Loading...
2003-1374-Minutes for Meeting October 29,2003 Recorded 11/4/2003COUNTY OFFICIAL TES NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS CJ 1003-1374 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 11/04/2003 04:37:50 PM [1111)[111Q1111111111111111III DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK CERTIFICATE PAGE 6 Uj D -rC - This page must be included if document is re-recorded. Do Not remove from original document. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend, OR 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2003 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Tom De Wolf and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Paul Blikstad and Kevin Harrison; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Ted Schassberger and Anna Johnson, Commissioners' Office; Sue Brewster, Sheriff's Office; media representative Chris Barker of the Bulletin, and Barney Lerten of bend. com and The Bugle; and approximately twenty other citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 10: 00 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None were offered. 2. Before the Board was a Presentation and the Reading and Adoption of a Proclamation Declaring November as Mediation Month in Deschutes County. Alan Burke, a Board member of the Community Dispute Resolution Program spoke. He said they have about forty volunteer members at this point, and they do mediation for private individuals and groups to help them work out problems without going into the court system. There is a sliding fee schedule, but if someone doesn't have the funds these services could be free. The most it would cost is $50. The volunteers also cover Crook and Jefferson County. The program is funded by the counties, the cities and other agencies. Mr. Burke then read the Proclamation to the audience. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 1 of 21 Pages DALY: Move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 3. Before the Board was a Presentation and Update regarding the Healthy Beginnings Program. Holly Remer, a Program Director for the Healthy Beginnings Program, gave an overview of the program and distributed information to the Commissioners. She said that 90% of a person's brain is fully developed by the age of three years; after then very little brain development occurs. However, only 10% of public funds are dedicated to programs for those children ages birth through three years. Ten years ago services for families with children of that age group were developed; these services are free and there are no eligibility requirements except that they live in Deschutes County. At this time she showed a brief video to the audience (Note: the video was produced by a Bend High School student). The program serves about 400 families a year, and they travel to outlying areas to do screenings. There's a lot of outreach in the communities of La Pine, Sisters and Terrebonne. The services are funded through donations; they are under the Educational Service District umbrella, and receive funds through the United Way, the Commission on Children & Families, and sometimes through small grants. Private donations and medical groups also contribute. The doctors and other professionals are all volunteers, at an in-kind value estimated at over $500 million since the program started. There are 236 volunteers at the present time. The examinations include hearing, visions and dental. Problems are often discovered that may have kept a child from proper development, and addressing the problem helps to get that child back on track. Commissioner DeWolf observed that it is frustrating that young children don't get the attention and help that they need, so they end up with problems that become worse as they get old. It is a complicated issue, but prevention at a young age instead of dealing with the behavioral problems of older children makes sense. However, the program is in danger of cutbacks because of the state funding process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 2 of 21 Pages Ms. Remer added that studies show that 70% of the children in the juvenile corrections system have major visions problems. If a child cannot see the page to be able to learn how to read, he or she will have a problem succeeding in school and in life. 4. Before the Board was Consideration of County Support of a Federal/Private Property Exchange of Land Located along the Little Deschutes River, to Consolidate Public Land Holdings. LUKE: The Bulletin did a nice job on the article regarding this matter on Monday, and in letting people know that it was going to be discussed again today. Does anyone want to comment? JOHN TAYLOR: I'm the Board of Directors of the La Pine Park & Recreation District. I don't know what was actually discussed here on Monday. LUKE: We were given a packet of information, which included photos, maps of the area and a fact sheet. TAYLOR: I assume then that it summarized which properties are involved and that sort of thing. Our concern is that one of those parcels that is included is the eighty acres immediately north of the high school in La Pine. It's a parcel that the La Pine Park & Recreation District has a proposal for, and has had this proposal for quite some time. We worked with the Bureau of Land Management for about four or five years on this project. At the request of BLM, the community - the Community Action Team - was approached by BLM, because there were a number of requests for uses of BLM land under the Public Purposes and Recreation Act. They asked us to bundle all of these together, and told us to look outside of the box - I like that expression - for the next twenty years in La Pine. We had various groups in La Pine meet on this issue for two years. The average attendance at those meetings was forty to fifty people, and we went over all of the different uses for public land in La Pine. BLM wanted to include that in their update of their plan. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 3 of 21 Pages Park & Recreation did come to the Board on that with a request for a parcel that would serve the needs of the Park District, particularly with Frontier Days and the rodeo. So we looked for a particular parcel, and the group looked at the maps that were supplied by BLM showing us which parcels are available, and made some selections, one, two, three; the parcel we were steered toward by BLM is actually where the new neighborhood is now. Subsequent to that process of these public meetings where all of these people were in attendance, the County started on the new neighborhood project, which kind of surprises us, too, because that was also looking at some of the same properties we were looking at. We were assured that could still accommodate what you are proposing, and also the Senior Center is proposed in that same area. There were five charettes conducted in the community - three charette days; a morning session and afternoon session, and an evening session to accommodate members of the community who could only come in on different times. So we had actually six meetings on this particular issue, which covered the new neighborhood, the downtown area of La Pine, and actually most of the entire community, and covered these requests for use of public land. Out of that, it was suggested that the rodeo and fairgrounds, or the expo park as we call it, would not be totally compatible with the new neighborhood, and the BLM representative there said that there is land across the road and why don't we consider that. So we did that, and a small group formed that represented Park & Recreation, the old Rodeo Association, Frontier Days, the equestrian groups of the high school, 4-H and some other groups. We started looking intensively at that parcel. BLM told us to come up with a proposal that would utilize that parcel to the maximum year-round. We did that. Before we could make a formal application for that, we heard a rumor that there was a land exchange being proposed to BLM, so we checked that out. We were assured that was not the case, and that there was no truth to that rumor at all. About two weeks later we had a notification that there was going to be a public meeting here with the Planning Department relative to that land exchange. We attended, and found out that our parcel was also included in that proposed land exchange. It also included eighty acres west of Rosland Campground, which had been another central park proposed by La Pine Park & Recreation District. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 4 of 21 Pages We were assured that some of the parcels, like the one on Huntington Road, halfway between Memorial Lane and Burgess Road, and the eighty acres west of Rosland, was a very strong part of the exchange, and if they were not able to be included that there would be no exchange. By that, we took the reading that those were a foregone conclusion. In the consideration for a location for the expo park, the number two site, which was proposed by one of the members present, was the eighty acres north of the high school. The group working on that had decided on the forty-seven acres, but when we found that that acreage is a strong part of the exchange, the group moved to the alternate site, the eighty acres north of the high school. We proceeded to develop a plan for that. Some of the members of the group were a little upset by what was going on, and took the liberty of contacting the legislators. They were told to be sure to get the formal application in so that we'd have standing in the process. The also said they would do what they could to help us with legislative relief if needed, but they wanted us to go ahead with the process. We did submit our application, and I do have a site plan here for that particular site, and it was rejected by BLM for two reasons. One reason was that it was in consideration of the land exchange. The fact that BLM was willing to forget all of this work they did with the community when this land exchange was proposed, to jump on it so readily, was a surprise. We were told in the previous meetings with BLM that one of their highest priorities was to provide land where available for community activities and uses. Certainly we were aware that acquisition of riparian habitat was also a priority. Now we find out that this must be a much higher priority than the community. Most communities would give their eyeteeth to have a parcel of government land this close in the central part of the community for public purposes. Now they're proposing that it go into private hands, and that seems to be a travesty to the community as far as the Park District is concerned. At this point, apparently the proponents of the land exchange are trying to get support or endorsement for their project. We strongly feel that this eighty acres north of the high school should be excluded from that, and should be kept for public purposes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 5 of 21 Pages LUKE: That's not really our call. That's a negotiation between La Pine Park & Recreation and the BLM. There is support for the exchange from the La Pine Community Action Team and the Frontier Days and Rodeo Association, and most of the people you mentioned. DALY: I'm kind of confused as to where he is headed here. Are you opposing this land exchange? TAYLOR: Actually, La Pine Park & Recreation District is very much in opposition to the land exchange if it is to include these eighty acres. And one other comment, too, on the eighty acres west of Rosland. We were told that it would take that particular piece of property, the forty-seven acres on Huntington Road and the eighty acres north of the high school, plus some additional cash from BLM to balance out this land trade. I think that if any of you owned those eighty acres west of Rosland Campground, even though it's EFU right now, that doesn't mean anything - you would not part with that for less than $1 million. So to say that it will take all three parcels plus money to equalize this land exchange, I think the average person would seriously question that. The rest of it, acquiring the wetlands as proposed, is very good. Park & Recreation certainly thinks this would be well spent. The livability of the community is important. We have over $2 million of assets right now and are doing a good job with it. We think our record speaks for itself, and we could handle something like this. LUKE: I'd like to point out that I've had several dealings with the Bureau of Land Management, and to say that they don't get full value for their properties is misleading. I've never seen any time that they didn't get full value for their properties, and then some. In the packet, it shows the exchange is supported by the La Pine Community Action Team, La Pine Frontier Days and Rodeo, the Bend -La Pine School District, and the Bulletin. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 6 of 21 Pages KEN MULENEX: I'm the past president and current treasurer of La Pine Frontier Days Association in La Pine. I'd like to speak to just a couple of comments that were made. I have e-mailed testimony to the Board. This is different, in that Mr. Taylor stated that the Park & Recreation Board was strongly against this land swap. I'd like to point out that I've listened to the tapes of the last minutes of the Park & Recreation Board meetings, and at that time the President, Ann Gawith, tried to persuade the Board that this was probably going to happen, and that they ought to get on board because there were things there that would benefit them to be a part of that, and they should put the best face on it. Some comments were made by Mr. Taylor regarding the kind of situation that was going on. I think he referred to it a prizefight between BLM and the Park & Rec Board. I would also comment that Ms. Gawith is also the president of La Pine Frontier Days Association, and that board voted unanimously to support this Casey land swap. Another point is that also having been on the La Pine Frontier Days Association since about 1997 or so when we took it back over, I've been on that board. And at no time ever has anyone ever come to us and made a presentation, asking for our support on any kind of expo or involvement or approval or concurrence on any kind of development of anything. I also want to say that several years ago Randy Gordon, a member of our community, and his wife, Erica, put together a group and asked me to be a part of that group. This is the group that Mr. Taylor is referring to that developed the idea around the expo and the forty-seven acres. They looked at that property. The old rodeo people came to that people. I stayed with that group for about four or five meetings, and in my mind they were moving in all different directions, and I didn't see a consensus happening on anything. I informed Mr. Gordon that I couldn't be a part of it. This thing about the La Pine Frontier Days in support of a rodeo grounds and all that, at no time has the organization joined hands with this idea — not a proposal — of having some kind of expo park. And I'd like to again say that I totally support, and the La Pine Frontier Days Association is on record of totally supporting, this land swap. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 7 of 21 Pages LARRY ARMSTRONG: I'm on the Board of Directors of the Park & Recreation District of La Pine. La Pine is a growing community, and has over 500 lots potentially coming on line. The potential of that is tremendous for the Park & Rec District. We've got to have expansion, and there is no expansion downtown except for the eighty acres. It should be in the community's hands instead of in private hands. We are in the process of getting SDC's in place, are getting our capital improvement plan organized now, and the comprehensive plan is coming along. We can handle some improvements to property that we might acquire. DEWOLF: Doesn't that require a vote? ARMSTRONG: I don't know about that. GEORGE READ: SDC's can be adopted without a vote by a district. LUKE: But they can be challenged, and they have to, based upon actual studies of needs and how they'd be distributed over a period of time. SDC's can't be used to build something better than what you already have. SDC's can be used to build infrastructure that's needed, but can't be used to create more infrastructure per capita than you already have. That's one of the issues; you can't raise the bar of what kind of facilities you already have, but can maintain the level of the type of facilities that you have, and fund that according to growth. They cannot be used to manage programs, either; just to build capital improvements. ARMSTRONG: West of the Rosland Campground is the eighty acres that has tremendous value. In our capital improvement plan we would expand the campground. It would be a real benefit to the community, and we could derive some money from that to support the Park & Recreation District, since we don't have a tax base. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 8 of 21 Pages DALY: Doesn't part of this exchange include Mr. Young donating five acres to the District? ARMSTRONG: I believe so. DALY: That sounds like a pretty good deal for Park & Rec. ARMSTRONG: Five acres versus eighty or more is not a lot. DALY: How could you possibly develop eighty acres of land in one spot? To me, parks should move around a bit, be diverse with small parks in different places. ARMSTRONG: With the homes that are going to be built down there, there will be a lot of new people coming into that area. All of the areas need to have parks in them. It doesn't necessarily need to be a campground. There are a lot of things it could be used for, like softball diamonds, a swimming pool and various amenities. ROBERT TOWNE: I'm a field manager, working with Phil Paterno of BLM. We initiated this land exchange concept about four years ago, and we based it on the sale of the 518 acres to Deschutes County. Since then we've modified the exchange a number of times to meet both local needs and to secure our national interests, which include public access, riparian and wildlife habitat. I think we have achieved balance and a good proposal. This success is emphasized by the fact that a private land proponent will pay full market value to the United States for twenty-five acres, which they will then donate to the community for parks and schools. This is a good return for everyone. We've received letters of support from various community members and groups, and the school district. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 9 of 21 Pages LUKE: How will you manage the land? Will you open it up for additional public access to the river? TOWNE: The 437 acres we'll acquire will be managed consistent with our resource management plan, which we are now revising. Also, we will do an environment assessment that will spell out the details of the management. It's private land now, but will be public, giving greater access, probably not to motorized use, livestock grazing or shooting, but these will be evaluated. PHIL PATERNO: When we were scoping the land use plan, when BLM inquired, it may have been perceived as a commitment that these lands would become dedicated for those uses. But we ask all local communities for input, and then evaluate it. It wasn't a commitment, just an inquiry. We couldn't commit. The land north and west of the high school will be managed as open space for casual recreational activities, in response of community needs. DEWOLF: Move approval of a letter of support. TAYLOR: I want it on the record that I protest your decision, on behalf of the La Pine Park & Recreation District. DALY: Second. LUKE: It's difficult when a community is not incorporated. We are the governing body, and have to listen and figure out what is best for the community. We respect the work of the La Pine Park & Recreation District, but there is a lot of support from other groups for this exchange. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 10 of 21 Pages 5. Before the Board was a Public Hearing, and Consideration of First and Second Readings and Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2003- 034, Text Amendments regarding the Landscape Management Combining Zone and Site Plan Review. (This item was addressed after item #6.) PAUL BLIKSTAD: This has to do with not requiring a separate land use application for the landscape management zone. The idea is to take out the language that requires a second land use application review. The site plan review criteria would not apply to landscape management review. LUKE: It still requires review. It just doesn't require a separate review. It will all be part of the whole package when somebody makes an application for a project. Commissioner Luke opened the public hearing. WILLIAM KUHN: I live in the Tumalo Winter Deer Range, off Sizemore Road. I want to ask if this means there is no site plan within the Tumalo Winter Deer Range area if this were applied. BLIKSTAD: Currently there is no formal land use review for the Tumalo Winter Deer Range, the wildlife area combining zone. If a person comes in for a permit for a dwelling, we just check to make sure they are within the 300 feet of a road or easement. LUKE: But we're only dealing with landscape management zones, and those are within state highways and rivers. KUHN: And Sizemore Road. BLIKSTAD: And certain main roads within the County. Sizemore Road is one of them. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 11 of 21 Pages KUHN: Our concern is that there have been numerous times when the Sizemore Road landscape management area, wildlife area, has been -- certain criteria have been established for those areas. And CDD communicates with the people who want to develop, and those people then ignore what it is that they are supposed to do. And we, the community who is trying to uphold the integrity of the Tumalo Winter Deer Range within the landscape management area, within the wildlife area overlay, are left having to sue in civil court because the County sits on their butt, not doing it. And that's my concern. LUKE: Does this stop the review you would normally do on applications on Sizemore or any other area that is in the landscape management zone? BLIKSTAD: In my opinion, no. We have two different reviews for landscape management, as you know - visible and non-visible. The non-visible application is pretty minor, because we just run out there to the site to check and make sure the proposed structure or structures are not visible from the designated road, river or stream. If they are visible, then it's a different application with more stringent criteria. I don't perceive myself sitting on my butt unless it's at my desk, writing a decision. KUHN: Paul, you are one of the people who has done the best to try to protect the area. You are the one who wrote the letter to certain people saying that this is something that needs to be considered. It was your letter that was ignored. LUKE: This is a public hearing, and testimony is directed to the Commissioners and not others. So, your concern is that there won't be proper - what is your concern? KUHN: My concern is that when people in the community do not follow the landscape management site plan review or whatever, within the County ordinances that are supposed to be followed, when we see violations occur and bring this to the attention of the County, the County does nothing to uphold the ordinances, the landscape management plans, and the conditional uses. This is wrong. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 12 of 21 Pages LUKE: Isn't a violation of this a code violation? CRAGHEAD: It would be if they were not adhering to their landscape management plan. The other issue is that this doesn't eliminate a site plan review; it's just a different site plan review. It just eliminates having two site plan reviews. LUKE: It eliminates duplication. CRAGHEAD: With a different set of criteria. There's one set of criteria for site plan review under landscape management, and then site plan, the run of the mill type of site plan review. LUKE: This ordinance has nothing to do with enforcement; only with the initial application. And it's no different from what we have been doing for a number of years. This was brought forward because the Hearings Officer had a different interpretation that wasn't appealed, and the Commissioners and staff made a recommendation to clarify this so the Hearings Officer wouldn't make that potential mistake again. It has not been the practice of the County, according to staff, to require the second site plan review in the past. It was not seen until that Hearings Officer's decision that there was a cross-reference to that code. And there has been only one application that it's been required on. DALY: It's a housekeeping issue, so to speak. BLIKSTAD: I can understand Mr. Kuhn's concerns, but I think his matter is extremely unique in the County in that sense. KUHN: When we brought our issue forward as a code violation, CDD ignored our concerns. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 13 of 21 Pages LUKE: I appreciate your comments. This has nothing to do with enforcement. Do you have a problem with the ordinance that eliminates the need for two site plan reviews instead of one? KUHN: I'm merely bringing to your attention the point that in a wildlife area overlay with a landscape management, that's a special area. And maybe it ought to have both. Thank you. Being no further testimony offered, Chair Luke closed the public hearing. DALY: Move first and second readings of Ordinance No. 2003-034, by title only. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. At this time, Chair Luke conducted the first and second readings of Ordinance No. 2003-034, by title only, declaring an emergency. DALY: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was Consideration of a Decision to Deny or Approve a Request to Trim/Prune Vegetation within the River Meadows/Stage Stop Subdivision and Within an Area Possibly Protected by a Conservation Easement along the Deschutes River. This item was addressed prior to item #S. LUKE: For the record, I went down there down there yesterday with staff, and walked the area, looked at the willows and island, measured some of the willows, and tried to look at different viewpoints. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 14 of 21 Pages DEWOLF: I went out with staff last week. I didn't go out. I felt the photos and information provided was adequate, and frankly I couldn't find the time to go out. KEVIN HARRISON: The way we left it last Wednesday was that there was a question from the Board as to the definition of a "bank", as a key term used in the conservation easement. There is a definition of this in the County's zoning ordinance, Chapter 18.04. I sent a verbatim copy of that definition to the Commissioners. L1s1.114 91 I guess my question is this. Do we have the regulatory authority over these willows, according to the definition of bank and where the easement is, in staffs opinion. HARRISON: You might want some legal advice on this as well, but it seems to me that the Board would first need to give meaning to the term "bank". And if you agree, you could use the definition in the County Code to give meaning to that term. I'm not so sure that is required. Once the term "bank" has been defined, then the question is, are these willows within or outside the bank. If they are inside the bank, then they are exempt from the conservation easement. If they are outside the bank, then they are subject to the conservation easement, and the Board would have to rule on that. LUKE: And if some are within and some aren't, they could trim some of them but not others? HARRISON: Some would fall to County jurisdiction, and some would fall solely to the property owner, which is River Meadows Homeowners' Association. CRAGHEAD: I agree that it is a matter of determining the definition of the bank, and what was intended at that time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 15 of 21 Pages LUKE: We also have the authority to allow trimming or not in any case. CRAGHEAD: Correct. You could put limitations on that trimming if you want. LUKE: We measured some of the heights of some of them, and in my personal opinion, a height of 4-1/2 or 5 feet looked best and allowed for growth. They should spread out as you cut the tops. DEWOLF: We received a fax this morning from Joe Robinson regarding some questions he had. ■::: •► He asked a series of questions, most of which that pertained to zoning. I'll give you a copy of the printout from the County's LAVA system on the properties. I would caution you going through some of those questions, as we worry about making land use decisions. DEWOLF: I just want clarification as to whether any of these things apply. HARRISON: As you see in the printout, the zoning is RR -10, and is also subject to a wildlife area and combining zone, a landscape management combining zone, and a least a portion of the property is in the flood plain zone. Keep in mind that the wildlife area combining zone is activated by land divisions or construction of new houses. This request has nothing to do with either of those types of activities. The landscape management zone is triggered by applications for new construction that requires a building permit. This request has nothing to do with that type of activity. The flood plain zone is triggered by new development, which is not an issue here. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 16 of 21 Pages Staff advises that the operative document is the conservation easement. The question is, first, does the conservation easement apply to the willows that Mr. Cecchi wants to trim. If it does apply, does the Board grant permission under the terms of that easement. Staff has advised the Board that this request does not constitute a land use permit or decision, so the County's comprehensive plan for implementing ordinances are not applied directly to this request. It is really a function of interpreting and implementing that easement. LUKE: The willows that screen the boat dock area - those aren't to be touched, are they? HARRISON: They're not in the request. The request covers those located along and in the channel opposite lots 10 through 14. So this area is not within that treed area that is located just south of the basin. LUKE: We could sit here and try to determine what is in the bank and what isn't. My personal preference is that they be allowed to cut, and try to keep them somewhere between 4-1/2 and 5-1/2 feet tall. They look good at that height. The ones already there that are that height look good. I don't see how it creates a problem if the marina area is left alone. That's doing what it is supposed to do. The other willows are quite a ways apart. That would be my personal preference. DALY: Are you saying just those that are in our jurisdiction? I've got to say from the photographs that I've seen, most of the willows would probably fall into the bank area, which would be outside of our jurisdiction anyway. If you're going to go ahead and trim those, and there are some that are actually in our jurisdiction, I'd say go ahead and trim them. DEWOLF: Well, this will be a two -to -one vote. I agree with the interpretation in our Code that there is a ten -foot bank over which we have no jurisdiction. Other than that, being on that side of the easement, being on the side where you live, I do not believe that this lot was purchased for its spectacular view of the river. It's just too far away. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 17 of 21 Pages I also am not buying the argument from the neighbors on the other side to the degree that they would like me to buy their argument. If I got to be the dictator instead of the one out of three, I would have no problem with what's going on within the ten feet. But everything within the easement, in order to stay consistent with what was agreed to when this was first established, that the screening and vegetation was required for a reason, and I think we ought to honor that. So, I'm not going to support that. I would prefer that within the easement over which we have jurisdiction that there not be any trimming done. LUKE: The plantings that were not done by the homeowner - are they moving forward on them? HARRISON: Mr. Cecchi's landscape management permit? Yes. I believe that it's being done. LUKE: I would move that on those areas where we have jurisdiction, that the willows be allowed to be trimmed somewhere between 4-1/2 and 5-1/2 feet high on average. CRAGHEAD: You're saying no less than 4-1/2 feet? lRO1.4� Yes. An average of about 5 feet. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: No. LUKE: Chair votes yes. (Split vote.) At this time, Commissioner De Wolf left the meeting. Item #5 was addressed next, followed by Item #7. 7. Before the Board was a Public Hearing, and Consideration of First and Second Readings and Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2003- 037, Establishing the Chain of Succession for Executive Responsibility in an Emergency. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 18 of 21 Pages Commissioner Luke explained the reasons for the ordinance to the audience, and opened the public hearing. Being no testimony offered, he closed the public hearing. DALY: Move first and second readings of Ordinance No. 2003-037, by title only. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. At this time, Chair Luke conducted the first and second readings of Ordinance No. 2003-037, by title only, declaring an emergency. DALY: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Letter Reappointing Diane Adams to the Howell's Hilltop Acres Special Road District, through December 31, 2005. This item was removed from the agenda. Laurie Craghead is investigation a change in the law that may affect how appointments are made to some of the special road districts. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $8,956.64. DALY: Move approval, subject to review. LUKE: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 19 of 21 Pages VOTE: DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amount of $605.82. DALY: Move approval, subject to review. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 11. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $924,437.62. DALY: Move approval, subject to review. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 12. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA. None were offered. Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair Luke closed the meeting at 11:35 a.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 20 of 21 Pages DATED this 28th Day of October 2003 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary 2 Dennis R. Luke, Chair a To DeWolf, Commis ner Attachments Exhibit A: Letter from Ann Gawith, La Pine Park & Recreation District Board Chair (2 pages) Exhibit B: Little Deschutes River Land Exchange Fact Sheet (2 pages) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Page 21 of 21 Pages October 27, 2003 Ann Gawith, Board Chairman La Pine Park & Recreation District La Pine Oregon Deschutes County Commissioners Re: Casey/Young Land Tract Exchange with BLM I regret not being able to attend this hearing; I am a General Contractor and have a large job in the Summer Lake area, with trusses set up for delivery on the very day of this meeting, making it impossible for me to reschedule. I have sent the board a copy of the letter I generated to our senators, hoping that it would also give you, the County Commissioners, some new insight into the Park & Rec District. I understand that the BLM wishes to have the full support of the community behind this exchange, though I am not so sure that our support, or yours, will make any difference in their decision to go ahead with this exchange. I feel it is, most likely, a "done deal", and they are seeking the approval and support from the County Commissioners to further discredit this Park & Recreation District's Board decision to protest the exchange. First, I must say, that the Casey Land Tract is a wonderful piece of wildlife refuge and wetlands that is precisely the type of property that should be in the hands of the BLM and thus, the public. It is removed from a densely populated area; it has been a traditional hunting and fishing area for the surrounding community; it should be preserved. I can fully understand the position of the BLM in wanting that property. But what I cannot understand is their insistence on trading a parcel of land that is the ONLY viable piece of BLM land directly adjacent to the core area of La Pine; a parcel that they had originally offered to the community of La Pine. Granted, Jim & Kelly Young have made concessions from the original exchange, but the parcels they removed from the exchange are wetlands and far enough from city services to the extent it would be extremely costly, if not impossible, to ever develop these pieces. As was decided close to 6 years ago by a group of folks from La Pine, after being approached by the BLM, that the acreage at the NW corner of Huntington and Memorial is the absolutely ideal parcel for the plans that were born from several meetings and charettes held on the subject; it is only a block from the schools, a few blocks from the Boys & Girls Club and the library, a short distance from the COIC and other county services. It's the perfect spot for the future of La Pine recreation: a swimming pool, a skateboard park, expo arena, ball fields, as well as a possible campus for COCC, and expansion of the high school. There are NO OTHER pieces of property so ideally located and suitable for development of such recreational and educational facilities. Indeed, because of it's suitability, it is also a valuable segment of land for other types of development, and thus, I'm sure, the insistence on the part of the Young's to have it included in the land exchange. While I truly feel the Young's would develop something on this property that would benefit La Pine, this is not the issue; the issue is that the BLM Exhibit Page / of Page 2 came to the community first with the proposal. The Park & Rec District wasthe agency selected to develop the future plans for the property and the agency that subsequently made application for the property; therefore the agency that was summarily dismissed as not having the resources to accomplish these many diverse plans. We did not have a tax base at the time they came to us, and we still don't, but, as for not having a good track record of development of our properties, I refer you to the recent letter I wrote to our senators. Thank you for your time and allowing me to augment the information you probably already have on this issue. I always appreciate the help and consideration that the County Commissioners have traditionally accorded this Park & Ree District, and I look forward to a long and fruitful relationship long after this issue has been put to rest. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, e-mail ggawith@aol.com or home phone 536-8398. Sincerely, Ann Gawith, Board Chairman La Pine Park & Recreation District Exhibit---A- Page xhibitAPage A of -)- Little Deschutes River Land Exchange Fact Sheet 1. Summary of the Exchange. In the exchange, Jim Young will convey a 437 -acre ranch parcel to the BLM. The ranch is located on both sides of the Little Deschutes River just north of the La Pine State Recreation Road in Deschutes County. The ranch parcel contains 1.5 miles of riparian land. BLM has determined that riparian areas within the ranch contain unique "oxbow habitat" that is critical for many species of fish and wildlife The land is also situated within a major migration corridor for deer and elk where about 18,000 animals pass annually between their winter and summer ranges. Federal acquisition of this parcel would consolidate public land holdings and ensure the protection of this sensitive ecosystem. This land would also give the public access to a significant stretch of the Little Deschutes River for recreational purposes. At the current time, there is very little public access to the Little Deschutes River. "About 90% of the river is bordered by private land so access is limited." (from Central Oregon Cascade Lakes Scenic Drive & Recreation Guide p. 50 (Sun Publishing, Bend). In exchange, Jim Young would receive about 174 acres of federal land in La Pine.. The federal land conveyed through this exchange is in separate federal tracts that do not contain any riverfront land or sensitive riparian areas. 2. Prior Modification of the Exchange to Meet Community Requests BLM's "National Exchange Team" originally approved a form of this land exchange in 2001. The original exchange included two federal parcels with some river frontage that were designated for conveyance to Jim Young. In response to concerns raised by some members of the La Pine community, Mr. Young voluntarily modified the exchange to remove these two federal parcels. As a result of this modification, these two undeveloped federal tracts will remain open for public use and for continued public access to the Little Deschutes River. 3. Land Donation Offers To assist the La Pine community in meeting its needs, Mr. Young has also agreed to make the following offers to donate some of the land he receives in the exchange: Bend La Pine School District. Mr. Young will offer a donation of 10 acres of land to the Bend La Pine School District for use as a school site. The donation parcel is immediately adjacent to the existing La Pine school site and will facilitate expansion of school facilities. The land will be conveyed to the school district for school -related uses and other limited purposes. Exhibit Page--, of • Page 2 October 22, 2003 2. Central Oregon CommunityCollege. Mr. Young will offer a donation of 4 acres of land to the Central Oregon Community College for college - related uses and other limited purposes. This land may facilitate the development of a satellite campus facility in the La Pine area. The 4 - acre site would be contiguous to the school district property and would provide a unique opportunity to co -locate educational facilities in the La Pine community. La Pine Parks and Recreation District or Bend La Pine School District. Mr. Young is aware that the community does not have adequate facilities for youth sports activities. To address this need, Mr. Young will offer a donation of a 5 -acre site to either the La Pine Parks and Recreation District or the school district for the development of youth soccer fields. The 5 -acre site is adjacent to existing school facilities and could be utilized by the entire community. To facilitate the development of this site, Mr. Young has agreed to offer a $10,000 cash donation to be used for construction of soccer fields. Mr. Young will offer an additional $5,000 in matching funds if the community is able to raise its own $5,000 for the development of the fields. The land will be conveyed for park -related uses and other limited purposes. 4. Local Support for the Exchange The exchange is supported by the La Pine Community Action Team and the La Pine Frontier Days and Rodeo Association. The exchange will provide the public with ownership of a unique riverfront parcel that provides critical habitat for area wildlife and that can provide additional recreational opportunities in the La Pine area. The exchange has also been modified to ensure that two federal parcels with some river frontage remain in public ownership. In addition, the donation offers outlined above will facilitate the expansion of school, soccer, and college facilities in La Pine. Exhibit 6 Page Z of Z