Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-02 Business Meeting Minutes-(ES C., 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, NOVEMBER 2, 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; Tom Blust and George Kolb, Road Department; Kristen Maze, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; and seven other citizens, including two representatives of the media were present. 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 Signature of Order No. 2009 -067, Setting a Temporary Speed Limit of 45 MPH for Deschutes Market Road at Deschutes Junction. George Kolb gave a brief overview of the item. He said the reason for the speed limitation on a temporary basis is that it takes several months to get a speed study, which will be handled by ODOT. Commissioner Unger asked why they decided on a 45 MPH limit. Mr. Blust said that this appears to be what the road will bear. Commissioner Luke stated that if ODOT finds that traffic is moving at a certain speed and there are no problems, they often go to a higher speed. If there are schools, children and other considerations, this often keeps the speed lower. LUKE: Move approval. UNGER: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 2, 2009 Page 1 of 10 Pages VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. At this point, Commissioner Luke asked for clarification of the road name changes (items #4, 5 and 6), that relate to the Deschutes Market Road /Tumalo Road overpass project. 3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on Tumalo Irrigation District's Appeal of the Historic Landmarks Decision regarding Fencing and Landscaping at Shevlin Park Dam. Chair Baney opened the hearing and read the opening statement. In regard to bias, prejudgment or personal interest, none of the Commissioners had anything to proclaim. Commissioner Luke said that they have had a work session on this, and all contacts have been on the record. He added that he did visit the site at one time when Congressman Walden was visiting, as a part of a large group. No challenges from the audience were offered. Laurie Craghead said that the dates of a potential continuance are at the discretion of the Board; there is no fixed number of days. Kristen Maze suggested that it would be helpful to have the applicant go over the history of the issue. Commissioner Unger noted that there were some staffing changes in the Historic Landmarks Commission, and he wondered who represents them. Ms. Maze said she is the staff representative for the Commission, and works with staff handling the applications and other issues. Chair Baney asked about the role and function. Ms. Craghead said that they look at what should be listed, and how alterations would be handled. She added that Ms. Maze is not an advocate for the Commission, and if they wished to have representation they would have to vote and give perhaps the Chair of their group and make a statement at a meeting. Commissioner Luke asked if there has been time for this group to know about the hearing. Ms. Maze said that they have been aware of this meeting and the appeal for a long time, and could have attended or submitted written testimony. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 2, 2009 Page 2 of 10 Pages Sharon Smith, attorney representing the applicant, gave a PowerPoint presentation of the item. The proposed landscape plan was shown, and she gave an overview of the site with the improvements. Maintenance and improvements require the use of heavy equipment. Jon Burgl explained some of the engineering features of the site. Ms. Smith stated that the goal is to provide as much screening as possible, using native vegetation. She is asking that the Board approve fencing and landscape plan. She said that the ESEE analysis provides for the improvements. Mr. Burgl showed where the fish ladder and headgate would be located, how they would work and other details. They already have permission to put in the fish ladder and other improvements. He explained the need for and function of the fish ladder. (He referred to photos at this time.) Historic elements will be preserved at the museum or other location, and a plaque placed at the site. Kristen Maze said this remains a historic site even if there are no elements of the site still remaining. Ms. Craghead said one question is what the site is, whether it is just the dam itself or the surrounding area. Ms. Smith said that the headgate and the diversion dam are, in her opinion, the historic aspects, and the fencing, landscaping and new fish ladder are not. Chair Baney said the documents do mention the headgate and dam and not the landscaping. Ms. Smith stated that the thought is that the Historic Commissioner Review Board is an advisory group. Mr. Burgl said that the fence is used for safety and security. There are pools of water that can be considered an attractive nuisance. The primary concern is in regard to children. There is also electronic and mechanical equipment operating much of the time. He also showed slides of diversion dams located in Bend, which use the same type of fencing. Ms. Sharon said fencing around other historic sites is not uncommon. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 2, 2009 Page 3 of 10 Pages Commissioner Luke noted that animals, such as dogs, could also end up in the wrong place if the location is not secure. He asked if the Historic Landmarks Commission objects to the fence or just the type of fence. Ms. Smith said that she thinks the concern is two -fold: they don't like the fence, and they don't like the landscaping plan; or the road. Ms. Maze added that they were not happy that the fence went in prior to a hearing. Commissioner Luke said that an application came to them regarding removal of the old structure. Ms. Smith stated that part of the claim is that they feel they have authority over the entire site. They included the removal of the dam and headgate, but wanted a condition imposed regarding the fencing and security. Tumalo Irrigation District was not happy with the fencing plan, and wanted a smaller or less intrusive fence and different type of landscaping. It took a long time for this process due to health issues, changes in membership on the Commissioner and so on. Commissioner Luke stated that he can build a fence according to Code on his property. There are requirements as to what someone can do on their property. A person has a right to build a fence if it is per Code. Ms. Maze stated that there are no standards as to what the fence might look like, as long as it is under six feet. Commissioner Unger noted that the three strands of barbed wire might be an issue. He feels there should be more oversight of that kind of thing. He asked if the Planning Commission plays a role. Ms. Maze said that one application goes just to the Historic Landmarks Commission, and it goes through the Planning Commission and then to staff. Another application goes to a Hearings Officer. Ms. Smith said the applications went to the entities at about the same time. The entire package went to the Historic Landmarks Commission, and in hindsight the parts not under them should not have been included. Ms. Craghead said this land use decision was approved but there is an amended appeal. She said that the original plan was for the fence with no landscaping. Ms. Smith stated the fish ladder and flume had to be changed, so they filed a new application which was approved, and the appeal period has lapsed. They are willing to put in the landscaping, even though the appeal does not talk about the fence. Ms. Craghead Stated that a formal decision is needed to respond to the appeal regarding the fencing. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 2, 2009 Page 4 of 10 Pages Citizen Doug Ertner, 3890 NW Xavier, Redmond, said he has been living in the area for 23 years. He has been recreating and enjoying the area for a long time, and used to take his grandson fishing at the site. This location has sentimental value to him. He likes the quietness and spiritual value, but not necessarily the historic value. He also runs in the area. In 2005, he began attending meetings regarding a fish screen and ladder at the site, and there was a lot of discussion of fish preservation. He feels the District does good work in trying to save the fish. Other irrigation districts are dealing with the situation well. The fencing seemed to be a last minute consideration. The Landmarks Commission approved the dam and headgate work, and documentation and equipment would be preserved. The site was to have a historic plaque. He filed his first complaint a couple of years ago, as he feels the District is not in compliance with submitting and approval of a fence, which had been installed. In the decision is talks about standards of rehabilitation, in regard to preserving historic features. The fencing is not in character with the site but with changes could be improved. It does not have the feel or appearance of the previous site. The fencing is not a material or style typically used at historic sites. The decision of the Landmarks Commission found it to be incompatible with the site and required the District to come up with alternatives. They wanted a complete plan submitted within sixty days, which would include screening from the neighbors in the area. Mr. Ertner filed another complaint in 2007. He appreciates the District's efforts to save the fish, but suggested that the District submit a plan for fencing that is outside of their standards that blends in with the original historic site, with a small footprint and is esthetically pleasing. Their attorney and engineers showed that the fencing went all around the site. He feels that removable grating could be installed that can be accessed when necessary, and the footprint reduced so that a crane could be used to bring items over the fence.. Landscaping was an afterthought, and he feels that their suggestion regarding additional trees will make the situation worse, as it will hide the view from the neighbors. (He submitted photos of fencing at this time, for the record.) He feels they can still provide for safety while preserving the historic value of the site. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 2, 2009 Page 5 of 10 Pages Commissioner Luke asked if the diversion work was required. Ms. Smith said it is required by Oregon Fish & Wildlife. Some grant money was given from various sources, but funding from Tumalo Irrigation District was also used. This site is owned by the Bend Park & Recreation District, and they worked together with the Irrigation District on this. The Park District has no authority to approve or deny the landscaping and fencing plan, and has not objected. Commissioner Luke said there was an approval by Planning staff which included the fence, and there should not have been a Code enforcement action pursued if this is the case. Ms. Craghead said they looked at the site, the ESEE and comprehensive plan, and this was put on hold while this was reviewed. Her advice is that the Landmarks Commission did not have the authority to make a determination on the fencing. Ms. Smith responded to the issue regarding the Secretary of Interior standards. The guidelines relate to applications to alter the exterior of a historic structure or building. There are no changes to the structure as part of this application, and actually got approval to remove the historic structures. In response to alternatives, a grate over the water or the entire structure would have a greater impact, as it is much taller. This does not take care of the mechanical equipment and cables that are also a hazard or subject to potential vandalism. In regard to the trees, the intent is that the trees would impact the structure but not be high enough to impair the overall view. The trees would be much lower on the bluff. In regard to the size of the fencing, it is not realistic to use a crane over fence. There is too much danger of damage to equipment. Ms. Craghead clarified the Secretary of State standards were not included in the original condition of approval, so even if it was felt that the Landmarks Commission had some authority, this would be apply. And she is not sure they had authority to ask for a response within sixty days. They did not mention the aesthetic design, just the engineering design. Commissioner Luke stated that there have been decisions regarding historic locations, and the biggest one lately was Tetherow Crossing. There were discussions regarding the safety of the structure. There was dispute whether the entire structure was original. There were also trees dying there. The house and some property was transferred to the Central Oregon Park & Recreation group. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 2, 2009 Page 6 of 10 Pages There was no discussion of the land itself, just the building and the land it was on. It is interesting that the Commission would think that they would have authority over the area beyond the historic structures. Commissioners Luke and Unger asked for clarification of the location of the road, the site and the landscaping features in relation to the dam. Mr. Burgl said that the road is not one that is used by the public. The equipment road is used for maintenance by the District and Park & Recreation. Ms. Craghead said the action would be whether to approve the fence only, or with the landscaping; and whether to approve because the Historic Landmarks Commission does not have authority to condition a review of the fence. If so, the Board would reverse the denial of the fence. Chair Baney asked if a permit is required for the fence; Ms. Maze did not know but will find out. The County approved the overall site plan. Chair Baney closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Commissioner Unger said that there is a problem with the Historic Landmarks Commission and its role, and it needs to be reviewed. They should have some say over the scope of projects such as this over landmarks, but the law does not let them address anything other the historic portion. It does not seem to be working as it is. However, he feels the decision of he Planning Commission was correct and the Historic Landmarks Commission does not have authority. He wants the fence to be adequate for safety, but it could have been a different color or some way found to minimize its impact. Chair Baney said that she feels that the Historic Landmarks Commission authority lies in the structure itself. She is surprised that the structures themselves are being removed. This underscores her feeling that the issue was the structure and not the area. This is a historic site but because of the resources on the site. She does not feel that they have a right to condition the fence. The added component of landscaping shows good faith. She would like to have the landscaping piece included, and that the District be in touch with local property owners. Commissioner Luke stated that the Landmarks Commission deals with buildings, and won't tell you what kind of landscaping you need. He does not believe they had the authority to deal wit the fence. The silver fence can be painted brown to blend in better. The landscaping should be done. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 2, 2009 Page 7 of 10 Pages Ms. Craghead said that the Board is overturning the Historic Landmarks Commission's action and does not have authority to request landscaping either. Commissioner Luke said that the fence is for safety of the public and the equipment, as long as it meets County requirements. Chair Baney indicated that the Board would support painting of the fencing. LUKE: Move that staff write findings as follows: the Historic Landmarks Commission did not have authority to deny the application, so their denials overturned. Further, if the decision is appealed and the Historic Landmarks Commission is found to have authority, the Board approves the fencing and landscaping as proposed by the applicant, including suggestions regarding painting the fence. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Commissioner Luke said that there is a fine balance between historic preservation and property rights. Commissioner Unger feels that history and protecting this location is important, but for the most part it is voluntary. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. LUKE: Move approval of the Consent Agenda, except for the minutes of the October 26 business meeting and the October 28 work session. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. CONSENT AGENDA 4. Signature of Order No. 2009 -068, Assigning the Name of a Portion of Tumalo Road to Graystone Lane Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 2, 2009 Page 8 of 10 Pages 5. Signature of Order No. 2009 -069, Assigning the Name of a Portion of Deschutes Market Road to Deschutes Pleasant Ridge Road 6. Signature of Order No. 2009 -070, Assigning the Name of a Portion of Tumalo Road to Tumalo Place 7. Signature of Minutes of Meetings: • Work Sessions: October 26 & 28 • Business Meeting: October 26 & 28 • Special Meeting with Jefferson County Commissioners: October 19 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 911 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9 -1 -1 County Service District in the Amount of $7,241.87. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4 -H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension /4 -H County Service District in the Amount of $1,554.62. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 2, 2009 Page 9 of 10 Pages RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $387,984.62. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 11. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None were offered. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m. DATED this 2nd Day of November 2009 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Nut". &I/0'A_ Recording Secretary Tammy Ba ey, Chair Dennis R. Luke, Vice Chair Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 2, 2)09 Page 10 of 10 Pages 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, NOVEMBER 2, 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 Signature of Order No. 2009 -067, Setting a Temporary Speed Limit of 45 MPH for Deschutes Market Road at Deschutes Junction — George Kolb, Road Department 3. A PUBLIC HEARING on Tumalo Irrigation District's Appeal of the Historic Landmarks Decision regarding Fencing and Landscaping at Shevlin Park Dam — Kristen Maze, Community Development CONSENT AGENDA 4. Signature of Order No. 2009 -068, Assigning the Name of a Portion of Tumalo Road to Graystone Lane 5. Signature of Order No. 2009 -069, Assigning the Name of a Portion of Deschutes Market Road to Deschutes Pleasant Ridge Road 6. Signature of Order No. 2009 -070, Assigning the Name of a Portion of Tumalo Road to Tumalo Place Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, November 2, 2009 Page 1 of 5 Pages 7. Signature of Minutes of Meetings: • Work Sessions: October 26 & 28 • Business Meeting: October 26 & 28 • Special Meeting with Jefferson County Commissioners: October 19 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 911 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 8. 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 9. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4 -H County Service District RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County 11. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA (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.) 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 Monday, November 2, 2005, Page 2 of 5 Pages FUTURE MEETINGS: (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388- 6572.) Monday, November 2 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council) Wednesday, November 4 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Monday, November 9 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 12 noon Regular Meeting with Department Directors 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, November 11 Most County Offices will be closed to observe Veterans' Day. Thursday, November 10 7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council — Redmond City Hall 3:00 p.m. COACT Meeting, Redmond November 15 through 20 Annual Association of Oregon Counties' Conference — Portland Thursday, November 26 Most County Offices will be closed to observe Thanksgiving Friday, November 27 Most County Offices will be closed to observe Thanksgiving (unpaid day off) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, November 2, 2009 Page 3 of 5 Pages Monday, November 30 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, December 2 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, December 3 8:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Road Department 9:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Solid Waste 10:00 a.m. Regular Update with District Attorney 11:00 a.m. Regular Update with Community Development 12:00 noon Meeting of Full Audit Committee Monday, December 7 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, December 9 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, December 10 11:00 a.m. Regular Update with Health and Human Services Wednesday, December 16 2:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) — Please note later time! Thursday, December 17 10:00 a.m. Regular Update with Community Justice Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, November 2, 2009 Page 4 of 5 Pages Thursday, December 24 Most County Offices will be closed to observe Christmas (unpaid day ofJ Friday, December 25 Most County Offices will be closed to observe Christmas Thursday, December 31 Most County Offices will be closed to observe New Years (unpaid day ofJ Friday, January 1 Most County Offices will be closed to observe New Years 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 Monday, November 2, 2009 Page 5 of 5 Pages BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING Agenda Item of Interest Name C 1- c--o, REQUEST TO SPEAK Datt" &) Z - .4"--b") Address '0 60 (60 v -J aYL `\ -20 ) Phone #s S � � frL(yJ/ E -mail address 5 01 (7k & 0( Li‘ filAjtrir TInFavor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING Agenda Item of Interest Name REQUEST TO SPEAK Date Opposed No Address 2c, 'eE2 - eR. ( , qP- z 1Q Phone #s -f/ - / Ys- 7 E -mail address J P bow I eamc,.6 ✓► In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes Opposed No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING c/r�{ Agenda Item of Interest Name 1 REQUEST TO SPEAK i1L Ertn€,t' Date y f. Address Phone #s E -mail address In Favor i cc� Neutral/Undecided [X Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes OPENING STATEMENT FOR A DE NOVO PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS I. INTRODUCTION A. This is a De Novo hearing on an appeal of the historic landmarks decision to deny a proposed landscape plan surrounding a fence around the fish ladder and historic headgates at the Shevlin Park diversion dam. The County File Number(s) are A- 07-7 and HLA -05 -1. B. In those applications, the applicant requested approval to install a fish screen and fish ladder over the Shevlin Park diversion dam and replace the existing historic headgate and install a fence around the site. The Board takes notice of the record below and includes that record as part of the record before us. II. BURDEN OF PROOF AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA A. The applicants have the burden of proving that they are entitled to the proposal sought. B. The standards applicable to the application before us are Deschutes County Code 2.28.160 Exterior alteration and new building restrictions and Ordinance No. 94 -022 that established the protection of the historic structure. C. Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the criteria, as well as toward any other criteria in the comprehensive land use plan of the County or land use regulations which any person believes apply to this decision. D. 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 approval with sufficient specificity to allow the Board to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. III. ORDER OF PRESENTATION A. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. 1. The staff will give a report. 2. The applicant will then have an opportunity to offer testimony and evidence. 3. Proponents of the proposal then the opponents will then be given a chance to testify and present evidence. 1 4. The applicants will then be allowed to present rebuttal testimony but may not present new evidence. 5. At the Board's discretion, if the applicants presented new evidence on rebuttal, opponents may be recognized for a rebuttal presentation. 6. At the conclusion of this hearing, the staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments. 7. The Board may limit the time period for presentations. B. If anyone wishes to ask a question of a witness, the person may direct the question to the Chair during that person's testimony, or, if the person has already testified, after all other witnesses have testified but before the Applicant's rebuttal. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the witness. C. Continuances 1. The grant of a continuance or record extension shall be at the discretion of the Board. 2. If the Board grants a continuance, it shall continue the public hearing to a date certain. 3. If, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Board leaves the record open for additional written evidence or testimony, the record shall be left open to a date certain for submittal of new written evidence or testimony and at least seven additional days for response to the evidence received while the record was held open. Written evidence or testimony submitted during the period the record is held open shall be limited to evidence or testimony that rebuts previously submitted evidence or testimony. 4. If the hearing is continued or the record left open, the applicant shall also be allowed a period to a date certain after the record is closed to all other parties to submit final written arguments but no new evidence in support of the application. IV. PRE - HEARING CONTACTS, BIASES, CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS A. Do any of the Commissioners have any ex -parte contacts, prior hearing observations; biases; or conflicts of interest to declare? If so, please state their nature and extent. B. Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner based on ex -parte contacts, biases or conflicts of interest? (Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed.) (Staff Report) 2 • ;cAL 'Afilvent‘,"11,611kWONikaireakkaiL Tel st. .;--5,4-14; • - • , • . • • - • • 4- A. - • - • . -44 MP • • - '.....-,,,' .1 • •■,......% ''''''. , rem -- - .: s.4.0g1XliAlbgl ' : • ...I:4,44j ''' rV. '1.-' • , 't '' . ' ■ ' ' ' . I . % .< 5 ' •\ " • \ ;".‘1,* fl �r A 44 Oesiiiil"f4T