2001-73-Minutes for Meeting January 24,2001 Recorded 2/13/2001VOL: CJ2001
PAGE: 73
RECORDED DOCUMENT
STATE OF OREGON
COUNTY OF DESCHUTES
*CJ2001-73 * Vol -Page Printed: 02/13/2001 17:00:31
DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE
(This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with
ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect
the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.)
I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received
and duly recorded in Deschutes County records:
DATE AND TIME:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
Feb. 13, 2001; 3:25 p.m.
Regular Meeting (CJ)
NUMBER OF PAGES: 16
MARY SUE PENHOLLOW
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK KEY N HED
F 2001
i FEB s '
LEI
01 FEB 13 AM 3: 25
MAiiY SH E'('lti3 ;jlvl_t��'d
C001TY CLERK
Board of Commissioners
1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752
��wwwdTochDe o ifcavor'vk Tom De Wolf Dennis R. Luke
MINUTES OF MEETING Mike Daly
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2001
Vice Chair Mike Daly opened the meeting at 10: 02 a.m.
Present were Commissioners Dennis Luke and Mike Daly; Commissioner Tom
De Wolf was excused. Also present were Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Department;
George Read and Geralyn Haas, Community Development; George Kolb, Road
Department; Jim Bonnarens, Property Management; Marty Wynne, Finance
Department; Jenny Scanlon, Commissioners' Office; Clint Jacks, Extension/4-H;
representatives of the media; and several citizens.
1. Citizen Input
Citizen Alycia (Lisa) McDonald, of 22122 Neff Road, Bend, spoke regarding
the proposed historical district in the downtown Bend area, and submitted a
written statement (see Exhibit A, attached).
Commissioner Luke stated that he is very disappointed in this process, and on
several occasions has expressed to George Read of Community Development
his disappointment on how some of his staff has handled this issue. He said he
understands there was also a letter put out by the staff that talked about an
appeal period and that owners could opt out, but that is not true since there is
not a local ordinance.
Minutes of Board Meeting
Page 1 of 13 Pages
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Wednesday, January 24, 2001
He said he agrees wholeheartedly with the recent editorials printed in the
Bulletin regarding this process, which is the worst kind of process he has ever
seen. He explained that it is his belief that if Measure 7 had not been put on
hold by the courts, owners would have some Measure 7 implications here.
They are taking the use of the owners' property away from them without
permission; that isn't how this is supposed to work.
He said that in the 1993 Legislative Session they changed the law that said an
owner couldn't be forced to put his or her individual house in as a historical
house, but that the owner has a choice. If someone wants to do this by choice,
that is great; but if the State is going to take away any use, they should be
paying for it. He indicated he truly agrees with Ms. McDonald, and has looked
into this issue, but believes the Commissioners' hands are tied because the
process has already been started. He has been advised that there is not much
the Commissioners can do.
Ms. McDonald said she agrees that it what they have been told all along, that
there is not much they can do about it; and until she got a little more educated in
the process she understood that as fact.
She further stated that if the State does not have the local recommendation from
the Landmarks Commission, they would not proceed at the State of Oregon
meeting on February 22 to recommend this to a national level; they cannot if
they do not have local backing. But this does need to be brought back to the
local level by some instructions from the Landmarks Commission. They need
to state that more time is needed at the local level to see if a satisfactory
agreement can be reached, and have the property owners come together with the
County and do this process the way it should be done.
Commissioner Luke explained that these properties are located in the city
limits, so the County has very little jurisdiction.
George Read explained that the Commissioners might want to get a legal
opinion. It is his understanding that it is a federal program; the local decision
on how the program is implemented and what the rules are is local decision; but
the program to designate a national historic district is a federal program, and it
goes through a different process than local process.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, January 24, 2001
Page 2 of 13 Pages
He further explained that these properties are in the City of Bend. In his
opinion, the State Historic Preservation Office will be looking for advice from
the City of Bend and not from the County Commissioners.
Ms. McDonald said she spoke with Debra McMahon at the City, and Ms.
McMahon stated she feels they have a very strong case, and that City approval
was never sought on this matter, and that she is willing to back them.
George Read stated she would disagree with that; he had spoken with Ms.
McMahon personally on several occasions, and also spoke with Larry
Patterson, who said they didn't want to have a hearing on this, and approved it.
Commissioner Luke explained he had spoken with Larry Patterson as well, and
that there were two phases of this. He said Mr. Patterson said they weren't
asked before the process was started; they were asked after the process was
started. This is a major chunk of City property.
Ms. McDonald said that the Interim City Manager, Larry Garzini, has told her
that this can be brought to the City Council meeting on February 7, and that he
believes proper procedures were not followed. She suggested that perhaps the
interested parties meet and discuss this issue, but has been unsuccessful in
getting this to happen.
Martin Hansen, the Chair of the Landmarks Commission for more than ten
years, then spoke. He said that this process on this particular application has
been ongoing for two years. The last meeting was at the federal level. He
explained that the Landmarks Commission does a myriad of items: some state,
some county and some federal, and there are distinctions between them.
Merely because there is property that is governed by and put on the County's
inventory doesn't make it a federal inventory. Because it's on the federal
inventory doesn't put it on the County's inventory. They sometimes go together,
and sometimes they don't.
The federal Act has been in place in 1966, and it does pre-empt inconsistent
state laws. The statute that Mr. Luke assisted with in Salem does control state -
mandated inventory and even county inventory property, and is followed. But,
by its own terms and language, it had to exempt out the federal statue, as under
the U.S. Constitution the federal statue, which has been tested through the
Constitutional process, is valid and does pre-empt anything inconsistent. So, if
one owns a house that was historic but didn't want it to be on the state's
inventory, it is possible with the new law to take it off and keep it off.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, January 24, 2001
Page 3 of 13 Pages
He further explained that if the federal process was followed, and it is on
federal inventory, then one couldn't look at this statute for assistance. That
would have to be debated at the federal level, and procedures exist there; they
don't ramrod people through, as there is a hearing process.
The Landmarks Commission started this process when they received requests
from citizens in the historic district for some tax relief and benefits that the
federal program does allow. All the Landmarks Commission does is review
and make recommendations to the federal process. He said that in his ten years
as Chair of the Commission, there has been no single issue where they've had
more hearings, town hall and citizen meetings, and there are pros and cons.
There has been an enormous amount of input. He indicated that more notices
than normal were sent out.
He explained that this is the first in Deschutes County; there are seventy
throughout Oregon. They are extremely popular, and people who have enjoyed
the protections, have come to the meetings and talked about the benefits, and
how they had been worried about it but then found benefits. He stated that the
process is entirely a federal process, and isn't something that the Landmarks
Commission, the County, or even the City can make a decision on. It is merely
a review process, similar to the process used for the national register buildings
in this area.
He further stated that one of the things that people have complained about is
that since 1966 the Act shows what the approval process is through the federal
group. He also said that the straw poll that was done to test the waters to see
what this is likely to do at the federal level showed 52 "yes" and 56 "no", of
those who responded. That's about 100 out of 300 plus properties. If that were
the vote before the federal Act, it would be considered an overwhelming "yes"
vote, as they take non -responses as yes votes. This has been the law of the land
since 1966.
He said that when they were faced with the results of the straw poll, the federal
people would take this as a 2/3 majority "yes" vote. The process is still
ongoing, and he encouraged all citizens - pro, con or otherwise interested - to
involve themselves in the process. They can still go to the federal level and
give them input directly. This is not a process that was not followed according
to statute or that there was some less than required input from citizens; there
was not only the minimum, but there was far more than that.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, January 24, 2001
Page 4 of 13 Pages
(A discussion then occurred regarding how many pieces of property and how
many owners of properties are involved.)
Commissioner Luke said that it is true there is a federal process, but the federal
people didn't come to Bend; the recommendation came from here. The question
becomes, did the group go the federal level too quickly. He said that Larry
Patterson indicated that the group went to the federal level before the City
Council had a chance to talk about it.
Mr. Hansen said that he brought this to Larry Patterson's attention many months
ago, before ever going to the federal level. Every time someone wants a single
property to be considered, applications are made, and there is a process through
the federal.
In this case, citizens here came to the Landmarks Commission to see about
qualifying their properties as a district. They asked that this be pursued to see if
it qualified. The process was started to see if it would initially qualify under the
federal requirements. When it looked like it would, that's when Mr. Patterson
and the City were brought up to speed as to what the process was because it
would affect a sizeable number of properties, and the City's tax roll would
potentially be affected. Mr. Houser works for both the City and the County,
and kept Debra McMahon and Larry Patterson informed.
A special meeting was requested as well, which was attended by George Read;
and Mr. Patterson was very comfortable with the process. His concerns were
that a couplet for Bond and Wall would not be interfered with, and after that the
City doesn't have any concerns. He said the City didn't like to lose the tax roll,
but if the owners want it, let the process continue.
Ms. McDonald stated that at this point, with as much local interest and
opposition as there is, she feels that this should be revisited as the property
procedure was not followed at the local level, which is why she would like to
see this brought back to the local level. She asked for the Commissioners'
support.
Commissioner Luke said he didn't think there is anything the County can do,
since it does fall within the City.
Commissioner Daly stated that since he is a new Commissioner, he needs to
look into it further.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, January 24, 2001
Page 5 of 13 Pages
2. Before the Board was the Reading of a Proclamation Declaring January
2001 as School Board Recognition Month.
Commissioner Daly read the Proclamation.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Aye.
DALY: Chair votes aye.
8. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2001-
006, Authorizing the Borrowing of Funds by the Fairgrounds Construction
Fund from the Solid Waste Capital Projects Fund.
Marty Wynne explained this Resolution addresses the borrowing of $1,200,000
by the Fairgrounds Construction Fund from the Solid Waste Capital Projects
Fund, provides for repayment, and directs him, as County Finance Director, to
make appropriate entries for the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Deschutes County
Budget.
He further explained that the old fairgrounds property that remains to be sold is
valued at $1.8 million at this time. When this property has been sold, the loan
from Solid Waste will be repaid at that time, with interest.
Timm Schimke asked if the loan is part of the budget cycle, and if the property
doesn't sell during this fiscal year, will a new loan be put together. Mr. Wynne
replied that ORS states this has to be rebudgeted each fiscal year, so it would be
revisited each fiscal year.
LUKE: Move signature of Resolution No. 2001-006, authorizing the
borrowing of funds in the amount of $1,200,000 by the Fairgrounds
Construction Fund from the Solid Waste Capital Projects Fund.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Aye.
DALY: Aye.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, January 24, 2001
Page 6 of 13 Pages
3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on the Vacation of a Portion of Stn
Street, Portions of Bruce Avenue and the Alley in Block 27 of Laidlaw
Subdivision, Tumalo.
4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2001-009,
Vacating Portions of 8t" Street, a Portion of Bruce Avenue, and the Alley in
Block 27 of Laidlaw Subdivision, Tumalo.
George Kolb of the Road Department gave a staff report; the hearing concerns
the vacation of property owned by Tumalo Feed. He further said that Order No.
2001-009, authorizing the vacation, could be approved but should not be signed
until the agreement is ratified.
He further explained that this vacation takes a hazardous intersection and makes
it a right angle four-way intersection. The Oregon Department of
Transportation is involved, as well as Hap Taylor & Sons. It involved right of
ways, access issues and vacations; the actual construction probably won't be
completed until sometime in 2002.
Commissioner Daly then opened the public hearing.
Susie Lavesco, representing the Bend Fire Department, testified. She said she
conducted site visit on January 3, and learned that three residences have access
off Wood Avenue. Wood Avenue does not have a visible street sign, and
signage is required to support emergency equipment.
The hearing went into recess while George Kolb and Ms. Lavesco spoke about
this issue in an adjoining room.
7. Before the Board was a Discussion of Project Impact Representation.
Commissioner Luke described the FEMA grant for Project Impact. He said that
George Read sits on the Board, but that there is no representation from southern
Deschutes County or Sisters. He indicated that the La Pine Transportation
Advisory Committee recommends Scott Baldwin represent the Sisters area, and
that Jim Court represent the La Pine; Scott Baldwin.
LUKE: Move approval of these two appointments.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Aye.
DALY: Aye.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, January 24, 2001
Page 7 of 13 Pages
5. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Annual Work
Program for Four Rivers Vector Control District.
Commissioner Luke explained that this plan has to be approved by Oregon
Department of Fish & Wildlife and the Department of Environmental Quality.
LUKE: Move approval, subject to the approval of the ODF&W and the DEQ.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Aye.
DALY: Aye.
6. Before the Board was Consideration of the Appointment of a Grant
Application Contact Person to be Designated by Grant Resolution from the
Oregon Department of Revenue.
LUKE: I so move.
DALY: Second.
'VOTE: LUKE: Aye.
DALY: Aye.
Before the Board was the Consent Agenda.
LUKE: Move approval of the Consent Agenda.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Aye.
DALY: Aye.
Consent AF-enda Items:
9. Signature of a Correction Bargain and Sale Deed between Deschutes County
and Central Electric Cooperative, Inc.
10. Signature of a Letter Appointing Lauri Miller to the Deschutes County Budget
Committee through December 31, 2002, Filling the Uncompleted Term of Jerry
Andres.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, January 24, 2001
Page 8 of 13 Pages
11. Signature of a Letter Re -appointing Leland Smith to the Deschutes County
Budget Committee through December 31, 2003.
12. Signature of Resolution No. 2001-003, Authorizing Tom DeWolf, Dennis R.
Luke and Michael M. Daly to Execute and Enter into Grant Award Contracts
with COIC (Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council) for the Regional
Database Project of the Healthy Communities Initiative.
13. Signature of Letters Appointing Various Individuals to the Upper Deschutes
Watershed Council, as follows:
Current Board members re -appointed to three-year terms (through 2004):
Charlie Brown, Elwin Ross, Todd Griffith, Bob Gordon and Bill Swarts.
New appointments to three-year terms (through 2004): Kevin Crew, Dan
Adams, Leonard Knott, Joanne Richter, Doug Dunn and Ric Ingham (replacing
Dave Alden, Viviane Simon -Brown, John Field, Brad Nye, Steve Putnam, and
filling one open position).
14. Signature of a Letter Appointing Commissioner Dennis Luke as Primary
Member Representing Deschutes County on the Central Oregon Area
Commission on Transportation (COACT).
15. Signature of a Letter Appointing Commissioner Tom DeWolf as Alternate
Member Representing Deschutes County on the Central Oregon Area
Commission on Transportation (COACT).
16. Signature of Resolution No. 2001-005, Transferring Appropriations within the
Deschutes County Mental Health Fund, within Deschutes County's Fiscal Year
2000-2001 Budget, and Directing Entries.
17. Signature of Order No. 2001-012, Transferring Cash among Various Funds as
Budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Deschutes County Budget, and
Directing Entries.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
19. Before the Board was Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
the Extension/4-H County Service District (Three Weeks) in the Amount of
$2,554.47.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, January 24, 2001
Page 9 of 13 Pages
LUKE: I move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Aye.
DALY: Aye.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
21. Before the Board was Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
the 9-1-1 County Service District (Three Weeks) in the Amount of
$8,137.61.
LUKE: I move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Aye.
DALY: Aye.
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
22. Before the Board was Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
Deschutes County (Three Weeks) in the Amount of $1,862,914.02.
LUKE: I move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Aye.
DALY: Aye.
23. Before the Board was the Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers
for the Deschutes County Fairgrounds and Expo Center in the Amount of
$2599674.43.
LUKE: I move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Aye.
DALY: Aye.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, January 24, 2001
Page 10 of 13 Pages
RECONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
18. Before the Board was the Approval of a Lease Agreement between Chaney,
Chaney & Peterson, L.L.C., and the Deschutes County Extension/4-11
County Service District Regarding Property Located at 1421 S. Highway
97, Redmond.
Rick Isham explained that this is a lease extension that Tom Wykes negotiated.
They didn't move onto the Fairgrounds as they didn't want the expense of a
double move, and such a move would have been difficult operationally. He
recommended approval.
LUKE: I move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Aye.
DALY: Aye.
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
3. Reconvened the Public Hearing on the Tumalo Property Vacation.
Ms. Lavesco and Mr. Kolb stated that an appropriate road sign is to be installed
at corner of Bailey and Wood Ave., indicating Wood Ave., as required by the
Bend Fire Department.
Being no further testimony offered, Commissioner, Daly closed the public
hearing.
4. Rick Isham suggested the Order be approved at this time, and signed upon
completion of exchange agreement.
LUKE: I move approval of signature of Order No.2001-009, which will be
signed after the exchange agreement has been completed.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Aye.
DALY: Aye.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, January 24, 2001
Page 1 l of 13 Pages
RECONVENED AS THE EXTENSION/4-11 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
20. Before the Board was a Request for a Grant of $4,400 to Create an
IMPLAN Computer Model to Profile Deschutes County's Economy and
Analyze the Current and Potential Impacts to the Local Economy.
Clint Jacks of Extension/4-H introduced Bruce Sorte of Oregon State
University Agricultural Research, and Tim Deboodt of Prineville.
Commissioner Luke asked whether this was a budget request or a request for
immediate funding. Mr. Jacks indicated that the funds are needed now. They
were meeting with the Board of Commissioners of Jefferson, Crook and
Deschutes Counties today, and that $4,400 is needed from each county to
implement the program.
Mr. Sorte gave an overview of proposal, which is to build a model to show how
the sectors in the community interact with each other. It involves thirty to forty
federal databases and consolidates them at a local level for each county. He
explained it could be combined with a GIS model, but deals with businesses in
a given community, detailing which are doing well and which need help. It
gives a summary of everything that they buy and sell, both outside the county
and area, and inside the county and area.
(He provided a brief explanation and a handout.)
Mike Maier asked if they had met with Economic Development for Central
Oregon (EDCO) yet. Mr. Sorte said the counties want to drive the agenda on
this program.
Commissioner Luke asked what the ongoing cost would be. Mr. Sorte replied
that he doesn't have a specific answer for that question. Once the model is
created and is accurate, it will help with decisions at a local level regarding the
impacts of fire, business closures, and so on. He said there has been more
interest than anticipated so they aren't sure about the ongoing cost, which in
part depends on how many questions are asked each year.
Commissioner Luke inquired what the $13,200 would be used for. Mr. Sorte
said it would buy the license and software, do the work and handle overhead
costs. Commissioner Luke asked again what the ongoing costs would be in six
months, a year from now, and so on. He said he was not sure how this would
add to the County's system and how it can be determined.
Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, January 24, 2001
Page 12 of 13 Pages
Mike Maier stated he feels there are a few misses steps here, and he would like
to see a recommendation from EDCO first, and that the developers should
develop some allies, perhaps planning groups, COIC or EDCO.
Commissioner Luke suggested that the group speak with Community
Development, in particular the GIS people, who can make a recommendation
on how this program might help Deschutes County and the other counties. He
explained more information is needed before they write a check.
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
Being no further items to address, Commissioner Mike Daly adjourned the meeting
at 11:30 a.m.
DATED this 24th Day of January 2001 for the Deschutes County Board
of Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board Meeting
Page 13 of 13 Pages
--
Tom DeWol *hair
Den is R. Lukett6rntfii7sioner
Michael M: Daly, mmissioner
Wednesday, January 24, 2001
C e-Lzu-ty colnlri, /heavy /t'aiti //,l51/c;'/
JUST SAY NO (on the Historical District)
I am not a public speaker, nor usually an activist, but as an owner of a home in the
proposed Historical District I felt compelled to make my feelings, and those of many
other homeowners heard. I am one voice speaking for the 85 citizens which have taken
the time to send notarized Nos to the State. We are united in our protest against taking
personal property and placing it under government control regardless of our adamant and
now, semi hysterical protests. I believe the voices of 85 citizens should resound
LOUDLY at a local level even if they are not the 51% required at the National level.
We believe our local Historical Commission overstepped it's bounds in a dramatic and
unethical way when sending the message to the State Historical Preservation Office that
Bend had enough "support" to recommend a continuation of this designation process.As
we now understand it the city contracts with the county in the funding and operation of
the Landmark Commission, but as we have backtracked through numerous city records
and officials we have been unable to find any point at which the city of Bend was asked
for, or gave it's recommendation to the county, that there was enough local support
backing this project. We have found only unilateral decisions made by the Deschutes
County Landmark Commission based on three public, local meetings. The meeting I
attended and spoke at there was a clear and very vocal amount of opposition to this
process. To appease us the Landmark Commission sent out what they termed a "straw
poll" to solicit public opinion from the homeowners in the district. The response came in
from over 100 homeowners and the NO's outweighed the yeses. This seems to me a clear
indication that numerous property owners (59) were vocally opposed at this time. Their
voices were disregarded and there were never any further meetings or opportunities to
protest or withdraw our properties at a local level. Even with this vociferous NO
resounding from numerous tax paying citizens, the local Landmarks Commission
recommended to the State that this District be formed The very fact that they were under
no city or county scrutiny or guidance at this time leads me to compare the entire fiasco
to a teenager being allowed to set his own rules and curfew.
I seek your support today because we are under tremendous time constraints to seek help
at a local government level before the 22 of February. At this time, during a state meeting
in Roseburg, without some major interference, it will be recommended by the State to be
placed on the the National Register of Historical places regardless of our concerns and
personal property rights.
We are sighting OR law # 197.772, which states in part.. a local government shall allow a
property owner to refuse to consent to any form of Historical property designation at any
point during the designation process. We were never given this choice or opportunity by
our local government.
At the point that this District is recommended by our state, homeowners will have only
one recourse, and that is a last resort, legal challenge.This is not a threat but merely a sign
of our frustration at our inability to be heard At this challenging time in local landuse
decision making we beg this commission to hear and support our united voices.
Thankyou for your time.
- �xlu loot A -
CELLULAR PHONE
1. May be used by persons with drivers license 18 years and
older.
2. Must not be hand held while driving but placed in a stationary
place in the vehicle easily discerned.and accesable.
3. If at all possible with the vehicle safely off the roadway.
Comments from County Commissioner Tom DeWolf
Regarding Development Agreements associated with Land Use File IA -00-6
Barclay Meadows Business Park & Sisters School District #6
January 31, 2001
This has been a long, difficult process for all involved, complicated by the joint jurisdictional
issues between the City of Sisters and Deschutes County. I am personally disappointed that the City of
Sisters has not completed its Comp Plan and Transportation System Plan, as they indicated they would
have completed by now. Perhaps there are perfectly reasonable explanations for these documents not being
completed. I am not, therefore, casting blame. I am merely expressing my disappointment due to my belief
that these documents would be helpful in determining the future direction of growth and transportation
management for Sisters.
In the absence of the Comp Plan and TSP, we still must make decisions regarding land use
applications that come before us. I am voting to approve the Findings and Decision, the two associated
Ordinances and the two Development Agreements.
This is not the final action regarding the proposed developments, it is only the beginning. The
applicants must now proceed through the development process, which will include site plan or conditional
use. Opponents and other concerned citizens will have the opportunity to analyze actual proposed uses and
propose specific mitigation ideas to protect the integrity of nearby residents.
I strongly encourage the developers to negotiate in good falth with opponents and concerned
citizens, with special consideration for the neighbors in the Trapper Point subdivision, regarding buffers
to protect existing homes as much as reasonable, as well as the location of uses that may impact
residential neighbors. Of particular concern are visual (including lighting) and noise impacts. I suspect
that the burden will be on the developers to work with the neighbors In particular to avoid a protracted
legal battle.
As to my specific reasons for voting to approve the Findings and Decision, Ordinances and
Development Agreements, I offer the following. I sympathize with the residential neighbors and have taken
their concerns very seriously. I believe that the subject properties are not suitable for agricultural use. I
believe the City of Sisters needs additional industrial land in order to comply with State Land Use Goal 9
requirements. I do not believe it is within my authority to pursue Forest Service land as an alternative, as
has been proposed by Denny Ebner.
I believe the applicants have shown a willingness to work with the residential neighbors and the
city of Sisters. The applicants have agreed to prohibit certain uses, to limit the amount of development, to
increase setbacks and to contribute toward mitigation of traffic impacts.
The proposed development is surrounded on three sides by existing developments. The approval
of these applications promotes mixed use and reduces the potential for sprawl. Though adjacent neighbors
perceive a negative impact, and I admit that such a negative impact is potential (I reiterate my suggestion
that developers and neighbors work together toward compromises that both can live with), I believe this is
an appropriate site for a business park in Sisters. I believe this proposal is consistent with land use laws and
state land use goals and is valuable for the residents of the city of Sisters on the whole.
This proposal has been through a long, arduous process and the agreements are better for it. There
will be more opportunities for the neighbors to address their concerns and further mitigate impacts to their
homes.
For these reasons, I support the Findings and Decision, Ordinances and Development Agreements.
% r^��
TD