it should be what is already on site. Commissioner Unger agreed. Regarding mining on the hillside and amending the plan in the future, with a decision to be made by the public and the State Park, Mr. Blikstad said that staff agrees with the opponent, if there is a new site plan, the public should be involved. Commissioner Unger asked why there would be a new site plan. Mr. Blikstad said that they would have to have a new drawing like the one already submitted, showing moving the boundary of where they would mine Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 8 of 19 Pages Ms. Craghead noted that on page 34, condition #17, the issue was appealed by the applicant, as it restricts mining of the headwall. However, it is already visible from the trails. Commissioner Unger said that there are a lot of headwall type areas all over the area. It is not inconsistent with the area. But if they are changing the slope from a 1 to a 2, they would have to figure out how to manage the dust. Commissioner Luke stated that he does not think this is an unreasonable request. If the State Parks are working with the applicant, that's fine, but the State should not have the final say. This does not say it can't happen; just to do what they can to control it. No one knows what will come out of discussions with the State Parks. Ms. Craghead explained that they already objected to any more mining of the headwall. Commissioner Baney said she agrees with the Hearings Officer on this one. Mr. Blikstad stated that if there is a public process for the site plan, it would probably end up before the same Hearings Officer. This is not free, and it is unclear if a fee can be charged for this. Commissioner Luke asked if there is any reason for a site plan if they don't mine the headwall. Mr. Blikstad replied probably not; usually site plan decisions on mining a headwall go to a Hearings Officer. Ms. Craghead said that there would probably be no reason for a site plan if they don't mine the headwall. It only affects the area visible from the upper trails. If the Board agrees with the Hearings Officer, part of that is that the headwall must be screened from view from the upper trails. Commissioner Baney said that there is no way to screen the headwall. It is not relevant; what is done is done. Ms. Craghead stated that the applicant's argument is it is visible from the upper trails already, and a few more feet should not matter. The opponents don't want any more done. Commissioner Baney observed that it would be difficult to manage the dust coming off the headwall, and this impacts the surrounding areas. If the scope is allowed to be larger, it will be even more of an issue. They should let it stand as it is and move to other areas. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 9 of 19 Pages Commissioner Luke said that he is viewing this issue a little differently. He does not believe that the existing wall needs to be shielded. There are a lot of other places where it is worse than this. He is interpreting this to mean that if they want to expand the headwall, they need a site plan and a public hearing regarding how the dust will be controlled. This is a business decision, and should not be tied to the rest of the site. If they were not going to process, they could continue operations as they have been done. If they want to expand the headwall, they need a new site plan. It should not ban additional mining of the headwall, but a public process is needed. Ms. Craghead said that there is already testimony from the applicant regarding dust control on the wall. They said they are already doing plantings. This is based only on sight issues and not on dust control. Commissioner Luke stated that once the Hearings Officer makes a decision and the record closes, nothing can be added. He is not opposed to them mining the headwall, but they need to follow a process. They could mine around it. Ms. Craghead asked if this would be based on visibility, which was already discussed and there is testimony in the record. Commissioner Luke said that it relates to how they manage the wall for reclamation. He does not agree with item #17. He has no problem with them mining the headwall, but there should be an additional public process on that. Commissioner Baney asked if it could be a requirement for site plan approval; Ms. Craghead replied that this would be true only if the issue is visibility. Ms. Craghead said that another condition of the Hearings Officer's decision was modifications of the plan during processing. The opponents say they don't have a clear understanding of where the five acre slot to be mined is. They are also concerned about the areas for stockpiling and reclamation. Commissioner Baney asked if this is a visibility issue. Ms. Craghead said that is it potentially, but that was only the headwall. The Hearings Officer said that it is based on the submitted plan, but the opponents are unclear on which plan. The Hearings Officer refers to it "as modified ". Mr. Blikstad referred to some engineer's oversized drawings and said that is it difficult to show specific slots on a mining site, which by its nature has almost daily adjustments. There are general areas designated for mining, crushing and other activities. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 10 of 19 Pages Commissioner Luke noted that the Hearings Officer went from three mining sites to one. The revisions are on the final map used for the decision. Whatever maps are in the record are the ones she referred to, including modifications. A new site plan probably can't show anything more detailed. Commissioner Unger agreed that it probably is a movable area. Commissioner Baney also concurred. Regarding #7, storing material within 1/4 mile of a sensitive use, Commissioner Luke asked how sensitive uses are identified. He asked if there is an Ordinance to cover this; if so, it would be a Code enforcement issue. Ms. Craghead explained that it is an exception in this decision. It is within 1/4 mile of the Hawthorne property but that one has the least impact from the visual and the removal of vegetation. The Board agreed with the Hearings Office on this point. In regard to #8, the noise rule, a noise study was done, based on measurements from residences. A noise sensitive use would relate to pre -1997 residences. The Hearings Officer found that noise and dust sensitive uses includes the driveways to the residences, even though there is a difference in this between Code and the ESEE. Staff interpreted Code regarding dust to residences, and noise to residences or other places where sleeping occurs. In past decisions, it has always meant the living structure. The ESEE says it is 25 feet from the structure. The Hearings Officer found that ESEE rules, that it is more than just the structure, but the real property. This was adopted after ESEE controls. Mr. Blikstad stated that ESEE is generic in nature, and this is part of the package. Staff does not want to use the ESEE interpretation, which talks about all other uses and not just the structures. This would go against how it has been interpreted from the beginning, in 1990. The 1995 noise study was done from the residences, as was the one in 2008, adding 25 feet around the residences. Commissioner Unger said that he would stay with how the County has interpreted it, the house plus 25 feet. Commissioner Baney stated that she is concerned about the uniqueness of what might be on the property, like million dollar horses. Those are not in residences. Ms. Craghead said it excludes garages, shops and agricultural uses from noise or dust issues. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 11 of 19 Pages Commissioner Unger noted that the house is a distance away from the other uses. When people build a home, they know about it. A horse won't lose a foal from activity that has been going on for years. Commissioner Luke asked how someone moves next to something and not know about it. Ms. Craghead stated that the properties were there when the mine was there, but before the ESEE analysis. Commissioner Luke said that the ESEE at the time would have had to address those same concerns. Commissioner Baney stated that a new ESEE would bring this up to more current times. Commissioner Luke stated that he disagrees with the Hearings Officer. He thinks it should pertain to residences. There are barns that are riding arenas and much more. Conditions have changed, but they are talking about this application, and he does not see any reason to change the precedence that the County has followed for years. There are different types of agricultural uses now. He would not mind looking at this as a separate item at some point, but not for this application. Mr. Blikstad noted that Code does say that agricultural uses are not noise or dust sensitive. Farming is already noisy and dusty. Commissioner Unger said that the rural character of the area is changing, and there is a need to identify how this can be addressed at some point. Ms. Craghead stated that you would not be going with the Hearings Officer's decision, as it would not be the whole property. The definition includes the structure used as a residence plus twenty -five feet around it, for both noise and dust. Commissioner Baney said that dust can still be a hazard even if it isn't on the house. She believes that the DEQ thinks that dust is a problem for the property. Ms. Craghead stated that the definitions are similar. Commissioner Baney said she is not in agreement with the dust issue, but is okay with the noise sensitive concerns. The Board had consensus on the noise sensitive uses. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 12 of 19 Pages Regarding dust, Commissioner Luke said that it is a fact of life in the area. Commissioner Unger stated that incidental dust can e mitigated. Large dust plumes from disturbed areas is the issue, and whether it affects the entire property or just the residence. In regard to #9, screening of the north boundary, the opponents feel that the Hearings Officer failed to require a site plan map of what this would be. The applicants appealed this as not everything should be required. It will be impossible to put in a berm or plantings. The Commissioners agreed that it would be unnecessary. Regarding #10, dust suppression, Ms. Craghead asked if more dust control should be required. Commissioner Baney said they need to control the plumes, and perhaps can enhance hydromulching or other technologies to do this. She wants to know what a dust sensitive areas is per DEQ — to the property line? To the dwelling? Ms. Craghead said this is to be a Board interpretation. In the past it has been just the living structure; the definition in Code is similar for noise and dust. The opponents say the ESEE talks about additional uses. Commissioner Unger stated that there will be some dust, even with agricultural uses, but you try to keep it controlled. That is the challenge of dust. If it blow on the property, it will go to the residences, too. It won't be a perfect answer. Commissioner Luke said that the other issue is that the property might be right next door to the site. If property without residences are included, that's a problem. The applicants need to do what they can to keep the dust down, but there are going to be occasional dust issues. Commissioner Unger agreed that #7 addresses this, but the level of dust is the question. He does not know what DEQ standards are, but they might be too loose for the increasing residential in these areas. Commissioner Baney said they need to control dust as much as possible to the property lines. Ms. Craghead asked if this would be only if a residence was on the property. Commissioner Unger stated that the goal should be to keep the dust in the mine site area and protect whatever they can outside of that. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 13 of 19 Pages Ms. Craghead emphasized that Code only talks about residences, schools, churches, and so on. The ESEE does not protect agricultural or industrial areas. She asked if this would include the headwall. Commissioner Baney said it should. Commissioner Luke said that the problem is, even if they are not mining the headwall, there will be natural dust off of it. There are other areas that create dust. It is much easier to spray flat ground. He hopes the applicant can find a way to reduce dust, but it won't matter if there is activity there anyway. Commissioner Unger stated that dust is an issue that needs to be mitigated. These areas crust over eventually and minimize the dust. There are ways to control this to some level. Ms. Craghead said that the Hearings Officer's finding only talked about the driveways and not the entire property. Commissioner Luke stated that the applicant needs to do whatever is possible to keep the dust within its borders, and try to protect the residences but not necessarily the whole property. He asked, what if the property is 80 acres and the house is on the far side. Commissioner Baney stated that the Code interpretation as to whether it is being impacted should apply to shops and barns. Commissioner Luke noted that this would change the definition the County has used for years. He wants to just consider the houses. Ms. Craghead said that this has not come up for dust, but primarily to noise. Commissioner Unger said they need to minimize the dust to the property, and it does not matter if there is a house there. Commissioner Luke reminded him that this sets precedence that they might not want to set. Commissioner Baney asked how they would enforce trying to contain dust. Commissioner Unger said that they should hold it to incidental dust. Commissioner Luke added that it would need to be a measurable standard. The question is, how much is too much. Ms. Craghead said that this would have to address where you place dust - producing activities. Commissioner Unger stated that his biggest concern is for the people. The County is becoming more dense residentially. Commissioner Baney asked if there should be dust controlled on the subject property only. Commissioner Unger replied that would be the goal. Ms. Craghead asked what Code provision they would base this on. Commissioner Baney said that in order to meet this objective, this has to be articulated somehow. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 14 of 19 Pages Ms. Craghead stated that it is defined now as a property where there is a residence, church, school or similar use. Commissioner Baney said they should use real property, meaning the whole property, not just the residence plus 25 feet. She feels dust is different. Commissioner Unger stated that they may need more discussion on how to control dust. He believes that mitigation will achieve what needs to be done. Ms. Craghead emphasized that this is not consistent with the noise standard but they have both been interpreted the same in the past. Both talk about real property. This sets precedence. Commissioner Baney said that they may have been written at the same time, but could have been interpreted differently. Commissioner Luke left for another meeting at this time, at approximately 11:45 a.m. In regard to screening uses, including all of the equipment on site, the excavation, roadways, and excavated material, the opponents say that screening should be used to keep the dust down. The Hearings Officer disagreed. Commissioner Unger said that there is no way to achieve this. They need to keep the dust on the ground. Screening won't accomplish this. Commissioner Baney agreed. In regard to fugitive dust, the applicant says the Hearings Officer erred, that there is no nuisance and nothing further can be addressed regarding DEQ standards on fugitive dust. Commissioner Unger stated that he did not know whether crushing creates any more dust than anything else. The DEQ doesn't seem to think this is much of an issue. Commissioner Baney said that they are not allowed to create a nuisance, and DEQ says the same. The Hearings Officer's findings are adequate. Commissioner Unger agreed. Ms. Craghead said that the applicant states there is more risk from plowing fields in the area. This is a DEQ issue and dust suppression efforts must meet DEQ standards. The Hearings Officer acknowledge the site plan sight distance issues on roads has been mitigated by road improvements and signage. Commissioner Baney agreed that the Hearings Officer's decision is adequate. Commissioner Unger concurred. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 15 of 19 Pages Ms. Craghead said that findings show that there is an adequate supply of water to support mining activities with no impact to others. The opponents feel there is not enough dust suppression and there are groundwater impacts. Commissioner Unger stated that if a well is not adequate, they would use a water tower or an area to store water. The Water Resources Department says there is enough groundwater. In regard to contaminants, that would seem incidental to any activity of using a tractor or a truck on the road. They do have a contamination emergency plan. Commissioner Baney agreed that there is enough evidence that water is adequate and contamination is not an issue. Regarding the use of portable scales, Commissioner Unger said that this is not really an issue. It is a mining site and they need to be able to measure the material. Commissioner Baney agreed. In regard to added traffic, Commissioner Baney said that if it triggers a study, it needs to be done. Commissioner Unger stated that he is not sure requiring anything will help at this point. It is already a failing intersection but not necessarily because of this particular change. Ms. Craghead said that the application has to be denied if they think it triggers a study. Mr. Blikstad stated that the County's Transportation Planner and engineer both say that it is not needed. Commissioner Baney asked if it would be allow to get to a level where it might trigger the need for a study, and whether a caveat like this can be added. Commissioner Unger stated that he doesn't think there will be that many more vehicles. There is a limited market. They have to mine, wash and process, and it takes time. The intersection needs to be fixed anyway. Commissioner Baney stated that if the use grows, she would like to have something in place if necessary. Ms. Craghead said that the traffic study is fifty vehicle trips a day, one way. Mr. Blikstad pointed out that regarding the noise code, truck traffic is exempt. Commissioner Baney asked if some noise, in particular the noise made when a truck backs up, can be curtailed by hours of operation. Ms. Craghead said that this was in the noise control Code and not land use Code. This is a different permit process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 16 of 19 Pages Commissioner Unger stated that they are talking about trucks on the road. It is a County road, and is there to be used. He doesn't see what the point is. In regard to reclaiming areas that have already been mined, Commissioner Unger said that he expects there will be reclamation. Regarding the application to operate a site, Ms. Craghead stated that this was already addressed. The question of fugitive dust and the ESEE was already discussed. The Hearings Officer did not address the argument of whether new information being submitted during the hearing was acceptable. New information was submitted to the Hearings Officer after the hearing, but she was not asked to reopen the hearing to accept it. However, the Board had a de novo hearing and this issue was not brought up to the Board. In regard to crushing, the questions are whether to limit crushing to one site, and whether this is a noise issue; and whether to limit the size of the crusher. Commissioner Baney said there is not much that can be done with this. The site plan shows three sites but the Hearings Officer limited it to one. Ms. Craghead stated that the applicant claims they need all three sites to be able to move around as necessary. There would not be enough noise to affect noise sensitive uses. Commissioner Unger reiterated that they are to try to control dust, and this is harder to mitigate with more than one site. They should minimize the disturbed areas. Commissioner Baney said that they will have to move the crushing site to mine under or around it. It may mean more driving if there is only one site. They should be able to move the crushing site around to where they are mining. (She referred to the oversized map again.) Ms. Craghead said that noise studies were done from each site to every home, and the applicant says there are no problems with any of them. The Board has changed the definition of what is noise sensitive, however. Mr. Blikstad stated that the Hearings Officer found that the noise was to the residences. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 17 of 19 Pages Commissioner Baney asked how the Hearings Officer decided that it has to be just one location; and what happens when they have to move it. Mr. Blikstad stated that they would have to ask for a conditional use permit to move the site. It's just another process. Commissioner Baney stated that they may want to move it for operational purposes, to efficiently get the resource removed. Commissioner Unger stated that he agreed with the Hearings Officer. Mr. Blikstad said that the applicant wants to crush both pumice and incidental aggregate. The two Commissioners agreed, limiting it to what is on site. Bruce White, attorney for the applicant, said he had a question regarding the process. Commissioner Luke did not hear the applicant's appeal issues, and deliberations should have included him. He had indicated agreement with the Hearings Officer on some points. Ms. Craghead stated that the conversation could continue until later in the day, perhaps at the 1:30 Board work session. Perhaps the issues brought up by the opponents should also be considered by Commissioner Luke. It is difficult to parcel out the subjects, as the discussion jumped around and was handled very broadly. She feels the objection should have been made earlier. Commissioner Baney said that they will convey the conversation to Commissioner Luke. They want to be sure that this has benefited from a full process. Someone leaving does add some questions. Ms. Craghead stated that ex parte contact is not appropriate. The decision is not yet final. It will come back to the Board in draft form for approval, and Commissioner Luke can comment at that time. Paul Dewey, attorney for the opponents, added that Commissioner Luke could listen to the recording as well. Ms. Craghead stated that he will see the draft decision and can agree or disagree at that time. He can also talk about the issue with staff. There should be no further Board discussion at this time. Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 18 of 19 Pages DATED this 25th Day of February 2009 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: -R.A_-eJ elf Recording Secretary Tammy Baney, C it De nis R. Luke, Vi e Chair Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 19 of 19 Pages Es UJ 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, FEBRUARY 25, 2009 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. 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 Second Reading, by Title Only, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2009 -005, Amending County Code Violation Procedures, Adopting Statutory Provisions, regarding Issuance of Citations — Capt. Tim Edwards and Lt. Gary Decker, Sheriff's Office CONSENT AGENDA 3. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -016, Appointing a Financial Assistance Administrator for Public Health Contracts with the Oregon Department of Human Services 4. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -017, Appointing Scott Johnson as the Deschutes County Public Health Administrator 5. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -018, Transferring Appropriations in the RV Park Fund 6. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -019, Transferring Appropriations in the Fair & Expo Center Fund Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 1 of 9 Pages 8. Economic Development Grant Request: • Latino Community Association — Intercultural Festival — Commissioners Unger and Baney each granted $500. 9. Approval of Minutes: • Business Meeting: February 11 • Work Sessions: February 4, 11 and 18 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT 10. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -005, Recommending Approval of the Revised Sunriver Service District Credit Card Policy — Jim Coe or Bob Wrightson, Sunriver Service District 11. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -006, Recommending Approval of Amendments to the Sunriver Service District's Financial Management and Investment Policy — Jim Coe or Bob Wrightson, Sunriver Service District CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9 -1 -1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 12. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9 -1 -1 County Service District CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION /4 -H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 13. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4 -H County Service District RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 14. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 2 of 9 Pages 15. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA 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.) Thursday, February 26, 2009 9:00 a.m. Tri- County Work Session (Deschutes, Jefferson, Crook) — Fairgrounds Board Room, Redmond Monday, March 2, 2009 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, March 4, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, March 5, 2009 7:30 a.m. State of the County Forecast Breakfast — Bend Country Club 10:00 a.m. Regular Update with Community Development Department 2:00 p.m. Regular Update with Road Department 3:00 p.m. Regular Update with Solid Waste Department Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 3 of 9 Pages Wednesday, March 11, 2009 7:30 a.m. Conference Call with Public Affairs Council (State Lobbyist) regarding Legislation 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council, in Redmond 11:00 a.m. Regular Update with Health & Human Services Department Monday, March 16, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, March 18, 2009 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, March 19, 2009 9:00 a.m. Regular Update with the Clerk 10:00 a.m. Regular Update with Community Justice Department Monday, March 23, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:30 a.m. Conference Call with Public Affairs Council (State Lobbyist) regarding Legislation 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Fair & Expo Department 10:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the Assessor 11:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Commission on Children & Families Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 4 of 9 Pages Monday, March 30, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, April 1, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Sisters Council, Sisters City Hall Monday, April 6, 2009 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, April 8, 2009 7:30 a.m. Conference Call with Public Affairs Council (State Lobbyist) regarding Legislation 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, April 15, 2009 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Monday, April 20, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:30 a.m. Conference Call with Public Affairs Council (State Lobbyist) regarding Legislation 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 5 of 9 Pages Monday, April 27, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Monday, May 4, 2009 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, May 6, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12 noon Regular Commissioners /Department Directors Update Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council, in Redmond Monday, May 18, 2009 9:00 a.m. Budget Deliberations Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 6 of 9 Pages Tuesday, May 19, 2009 9:00 a.m. Budget Deliberations 1:00 p.m. Departmental Budget Presentations Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:00 a.m. Budget Deliberations Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:00 a.m. Budget Deliberations Monday, May 25, 2009 Most County Offices will be closed to observe Memorial Day. Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Monday, June 1, 2009 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, June 3, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, June 4, 2009 10:00 a.m. Regular Update with the District Attorney 11:00 a.m. Regular Update with Community Development Department 1:30 p.m. Regular Update with Road Department 2:30 p.m. Regular Update with Solid Waste Department Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 7 of 9 Pages Wednesday, June 10, 2009 7:30 a.m. Conference Call with Public Affairs Council (State Lobbyist) regarding Legislation 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:00 a.m. Regular Update with Health & Human Services Department Monday, June 15, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:00 a.m. Regular Update with Community Justice Department Monday, June 22 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, June 24, 2009 7:30 a.m. Conference Call with Public Affairs Council (State Lobbyist) regarding Legislation 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting — includes public hearings on proposed budgets, and consideration of adoption of the budgets 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Fair & Expo Department 11:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Commission on Children & Families 2:00 p.m. Regular Meeting with the Sheriff Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Page 8 of 9 Pages Wednesday, 10:00 a.m. 1:30 p.m. Wednesday, 10:00 a.m. 1:30 p.m. June 24, 2009 Board of Commissioners' Meeting Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) June 24, 2009 Board of Commissioners' Meeting Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, July 2 8:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Sisters Council, Sisters City Hall Friday, July 3 Most County Offices will be closed to observe Independence Day. 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, February 25, 2009 Page 9 of 9 Pages