Loading...
1992-30905-Minutes for Meeting September 02,1992 Recorded 9/16/199211 ti 92-30905 0119. 06'70 MINUTES fb i DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS September 2, 19924 t ,{.Lzk '" Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 10 a.m. Board members in attendance were: Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Nancy Pope Schlangen. Also present were: Rick Isham, County Counsel; Bruce White, Assistant County Counsel; Larry Rice, Public Works Director; Ralph Delamarter, Librarian; George Read, Planning Director; Dale Van Valkenburg, Planner; and Susan Mayea, Board Office Manager. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDER 92-090 ALTROCCHI ANNEXATION TO RFPD#2 Before the Board was a public hearing on Order 92-090 approving the Altrocchi annexation to the Rural Fire Protection District #2, and setting a final hearing for September 23, 1992. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to testify, the public hearing was closed. SCHLANGEN: I move signature of Order 92-090. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 2. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDER 92-089 SHOAF ANNEXATION TO RFPD #2 Before the Board was a public hearing on Order 92-089 approving the Shoaf annexation to the Rural Fire Protection District #2 and setting a final public hearing for September 23, 1992. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to testify, the public hearing was closed. THROOP: Move signature of Oregon 92-089. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 1 MINUTES: 9-2-92 3. 0119-0671 ORDER 92-102 AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF FUND FOR KNOTT ROAD Before the Board was signature of Order 92-102 authorizing the expenditure of County Road Department funds for the improvement of a portion of Knott Road, a local access road located in Deschutes County. Larry Rice said there was a continuing problem on Highway 97 south where the railroad over crossing restricted heights to much less than standard. The County had an arrangement with the State where they issued permits to oversized vehicles to use Knott Road instead. He estimated there were fifteen such requests each year, i.e. for moving houses. The State always notified his office when permits were issued. Knott Road was a public right of way not a County -maintained road and was not in the transportation plan. He had received a call from the U.S. Coast Guard indicating they would be moving up to 100 overheight vehicles down Highway 97 in the fall. They requested that the existing dirt on Knott Road be leveled and the surface made more passable. This road was also used for diversion of traffic in case of emergencies, i.e. accidents or construction. Therefore, he felt the least the Public Works Department could do would be to grade the road and put on a couple of inches of ciders so it would be an all weather emergency access road with gates at both end. The gates would cost $1,900 and would have a standard City of Bend fire lock box on it. He felt the road should be gated because the road wouldn't be used for general traffic but for the diversion of overheight vehicles. When the state was finished rebuilding the overcrossing about three years from now, there would no longer be a need to use this diversion road. Chairman Maudlin asked what the total cost of this project would be. Larry said about $3,000 - $4,000 plus $1,900 to gate it. Chairman Maudlin asked what this would do for the people of Deschutes County. Larry Rice said it would provide an emergency access and a temporary diversion around the area if there was an accident in or near the undercrossing. Chairman Maudlin didn't think the County should be expending money because the military wanted to move 100 boats on Highway 97. Larry Rice said there were frequent requests from others for diversion for overheight vehicles. Chairman Maudlin asked if the County charged for this access, and Larry Rice responded no. He said it was a temporary fix for a state highway problem, but the County would have to deal with it until the railroad overpass was fixed. Commissioner Schlangen asked if the state was contributing to the cost of improvements to Knott Road. Mr. Rice said no, however the County did receive over $4 million in shared gas taxes from the state. PAGE 2 MINUTES: 9-2-92 0119-06'72 THROOP: Mr. Chair, I'd move signature of Order 92-102. SCHLANGEN: Second. Commissioner Throop pointed to two strong reasons for approving this order: (1) to make sure the County had a route for passage of oversized vehicles and (2) to have a alternate route in case there was an emergency which required diversion of vehicles from the state highway. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: NO 4. NURSING CONTRACTS Before the Board was chair signature of school nursing contracts with the Education Service District, Redmond School District #2-J, Sisters School District #6, and Brothers School District #15. The Deschutes County Health Department would be providing the nurses for these contracts. THROOP: I'll move signature of the nursing contracts with the four school entities. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 5. RESOLUTION 92-061 DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY AND PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH COMPLETE AUCTIONEERING Before the Board was signature of Resolution 92-061 declaring surplus property and providing for sale by auction and Personal Services Contract with Complete Auction. Susan Mayea said that the lowest bid received to conduct the County auction was 3-1/2% from William Welch of Complete Auctioneering Services, and she recommended awarding the contract to him. This year's auction would be on Saturday, September 12 at the County Public Works facility. There were several other public agencies involved in the County auction this year including Bend/LaPine School District, COCC, COIC, COCOA, 9-1-1, ESD, City of Bend, and Bend Metro Park and Recreation. SCHLANGEN: I move signature of Resolution 92-061. THROOP: I'll second the motion. PAGE 3 MINUTES: 9-2-92 mr 7. VOTE: THROOP: YES 0119-0673 SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES SCHLANGEN: I move signature of Personal Services Contract with Complete Auctioneering Services. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES MP -92-10 DIVIDING FOREST ZONED LAND Before the Board was signature of MP -92-10 which would divide Forest Zoned land into three parcels along George McAllister Road for Hrdlicka and Brice. Commissioner Throop said this property was contiguous to Black Butte Ranch and would solve their disposal problems. SCHLANGEN: I move signature of MP -92-10. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES RESOLUTION 29-067 CONCERNING VOLUNTEER_ APPRECIATION DAY Before the Board was signature of Resolution 92-067 declaring September 10, 1992, as Volunteer Appreciation Day in Deschutes County. THROOP: I'll move signature of the resolution. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 8. APPOINTMENT TO COIC BOARD Before the Board was notification of resignation of Deak Preble from the COIC Board and recommendation of Gary Capps, Bend Chamber Manager, to fill that vacancy. THROOP: I'll move appointment of Gary Capps. SCHLANGEN: I'll second. PAGE 4 MINUTES: 9-2-92 VOTE: THROOP: YES Ol�Q OV SCHLANGEN: YES v MAUDLIN: YES 9. LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS Before the Board was chair signature of liquor license renewals for Hook, Wine and Cheddar; Village Bar & Grill; Ferguson's Terrebonne Market; Terrebonne Mini Market & BP; Ponderosa Pizza in Sunriver; Ponderosa Pizza in LaPine; Rock Springs Guest Ranch; Alfalfa Store; Tom's Market; Alpine Foods; Tumalo Feed Company; and Erickson's Sentry Market in LaPine. SCHLANGEN: Move signature. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 10. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VOUCHERS Before the Board were accounts payable vouchers in the amount of $92,316.45. THROOP: Move approval of the accounts payable vouchers subject to review. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 11. PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACT WITH ELIZABETH FANCHER Before the Board was signature of Personal Services Contract with Elizabeth Fancher to act as hearings officer for the County in land use matters referred to her by the County's Planning Director. SCHLANGEN: I'll move signature of Personal Services Contract with Elizabeth Fancher. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 5 MINUTES: 9-2-92 12. 0119-0675 TANGLEWOOD PHASE III CONDOMINIUM PLAT Before the Board was signature of City Condominium Plat for Tanglewood, Phase II, on Bronzewood Avenue and Teakwood Drive for Trendwest, Inc. SCHLANGEN: Move signature. THROOP: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 13. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THOM MARTIN Before the Board was signature of a Development Agreement with Thom Martin and Frank Reugg concerning a change of use request from residential to business for property on Parrell Road. Rick Isham said this was a residence which Frank Reugg was purchasing on contract. There was no change in the physical structure, and they were just converting the use from residential to commercial. It was already commercially zoned property. THROOP: I'll move signature of the Development Agreement. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 14. TAX REFUND ORDER 92-100 Before the Board was signature of tax refund Order 92-100. SCHLANGEN: Move signature of tax refund Order 92-100. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 15. PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH SEDGWICK JAMES OF OREGON Before the Board was signature of a Personal Services Contract with Sedgwick James of Oregon for the County's maintenance of insurance and risk management program. PAGE 6 MINUTES: 9-2-92 0119-06'76 THROOP: I'll move signature of the Personal Services Contract with Sedgwick James. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin temporarily suspended the meeting of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners and convened as the Governing Body of the Deschutes County 9-1-1 County Service District. 16. RESOLUTION 92-068 MAKING APPROPRIATIONS Before the Board was signature of Resolution 92-068 amending Resolution 92-047 making appropriations of the 9-1-1 County Service District Budget. Susan Mayea said this amendment was needed to make a correction on the original resolution. THROOP: I'll move signature of Resolution 92-068 SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 17. RESOLUTION 92-071 SUBMITTING THE 9-1-1 TAX BASE Before the Board was signature of Resolution 92-071 calling for a Deschutes County 9-1-1 County Service District tax base election on Tuesday, November 3, 1992, to establish a new tax base. MAUDLIN: Entertain a motion for signature of Resolution 92- 071. SCHLANGEN: So moved. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin adjourned the meeting of the Governing Body of the Deschutes County 9-1-1 County Service District and reconvened as the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. PAGE 7 MINUTES: 9-2-92 0119-0677 18. JOINT LIBRARY FACILITIES COMMITTEE Commissioner Throop said there were two local governments in Deschutes County who had major library problems: Deschutes County and COCC. There had been ongoing discussions between the County and COCC to look at possible efficiencies and cooperation of library services. Yesterday afternoon, he met with some members of the Deschutes County Library Board of Trustees, Ralph Delamarter, Dr. Bob Barber, president of COCC, and Max Merrill, a member of COCC Board of Directors. This group discussed a means of getting the parties together to consider: (1) did it make sense to share facilities, and (2) what were the host of other areas where efficiencies and cooperation could be achieved. The recommended process from this group was taken to the full Deschutes County Library Board of Trustees last evening, and Mr. Delamarter was here to bring their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Ralph Delamarter said the Library Board of Trustees looked at the committee's discussions and were very enthusiastic about moving on this issues. The Trustees recommended that a task force be appointed to consider these issues in depth. The timetable they recommended was to come up with some kind of conclusion on how facilities could be affected by cooperation by about the middle of October, and continuing to look at the affect of cooperation and efficiencies on library services by the middle of December. They recommended that the members of the task force consist of: three members from the County and three members from the college and a couple of members who were connected with neither the County nor the college. Commissioner Throop pointed out that Dr. Barber and Ralph Delamarter were working on a mission statement and a process for the task force so it would be clear from the beginning what the charge of the task for was. Chairman Maudlin asked that Ralph Delamarter coordinate getting the recommended names from the parties for the Board to appoint at their next meeting. 19. PUBLIC HEARING: DESTINATION RESORT MAPPING Before the Board was a public hearing on repealing and replacing Ordinance 92-002 which amended the County Comprehensive Plan to add a map entitled "Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Combining Zone" and Ordinance 92-003 which amended the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance to map the areas designated as available for destination resorts on the destination resort map. Dale Van Valkenburg gave the attached staff report. PAGE 8 MINUTES: 9-2-92 011.9-0678 Bruce White said he had prepared two draft ordinances (92-056 and 92-057) which he distributed to the Board. He said he would likely be breaking these down into four different ordinances: the first would repeal the comprehensive plan designation for destination resorts, the second would repeal the zoning map designation for destination resorts, the third would readopt a new map in the area which was being repealed for the Comprehensive Plan, and the fourth would do the same for the zoning map. Commissioner Throop said that in the original destination resort decision making, the Commissioners decided to segment the process into: (1) dry lands, (2) forest lands in conjunction with the adoption of the forest rule, and (3) irrigated farm lands. Two of those have been completed --dry lands and forest lands. So he saw the issue before the Board today as an attempt to get back to the original decision which was made on dry lands, absent the three mile ring around Deschutes County to conform with a LUBA case, because the County had not had the opportunity to determine whether there was a high-value crop area outside of Deschutes County. Bruce White said the County was basically doing a legislative severance of the map. The County was amending the map as it was adopted by Ordinances 92-002 and 92-003, which were appealed to LUBA. The subsequent forest zoning map was not appealed. Commissioner Throop pointed out that any decision made by the Board on this matter would not have an impact on any individual application. This process was not for an approval or rejection of any individual application, but would put the framework together to determine where applications could be taken on dry land in Deschutes County. Bruce White agreed there was no specific application under consideration, and the Board would only be specifying on a map the areas which were available for destination resorts. Bruce White said the record from the previous dry land process would be the record which the Board would start the hearing with today. This record would be supplemented by the testimony received during this legislative process. Commissioner Throop said the Board received a letter on September 1, 1992, from the concerned citizens from the Smith Rock area, which recommended that since Deschutes County was reopening the destination resort mapping, they requested that some of the Board's actions taken after the dry land adoption, i.e. wildlife decision, be incorporated into the dry land map. Commissioner Throop asked if the staff had had an opportunity to consider whether the areas which were now wildlife combining zone but were not wildlife combining zone at the PAGE 9 MINUTES: 9-2-92 01.19-0679 time the original map was adopted should be made a part of the dry lands map. Commissioner Schlangen thought the wildlife map decision had been deferred until later. Commissioner Throop said "not for this purpose." Bruce White said staff had not yet considered that issue, however if "there was something out there to be inventoried" and with the record open, that would be an issue the staff would need to look at. He felt that at some point the Board might have to decide whether this process was getting too complicated and going in a direction the Board didn't want to go. Commissioner Throop asked George Read for his comments on that issue also. George Read said the intent of this hearing was to readopt the map as it existed before because the appeal only related to that area within three miles of the County border. The new wildlife mapping which had been done was not included under the Goal 8 exclusion that the state required. He felt it was an issue, and they would need to make findings on how the County was resolving that issue as part of this process. The wildlife area had been deferred until phase 3, and that was how the comprehensive plan said the County was proceeding. Bruce White felt there still was a question as to whether the issue could be ignored since the destination resort mapping issue was open again. George Read agreed that the County would have to make findings on this issue. Commissioner Throop asked that staff give the Board an evaluation of this issue and what options would be available before the Board made its decision on this issue. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing and asked for testimony from the proponents. Bob Lovlien, PO Box 1151, Bend, 97709, said he was representing Eagle Crest Partners Ltd. and thanked the staff for the time they had put into this process. Eagle Crest had made application for a review of an expansion of an existing destination resort under the ordinances as previously adopted by this Board. Following the appeal, there were issues concerning the effect of the remand on the ordinances and the maps. He felt Commissioner Throop had accurately identified what the issues were. Eagle Crest hoped that all of these issues would not be reopened, especially the wildlife issues. There had already been extensive hearings held on these issues and findings made. They requested an opportunity to respond in writing following this hearing. Concerning the water issue, the ordinance required that they come back to County and review the entire issue of the availability of water. The issue of llamas was also specifically addressed by the findings. He felt these issues had been addressed so the Eagle Crest application could be addressed on the merits of that individual application as it related to the Deschutes County Destination Resort Ordinance. PAGE 10 MINUTES: 9-2-92 0119-0680 Terry Hatfield testified that he owned property immediately adjacent to Eagle Crest Properties. He said there was a group of people at this hearing who felt they represented the majority of people living in the canyon river territory and the majority of people living in and around Redmond and Deschutes County. He had formed a group called "Friends of Progress" and they visited every service club in Redmond, and got 100% of those attending to sign a public opinion petition (heading said LUBA Petition) supporting Eagle Crest. They hoped the Board of Commissioners would take what actions were necessary for Eagle Crest to proceed with their expansion. Neil Chase, said he had lived at Eagle Crest for many years and supported their application for expansion. He asked that the Board move forward on their application and not listen to the obstructionists who didn't want anyone else to be able to move to this community. Chairman Maudlin asked for testimony from the opponents. Bill Boyer, P.O. Box 37, Sister, testified that he was chairman of ARLU-DeCo and gave the attached testimony verbally. Commissioner Throop had a question regarding the list of high-value crop areas. He thought the language referred to "livestock feedlots" as one classification, not "livestock" by itself. Mr. Boyer said the definition also included crops or products. Chairman Maudlin asked if he was saying the word "crops" could mean an animal? Mr. Boyer said that was a legal question, and he was just presenting his argument. He felt the burden of proof fell on the County to deal with the legal question of whether his position was not adequate. Commissioner Throop outlined what he understood Mr. Boyer's legal argument to be. There were two tiers of explanation: the law and the rule. The first said crops and products while the second listed examples of crops and products, however, Mr. Boyer was saying that this listing was not intended to be exclusive to the list and was only an example. Therefore, although livestock was not included on the list as an example, it should be considered as one of the products. Mr. Boyer pointed out that "livestock feedlots" was listed. Commissioner Throop said there were two different classifications involved in dealing with livestock: livestock which would graze on fields and would be held in some other fashion than feedlots and feedlots which were a concentration of animals. Mr. Boyer said that the way these items were listed in Goal 8 was not to suggest that they constituted all of the categories but were only suggestive of the categories. Commissioner Throop said that concerning Mr. Boyer's second argument on concentration that generally when the state had dealt with concentration in the past and were proposing to deal with concentration on some new issues, they would use a block size of maybe 160 acres. If there was a five acre PAGE 11 MINUTES: 9-2-92 01.19-0681 parcel or a 40 -acre parcel or an 80 -acre isolated parcel, that wouldn't constitute a concentration. There would have to be contiguous parcels which would be of a larger block size. He asked Mr. Boyer if he felt his argument met that definition of concentration. Mr. Boyer said he felt that first there needed to be a map. Then the question of legal methodology could be applied to determine the meaning of concentration on the map. Marjorie Turner, P.O. Box 8005, Sisters 97759, testified that she was an economist, had lived at Black Butte Ranch since 1976, and was interested in the work of ARLU-Deco. She felt that the materials which the County had been dealing with were lopsided. She said Deschutes County's land and water resources were fixed. People were also concerned with land prices. She felt additional destination resorts would impact small industry. They initially had a boom -town effect which created many jobs, but there was a price to pay for that. When the boom effect was over, some adjustment had to be made. She felt that any expansion would increase the need for and the cost of governmental services. The population would grow whether there were additional destination resorts or not. She was in favor of balanced growth. She felt that growth of up- scale tourist facilities might reduce the possibility of attracting manufacturing firms because of their effect on the price of land. Most job growth in the United States was from small businesses and Oregon was falling behind the national average in per capita income. Tourism offered mainly seasonal, entry level jobs whereas manufacturing would offer year round, higher paying jobs. The growth of high-priced tourism would inhibit the attraction of middle-income retirees because of the effect on land prices. She recommended that increased population be located in the established urban growth areas and the exception areas of the rural county. The forest and farm areas should be preserved. Deschutes County already had four of the seven larger destination resorts in Oregon. She felt a critical concern with more destination resorts was their demand for water. Chairman Maudlin asked if she would agree that destination resorts would create some job. Ms. Turner said yes, but the trade offs had to be considered also, i.e those jobs might cost the County other manufacturing jobs. Chairman Maudlin asked what the people who had moved to Central Oregon since 1980 would be doing if these resort job weren't available. Ms. Turner said the proposed resort jobs were not available. Chairman Maudlin asked what the 2,800 people who were currently working in these job would be doing if these kinds of jobs weren't available? Ms. Turner said she assumed the Commissioners were planning for the future not the past, and felt they should be planning for higher paying jobs. PAGE 12 MINUTES: 9-2-92 0119-0682 Betty Marquardt, PO Box 1138, Sisters, testified that she was against any other destination resorts being allowed in the County for the following reasons: (1) the public opinion polls showed that the people of Deschutes County were not in favor of any more destination resorts; (2) the Commissioners should make their decisions for the good of the County as a whole and not for developers. She felt EFU zoned lands should not be rezoned to allow destination resorts, and that commercial uses (horse shows, antique auctions, golfing events) should not be allowed in destination resorts. The roads in the resorts were too narrow for the trucks associated with commercial uses. She said the Eagle Crest beauty shop was advertizing in the Redmond Spokesman for public customers, and she wondered if the they had a business license. She felt this was not allowed under the destination resort ordinance. She felt it was the Commissioners job to protect the County's natural resources, farm land and open space. Sandra Sands, Redmond, on the Board of ARLU-DeCo, testified that Goal 8 had to be read in conjunction with other goals, and that the County had to take into account all other resources when evaluating appropriate siting of destination resorts. Water was one of the critical resources to be evaluated. She said existing reports reflected that ground water and surface water flows in the Deschutes River Basin were extremely complex and in many cases declining. The existing data was insufficient to determine whether the water resource had the ability to handle another destination resort. Since insufficient data existed and the potential for harm was great, more data should be required before mapping was completed. She felt the County had a duty to map in a manner which would not harm the quality or quantity of existing water resources. Current state law mandated that statewide programs to identify and characterize ground water quality "shall be conducted." Therefore, Deschutes County was required to conduct reasonable studies and evaluations of the ground water in the basin prior to mapping for destination resorts. These obligations were highlighted at a resent hearing of the Oregon Water Resources Commission. The Water Resources Commission directed the Water Resources Department to notify Deschutes and Jefferson Counties that insufficient information existed to continue siting destination resorts which depended on ground water. Commissioner Throop asked if Ms. Sands had the minutes from the meeting of the Water Resources Commission. Ms. Sands said she had a tape of the meeting. Commissioner Throop said this was the first he had heard about this issue, and he didn't think that anyone in Deschutes County had received anything from them. Ms. Sands said the date of the hearings was July 17, 1992. Commissioner Throop asked what the issue was that brought on these statements from the Commission. Ms. PAGE 13 MINUTES: 9-2-92 0119-0683 Sands said the issue was raised involving discussion on whether to grant a groundwater withdrawal right. Commissioner Roger Bockman had summarized noting that prior to any further destination resort siting, someone needed to gather and analyze or present to the Water Resources Department for analysis more data on groundwater, or "we may just have to say stop all these developments until we know." She stated that mapping should be postponed until this data and analysis was completed. She recommended that before mapping occurred, the County require that destination resort developers create a data base of sufficient information to provide a rational basis for the in-depth technical analysis study necessary to map appropriate areas for Goal 8. It could then be turned over to the County or the Water Resource Department for analysis. Commissioner Throop asked if she knew whether the Water Resources Department had indicated they would have the resources to process water data, if it were provided by the applicant, for assessment and response back to the County? He pointed out that most of the responsibility for water was at the state level. Ms. Sands said she felt it would be irresponsible for the County not to undertake that process because it was in the best interests of the County. She felt they probably had the capability to do the assessment and that it was the County's responsibility to find out. Jen Twining, PO Box 1017, Sisters OR 97759, testified that ARLU-DeCo opposed any additional siting of destination resorts in Deschutes County. They were objecting to the procedure as referred to in 22.24.150, and she submitted exhibits to demonstrate inconsistencies in the County procedure leading to this hearing. Their first objection was that the County gave public notice six days in advance of accepting its own application. Their second objection was that all application materials were not available for public review until less than 48 hours prior to this hearing. Commissioner Throop pointed out that the provisions she was referring to involved quasi- judicial matters and not legislative matters, and therefore were not germane to this hearing. Ms. Twining said she was reading it rather loosely because she was seeing this hearing as somewhat quasi-judicial. She still felt it was an example of the County violating its own ordinances. She asked that the Board follow its promise to use the public opinion poll to help set policy for rural land use, and 80% of those polled felt the County had too many or about the right number of resorts. The third item she wanted to bring up was the wildlife goal 5 ordinance. ARLU-DeCo would like to see it adopted with the exclusion of any reference to destination resorts except that they would be excluded in all wildlife area combining zones. Concerning the forest land zones which were available for destination resorts, she recommended that some errors that she found be corrected. In the Sisters area there was at least one parcel which was less than 160 acres PAGE 14 MINUTES: 9-2-92 0119-0684 that was mapped for destination resort zoning which was located within the one -mile buffer zone. There was language in the proposed ordinances that their immediate passage was necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health and safety. ARLU-DeCo found that the County could not provide evidence of a legitimate or justifiable emergency circumstance. They requested that Section 7 page 3 be deleted from the proposed ordinances 92-056 and 92-057 since this was not an emergency situation for the public. ARLU-DeCo was requesting that the Board make a policy decision to rescind all Goal 8 related ordinances thus reflecting the desires of the citizens of Deschutes County. Commissioner Throop said there was a small amount of forest land which was already parcelized which went into F-2 zoning, and he understood the map just indicated those were lands which were available in the F-2, however the other criteria would still have to be met. Therefore, the owner of a parcel which was less than 160 acres could not make application because that was the legal minimum. He said the County would not inventory every single parcel and then only put those parcels on the map which were larger than 160 acres. The County would do the mapping, then if the other criteria were met, an application could be made. Bruce White pointed out that the forest map was not an issue before the Board at this hearing. Dottie Sckoonmaker testified that she had been a homeowner in Terrebonne since 1973. She had previously lived in Portland. In 1946 or 1947, rural Washington County was starting to change to accommodate the growth. Now they could look back and see how they felt about those decisions. She felt Deschutes County was in the same situation. She asked if it was best for the County that a "quick -fix" be given to the economy or should the County pursue an orderly, restrained path. She felt Eagle Crest was currently a reasonable size, however its bright lights were already eroding the view of the night sky for those who live nearby. She recommended that the growth in the County be taken slowly so there wouldn't be so many mistakes. Marion Millard from Redmond testified that there was no justification for using farm land with soil classes 1-6 for destination resorts whether it was dry land or irrigated. These lands would be needed in the future to grow food. She referred to a study by American Farm Land Trust which charted the costs of community services. The average cost of government services for residential development was $1.14 for every $1 collected in taxes, for commercial/ industrial it was $.36, while farms and open lands were only $.30. She felt this showed that agriculture made a positive fiscal contribution toward the communities and helped to offset the PAGE 15 MINUTES: 9-2-92 0119-0685 residential costs. Farm/forest lands also removed pollution from the air. She referred to a list of 17 types of grasses of which 9 would grow with 10 inches or less of moisture per year. According to the Soil Conservation Service, there were 10 inches of annual moisture in the driest parts of Deschutes County. She said there were at least six kinds of alfalfa which would grow on dry lands. Commissioner Throop asked how those dry land crops would be established? Ms. Millard said you would plant the grass in the fall. Chairman Maudlin closed the public hearing for oral testimony and announced that the record would be left open for written testimony until Tuesday, September 8, at 5 p.m. The Board would have a work session on Thursday, September 10 at 9 a.m. and would make their decision at 11 a.m. on Monday, September 14. Commissioner Throop suggested Bob Main, Department of Water Resources, be invited to discuss any Water Resource Commission deliberations which would have any impact on Deschutes County. The Board agreed to invite him to their next Board meeting. DATED this —&—aday of Commissioners of Deschutes C ATTES : Recording Secretary PAGE 16 MINUTES: 9-2-92 , 1992, by the Board of si Nancy �Pop 0,clangen," Commissioner PUBLI DATE: PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LISTiX�9"O6Ss NAME ADDRESS CITY ZIP 1.o� Lo ✓LlL�IJ eo box 115-1 17?0 f 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. MEMORANDUM An'd............ 0119-068 TO: Board of County Commissioners SGV FROM: Dale Van Valkenburg, Assistant Planner DATE: August 31, 1992 RE: Text Amendment file #TA -92-11, to amend Ordinances No. 92-002 and No. 92-003, which amended the County Comprehensive Plan and County Zoning Ordinances to adopt maps designating areas as eligible for destination resorts. The proposed amendment would repeal those areas of the adopted maps which are further than three miles from any Deschutes County Border, and adopt new maps within this area. HEARING DATE: September 2, 1992 BACKGROUND: 1. In February of 1992, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) adopted four Ordinances (Nos. 92-001, 92-002, 92-003, and 92-004) which established Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance standards for destination resorts, and also adopted maps designating certain areas as DR - Destination Resort Combining Zone. This process was initiated by Eagle Crest Partners, Ltd., who submitted two applications (TA -91-1 and PA -91-4) to begin the process of implementing Statewide Planning Goal 8 in Deschutes County. 2. On February 28, 1992, the Alliance for Responsible Land Use in Deschutes County (ARLU DeCo) and 1000 Friends of Oregon filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). 3. On June 10, 1992, Eagle Crest Partners, Ltd. applied for a 710 acre expansion of the existing Eagle Crest Resort on land zoned EFU-40 and DR Combining Zone under the recently adopted County Ordinances. Memo, BOCC August 31, 1992 Page 1 0119-0688 4. In July of 1992, LUBA remanded two of the four Ordinances which were appealed by ARLU DeCO and 1000 Friends. LUBA remanded Ord. Nos. 92-002 and 92-003, which adopted maps designating areas as eligible for destination resort development, because the County failed to consider the presence of "high value crop land" in neighboring counties within three miles of Deschutes County's borders. 5. Although Eagle Crest is located well beyond three miles from any County border, the remand had the effect of invalidating the entire Destination Resort Map. Consequently, the County was left with no authority to proceed with Eagle Crest's applications for expansion on areas designated on the remanded maps. 6. On August 3, the BOCC appealed LUBA's remand of the Destination Resort Map. The remand has also been appealed by Jim Gardner, who is proposing a destination resort in the vicinity of Smith Rock, which is within three miles of a County border. 7. The appeal to the State Court of Appeals prevents the LUBA remand from taking effect, thus "reviving" the map under which Eagle Crest applied. The validity of the maps will not be resolved until the appellate courts rule on this issue. This uncertainty has created problems for an applicant which was not directly affected by the merits of the appeal. For this reason, the County is initiating the following steps: 1. The County proposes a Text Amendment (the subject application) to repeal those portions of the Destination Resort Map which are beyond three miles from the County borders, and to replace the repealed segments with a new map. The existing map bordering the County boundaries within three miles will be left intact. 2. A public hearing will be held before the Board of County Commissioners (set for September 2, 1992) to consider the actions set forth above. 3. Assuming the BOCC proceeds as outlined above, Eagle Crest will withdraw its current applications for expansion, and submit new applications under the new ordinance. 4. The application process for the expansion of Eagle Crest would then proceed under the newly adopted map. Memo, BOCC August 31, 1992 Page 2 0119-0689 8. The above proposal was presented to the Planning Commission at a workshop on August 5, 1992. The Planning Commissioners recommended that the Board proceed with the subject change. 9. The applicable criteria for this request are the Comprehensive Plan Goals & Policies regarding destination resort siting, which reflect applicable Goal 8 criteria. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Staff recommends that the BOCC repeal those portions of the Destination Resort Map which are beyond three miles from any County border for the reasons outlined above. 2. Staff recommends that the BOCC adopt a replacement map for the repealed portion of the map substantially identical to the repealed portions of the map. 3. Staff recommends that the record supporting the adoption of Ordinances 92-001 through 92-004 be made a part of this record and that the BOCC adopt as its findings the findings made under the previous adoption of the Destination Resort Map, with additional findings setting forth the reasons for the exclusion of the areas within three miles of County borders because of their potential proximity to "high value crop areas" in adjacent counties. 4. If new testimony is submitted at the public hearing, Staff requests the opportunity to evaluate and respond to the additional testimony. 1. Once a ruling has been made by the Court of Appeals, or if necessary, the Oregon Supreme Court, a course of action can be determined for those areas within three miles of Deschutes County's borders. 2. After Periodic Review has been completed for the Exclusive Farm Use Zones, a course of action can be determined for the potential mapping of irrigated EFU-Zoned lands for destination resort siting. DEV Memo, BOCC August 31, 1992 Page 3 SECOND STATEMENT (FINAL) • 17575 Jordan Rd. Sisters, Or 97759 �1����V�O tel 548-6544 FROM: William Boyer, Chm ARLU DeCo SUBJECT: HEARING ON MAPPING (GOAL 8) FILE NUMBER TA -92-11 A*B T -A -9 -2 -$-(To the County Commissioners, Aug 26, 92) GOAL 8 STATES THAT: "Destination resorts shall not be sited . . . within three miles of farm land within a High Value Crop area. .. A HIGH VALUE CROP AREA IS: "an area in which there is a concentation of commercial farms capable of producing crops or products with a minimum gross value of $1000 per acre per year. These crops and products include field crops, small fruits, berries, tree fruits, nuts, or vegetables, dairying, livestock feedlots," etc. Because the definition includes "crops or products" and "dairying and livestock feedlots" are some examples, I believe llama farms must be included in the category. There are two questions: (1) Is there a "concentration of commercial farms" raising llamas? (2) Do they produce a product having a minimum gross value of $1000 per acre? THE QUESTION OF CONCENTRATION I am submitting a map to be included in the record, which identifies the location of most (probably 80%) of the llama farms in Deschutes County. The map reveals areas of concentration. Unless there is a basis in law to the contrary, I will assume that the requirement for a "concentration" has been met and that the County should make a more definitive mapping of llama farms to be certain that ALL llama farms are included, which is likely to increase the concentration. THE QUESTION OF'MINIMUM GROSS VALUE I have sampled some ranches: The Kay Patterson ranch: In 1991 $400,000 was grossed on llamas. This is on 20 acres. Her ranch includes a much larger area than what is used for llamas --230 acres. In both cases she is running much over $1000/ac. Andy Tillman runs $140,000 to $190,000 a year on 23 acres. He is able to sell 6 to 8 llamas a year. Estimation on another farm is about $228,000 per year on 20 acreas. These are above average. The more typical sm'al1 farm selling average llamas is a 10 acre farm with 6 producing females bringing about 21,000/yr. (Based on some sampling, and information from those who know the local market.) Let us look at the worse scenario, the 1975 prices. A 10 acre farm w.e.� with 6 producing females would bring about $11,000/yr. This is with low grade llamas at prices not likely for some years: .0119-0691 ABOUT 6 RANCHES NOW DEAL IS EMU, OSTRICH, AND RHEA (THIS IS RAPIDLY RISING AREA WITH CURRENT HIGH PROFITS.) ABOUT 6 RANCHES RAISE SICILIAN MINIATURE DONKEYS 2 RAISE YAKS 3 RAISE ELK 25 RAISE POT BELLIED PIGS 6 RAISE GEESE AND SWANS 12 RAISE PHEASANTS 1 HAS STARTED TO RAISE CAMELS (documentation from Quality LLama Products Ed and Nancy Chlarson 548-5315) Llamas, however, are an established high value crop, with a 20 year track record and an expanding market. Unless the County can develop data to the contrary, llama farms are appropriate candidates for a "high value crop" and should be included in any map which has bearing on the appropriate siting of a destination resort. In order to meet state law, livestock in addition to llamas should be mapped to determine if there is a "concentration of commercial farms" within three miles of a proposed destination resort. These farms should include "dairying and livestock feedlots." The County currently has no map of high value "crops or products." There are somewhere between 80 and 90 llama ranches, not all of them in our Central Oregon Llama Assoc. Some only list PO Boxes, so I couldn't identify their farm location. I have most of them on the map. The value of llamas is roughly indicated by the national and west coast '91 auction. These are better llamas than the average but they give an idea of economic value, about $6000 for average males, $10,500 for females. There is quite a range within each sex. (Auction values are available.)