2004-799-Minutes for Meeting May 12,2004 Recorded 5/18/2004COUNTY
TES
FICIAL
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,FCOUNTY CLERKS U 200099
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 05/18/2004 02;58;42 PM
1111111111111111111111111111111
2004-700
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
CERTIFICATE PAGE
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.ore
MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, MAY 129 2004
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend
Please note change of time for the regular Board meeting —
from 10:00 a.m. to 10:30.
Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tom De Wolf.
Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Mark Pilliod and Laurie
Craghead, Legal Counsel; Cathy White, Kevin Harrison and Catherine Morrow,
Community Development; Ronda Connor and Debbie Legg, Personnel; Anna
Johnson and Susan Ross, Commissioners' Office; Timm Schimke, Solid Waste
Department; Tom Blust and Gary Judd, Road Department; media representatives
Barney Lerten of bend. com and The Bugle, Chris Barker of the Bulletin, and a
reporter from, Z-21 TV; and approximately twenty other citizens.
The meeting was preceded by a meeting regarding the Sunriver Service District's
fiscal year 2004-05 budget, followed by the regular Board meeting.
Chair Daly opened the regular meeting at 10:30 a.m.
1. Before the Board was Citizen Input.
JULIE EBERHARD WHEELER:
I have a question —
DENNIS LUKE:
If this has anything to do with the landfill, we cannot take any testimony.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Page 1 of 17 Pages
1NJ/:I�I:i�
I just have a question. I'm not speaking about the landfill. When will the
residents of Deschutes County be allowed to share our environmental concerns
in regard to the expansion plans at the Knott landfill with the Board of
Commissioners? A couple of weeks ago, at a Commissioners' work session —
LOYN a
Excuse me. This has everything to do with the landfill.
WHEELER:
I'm only asking a question about the process.
DEWOLF:
We're going to be dealing with that on the agenda. That's what we are deciding
today.
LUKE:
I'm sorry. There are land use rules that we can't violate. It creates all kinds of
problems.
DEWOLF:
You'll know that today. We're dealing with that, and make a decision about
hearing the appeal. It is during a public appeal hearing that the public will have
the opportunity to have input.
WHEELER:
The question is, Mr. Pilliod stated in your administrative liaison meeting last
week that you were going to decide what is going to be relevant and what was
not going to be relevant to the appeal. And our concern is, are you going to say
that only land use issues are appropriate to be heard at the appeal, or that
environmental concerns may be heard at the appeal as well.
DEWOLF:
I guess we'll discuss it at that time today.
PETER PURCELL:
I live on Arnold Market Road. And would like to encourage you folks to go
ahead and do the appeal, because there is tremendous citizen interest in this.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Page 2 of 17 Pages
DEWOLF:
It is on our agenda.
JIM JOHNSON:
I live at 3110 NE Barrington Court. I have some documentation for you to take
a look at. (A copy is attached as Exhibit E.) The last time I talked to you, this
was on appeal for a lot. I've got a little lot on the river outside Deschutes River
Woods. I've been trying to build a little house on there for a year and a half.
I first went down to Deschutes County planning to see if I could get a variance
for the rimrock setback, and Matthew Martin told me if there was ever a case
for a variance, this was it. So I paid by thousand and so odd dollars and applied
for the variance, and then got a recommendation from the planning department
to deny it. I should have been told up front.
Anyhow, long story short, during the variance process the edge of the rimrock
was marked one time, and then they came back and changed it a little bit the
second time. They said I had a 2,400 square foot building envelope there to
build my house on. That's not really very large. It would have to be a very
small house. So I did the variance, and was denied. I appealed and actually
was denied that. And with the Board of Commissioners' encouragement I filed
a text amendment, if you recall when we did that. So I filed my text
amendment and thought it was a slam-dunk because I felt that everyone here at
the County was on my side on this, to help me build on this little lot.
So we got to the Planning Commission stage, and it was obvious to me that the
Planning Commission was not in favor of doing any text amendment. A year
and a half later and over $5,000 later, I'm very frustrated. I want to build my
house. If I had been down the road just a little bit, in the urban growth
boundary, I'd be living in my house now.
On page one, it shows the map that was an exhibit at the hearing. Item A was
originally where the planning staff set the rimrock. And on second thought,
they went back and placed it on line B, the rimrock edge. I was asking for a
ten -foot variance from the rimrock edge. On the next page it shows the lot
itself and a little bit of the topography. It's not to scale. Again, it shows that I
have that eighty -foot envelope from the dotted line to the front. And the law
says I have a twenty -foot setback in front and twenty in back. I was asking for
ten feet from the rimrock.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Page 3 of 17 Pages
If you go to page 5 of the transcript, this shows that the following is findings of
fact by the Planning Department. On page 7, it says the structure I was
applying for would be twenty feet in height and ten feet from the rimrock. On
page 9, the County states that only eighty of the overall 225 feet of the lot's
depth are located on top of the rimrock and available for development, and that
2,400 square feet will be available for building.
These are findings of fact by the Planning Department, and in the record. The
next page, which Kevin Harrison sent me, shows the Hearings Officer's
findings of fact and decision. She agreed with the staff, that two building
constraints exist on the property, "rimrock that limits the developable area
above the rimrock to the front eighty feet, not including required setbacks".
That's twenty in the front, twenty from the rimrock, leaving 2,400 square feet.
So when I was doing my text amendment I saw that the Planning
Commissioners were not going to recommend that the text amendment be
approved, and gave up. I said, okay, I'm going to build in this 2,400 square foot
envelope, a lot smaller home than I want to build, but I was tired of the red tape.
I started working with Kevin Harrison and Matt Martin, and they said I can't
build in that 2,400 square feet. They said they will take the old stakes and I
have to start making circles, and they'll tell me where I can build.
I made two major financial decisions based upon findings of fact by the
Planning Department and the Hearings Officer, and these are in the record. I
purchased the lot a few months ago based on those facts; okay, I can't get my
variance and can't get a text amendment, but at least I can still build a little
house on this lot and have a house on the river. Now Kevin Harrison tells me
the answer is no, I can't build a house on it. I didn't have the opportunity to talk
with George Read.
I'm very frustrated. I thought this is my last attempt to talk with the County and
ask you to please work with me on this. I'm backed in a corner.
I bought this lot for $125,000, and I withdrew my text amendment request
based upon the findings of fact that I could build a house. Now I'm being told I
can't. I'm asking two things, and would like an official, final response from the
County. First, just agree that you said I could build in this 2,400 square foot
envelope and you can. Or, let me go ahead and reinstate the text amendment.
Kevin Harrison says I can't reinstate it because I withdrew it. It was $1,500 for
that.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Page 4 of 17 Pages
I just need some help. I just want to build a little house on there, and retire in
six years and call it quits. But financially this has been a big hardship here
because of all of this. I've spent a lot of time and money. I know you can't give
me an answer right now, but would appreciate it sometime in the next couple of
weeks, an official answer from Deschutes County. If I'm told that I cannot
build in this 2,400 square foot lot, we're going to court. I'm looking for a jury
trial, and damages and costs.
DEWOLF:
There's nothing currently pending right now, is that right? So, can we set up a
meeting of one or more of us, the Planning staff and you, and talk through this
at a time when we can work through these issues.
LAURIE CRAGHEAD:
There is not an application now pending. You are able to talk to staff; that is
not a part of ex parte contact even if it were to become an application.
However, you might have to make some declaration of ex parte contact if it
ever does come before you.
At this time, without a formal application going through the formal land use
process, the Board of County Commissioners is prohibited from giving a final
decision in this matter. There would have to be an application, under land use
regulations, for you to render a decision that would be binding on the County.
DEWOLF:
But we could set up a meeting, and walk through this to understand either the
change in circumstances from CDD's perspective or whatever. Something isn't
getting communicated or translated very well here. We could set up such a
meeting?
CRAGHEAD:
We could.
DALY:
I recall this from before, but don't remember how it came out. I understand his
frustration in running into a bureaucratic wall here that we need to help sort out.
DEWOLF:
Maybe it would be just Dennis, since he's the liaison for CDD. I don't have any
preconceived notion here. But I'd like to at least have one of us at least in this
meeting.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Page 5 of 17 Pages
LUKE:
I would much rather have Legal Counsel talk with Kevin about this and bring
us up to speed. I'm not sure at this time if we need to be involved in a meeting
until we get the facts. If you would talk to Kevin to see if there's some wiggle
room; maybe there are some things we can do as a jurisdiction.
CRAGHEAD:
Sure, I can do that. I'll talk with them. Just a reminder, the Board would not be
able to make a decision on that matter without a formal application. Also, I
could not serve as legal counsel for Mr. Johnson; we could give some general
parameters but we could not give actual legal advice.
JOHNSON:
I think one of the problems here is a little power struggle between Kevin and I.
Kevin has said in writing that I can't build on this 2,400 square feet. So I would
think that if Kevin wanted to, he could say that I can. That's all I need.
To make my application is going to cost me $2,500 to get my site plan done, the
elevations, the color of the paint, the roof type and all this. And $950 for the
variance application for two feet. Plus the $500 or so application fee. So I'm
talking about another almost $4,000 to make this application. So I just want an
indication from someone that I can build here, where they told me I could in the
first place.
DEWOLF:
That was my understanding; that the setback wasn't going to be varied, but
without that you could build a smaller house than you wanted to build. That
was my understanding when made that decision about a year ago.
DALY:
That was my understanding also.
DEWOLF:
I'd like to understand what's happened here.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Page 6 of 17 Pages
2. Before the Board was a Presentation and Update of the Upper Deschutes
River Communities Wildfire Protection Plan. — David Blair
JIM KING:
I live on Big River Drive in Oregon Water Wonderland I, and agreed to
coordinate this presentation. (Handouts were made available at this time;
copies are attached as Exhibit B.)
Fourteen neighborhoods are involved in this, and representatives of six of those
neighborhoods are here today. The Department of Forestry and the BLM/U.S.
Forest Service presented information at a community meeting.
Two things came up over and over; that is, concerns about federally owned
lands located around neighborhoods, and vacant lots. We had our first meeting
in November about working collectively, and met again in January to focus on
the federal lands problem. We asked for national fire plan funds, but didn't
have much success with the Forest Service and talked with additional
neighborhoods on this issue. We met in February to spin off a federal lands
project, using private funding and the urban interface program. We met again
in April to work on SB 360 to help the neighborhood association.
Fire protection is the main focus, as well as natural resource issues in the river
corridor. This is a support system for neighborhoods. I know what it is like to
be the president of a homeowners association during challenging times.
As you know, the fire hazard is extreme, but response from some agencies is a
problem.
LUKE:
One concern right now is mosquitoes and West Nile virus. Are you working on
this also?
KING:
Somewhat. We've been approached about bank erosion, ATV's, garbage
dumping, and all of those kinds of things. They're a bit lower on the list of
concerns, but important.
WES PERRIN:
I'm a Four Rivers Vector Control District board member. We're watching this
carefully.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Page 7 of 17 Pages
KING:
We appreciate the letter you sent out last fall to the U.S. Forest Service, asking
for their response. We will need more help. We appreciate David Blair's time
also. We understand that a Forester is being hired, and we'd like to have him
come to our meetings. Also, Cathy Morrow has been very helpful. We need to
build a relationship with the Forest Service again. How we work together will
make a big difference, and help from the County would be significant.
PERRIN:
Getting a consensus is a challenge, but we all agree that fire protection and
water preservation are important. There's 50,000 acres of public lands
surrounding our neighborhoods, which is an enormous fire threat. We want to
take advantage of the Healthy Forest Initiative, and contract with private groups
to reduce ladder fuels and conditions.
This year it's already a dangerous situation. We want to be environmentally
sensitive, and want to try to tap into the federal side, but be good stewards of
the land. There are aesthetic reasons for a healthy forest, too.
KEN LANE:
I'm the Vandevert Ranch foreman, and have been involved in forestry for thirty-
four years, and was on the planning committee for Senate Bill 50 for two years.
At that time, the biggest concern was undeveloped lots. However, those aren't
part of the plan at the present time. There's an opportunity now for the Healthy
Forests Initiative and SB 360 to work hand in hand; the federal and private
lands, to get something done.
There are numerous undeveloped lots; many of them pose a fire threat, and this
needs to be addressed. We request that the County pass an ordinance to address
these undeveloped lands. We are requesting your cooperation and diligence, to
serve the community.
DALY:
Do you want the ability to go onto vacant lots without the owners' permission to
clean up the lots?
KING:
State law is silent on this. This will have to go back through an Administrative
Rules process. There are two tools. The State Department of Forestry can
condemn property is it is hazardous.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Page 8 of 17 Pages
Others, like the shake roofing ordinance, are ways to deal with it on an interim
basis, and maybe you can get a response from the property owners who should
clean up their properties.
DALY:
In the cities, this can be done and the owner is sent a bill. Would the same rule
apply here?
KING:
Some neighborhood associations have fines established. We're having meetings
with them to find out how this was done. As you know, some neighborhoods
are barely organized and don't have CC&R's in place.
LUKE:
It's not the first time we've tried to deal with this. Lois Prante tried in the past.
Some people don't care, and won't spend their time or money. There's also a
concern about private property rights, so it has to be addressed through public
hearings.
KING:
State law doesn't apply to the vacant lots.
DEWOLF:
The basic concept of what you are explaining is good. This should be discussed
with the new Forester. We probably shouldn't get into so much detail this
morning.
KING:
We appreciate your support for the Healthy Forest Phase I Plan. When the
neighborhoods are organized, this will be needed. We want to start discussions
with the Forest Service, and that will take some time.
3. Before the Board was the Reading of a Proclamation, Declaring May 19,
2004 "Employee Health and Fitness Day" in Deschutes County.
Mike Dawson from Mental Health, a member of the Wellness Committee, read
the proclamation.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Page 9 of 17 Pages
DEWOLF: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
4. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Implementation of
the B -Physical Activity Academy.
This item has been delayed.
5. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on the Bandley Road Local
Improvement District; and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No.
2004-049, Directing Bandley Road Improvements to be Made by Contract.
Gary Judd stated that he received one written remonstrance, out of the seven
property owners. The lot is vacant; the owner does not live in the area, and
objected to the cost. (A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit C.)
Chair Daly opened the public hearing.
Being no testimony offered, he closed the public hearing.
LUKE: Move approval.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
6. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2004-
051, Authorizing Reimbursement of Funds Expended during the Local
Improvement Process for the Bandley Road Local Improvement Project.
DEWOLF: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Page 10 of 17 Pages
7. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on the Kiowa Drive Local
Improvement District; and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No.
2004-052, Directing Kiowa Drive Local Improvement District
Improvements Made by Contract.
Gary Judd said that this district is located in Whispering Pines. The cost is
about $7,000 per lot, and there are 21 lots. He received one written objection
from a property owner who doesn't live in the area and who doesn't want to
invest in the road at this time. (A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit D)
Chair Daly opened the public hearing.
Dan Patching, who lives off 93rd Place, stated that he is in favor of forming the
district because of the bad, dusty roads they now have there.
Being no further testimony offered, Chair Daly closed the public hearing.
LUKE: Move approval.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
8. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2004-
053, Declaring the County's Intent to Issue Obligations to Reimburse the
County for Certain Expenditures related to Kiowa Drive Local
Improvement District.
LUKE: Move approval.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
9. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2004-040,
Placing a Ballot Measure before Voters on the November 2004 General
Election Ballot regarding the Formation of a Transit District.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Page 11 of 17 Pages
Mark Pilliod stated that the documents are not complete, as he still needs some
information from the City of Bend. There is nothing prepared for the Board to
act on at this time. There are some timing issues to be addressed, and public
hearings need to take place after the documents are prepared.
Further discussion regarding this item has been delayed until the May 24
Board meeting.
10. Before the Board was Consideration of Whether to Hear an Appeal of the
Hearings Officer's Decision Approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Plan Review to Relocate Existing Landfill -related Facilities at Knott
Landfill to the County's North Development Area.
CRAGHEAD:
This has not been noticed as a public hearing, so you can't take testimony at this
time. You are only able to consider the notice of appeal, the record, and
recommendations of staff.
CATHERINE WHITE:
Commissioner Luke had previously brought up a question as to whether the
Hearings Officer can hear this matter.
I reviewed this, and believe that you can appoint a Hearings Officer to do the
initial decision. In fact, I would recommend that the Board, because of the
unusual nature of the problem of the computer-generated list from the
Assessor's Office being so far off on the names, should treat this as an initial
hearing, and appoint a Hearings Officer to hear it.
If it is treated as an initial hearing, the appeal fee can be waived, and the fee for
a transcript can be waived. That would therefore take care of any procedural
errors that might be brought up on argument. However, I would recommend
that after the Hearings Officer makes a decision, the Board should call up the
decision on its own and do at least a review on the record.
LUKE:
The reason I asked that question originally was, after you read the appeal, that
a lot of is whether we crossed the is and dotted the i's, and whether we
addressed the right things.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Page 12 of 17 Pages
That is in the realm of the legal end of the land use process. Attorneys do that
so much better than the lay people. It's a complicated part of the law.
CRAGHEAD:
Assuming that you appoint the Hearings Officer to hear this, that will be a part
of the order than is to be drafted for your signature. The hearing must have
twenty days' notice, so we're looking at about mid-June for a hearing.
DEWOLF:
We should waive the fees. The thing I hope that people would someday
understand is that we're not a group of people who attempts to do things in
secret or tries to deceive the public, or undermine the good will of the people
who live here.
Our intention before was to get the notice out. A computer glitch rendered that
useless for all intents and purposes. The first thing we did was renotice this
thing. I believe that we got it right this time. I think we should waive all fees
because of the inadvertent error that was made.
Having it go to the Hearings Officer first is good. It ratchets it down from the
highly emotional level that came up through the tire pyrolysis issue and all that.
It hopefully gets us back to a rational level.
Regarding the question that was brought up earlier about the environmental
concerns, I still don't know. And because of the situation we're in, you can't
address that to me. But you can address that to Cathy White and find out what
is and is not appropriate for that particularly public hearing. If it's not, it may
be that we have to go through this whole process and then bring that up at a
later date when we're not under the cover of a legal proceeding that we're in
right now.
CRAGHEAD:
Sorry to interrupt. The appropriate time to bring that up is at the hearing, and
have the Hearings Officer decide if that's appropriate.
LUKE:
Are we going back like the hearing never took place at all, and the Hearings
Officer is going to start from ground zero?
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Page 13 of 17 Pages
CRAGHEAD:
Exactly.
DEWOLF:
De novo, and everything is fair game.
CRAGHEAD:
Assuming that is the decision of the Board.
LUKE:
It's not a new application for Solid Waste.
CRAGHEAD:
Because of the unique circumstances, the Board is choosing to call it up on its
own and hear it; however, you are appointing a Hearings Officer and treating
this as an initial hearing, as if we're starting all over. However, the record will
be included in the record of the Hearings Officer.
LUKE: Move to hear the appeal, to appoint a Hearings Officer, to waive
any appeal fee, to waive the transcript requirement, and that the
hearing be de novo, with the date set with the Hearings Officer as
to when to have the hearing, and that notice be given at least
twenty days from today.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
11. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Policy No. 2004-109,
Revisions to the Employee Travel, Meal and Miscellaneous Expense
Reimbursement Policy (to Comply with Current IRS Guidelines).
Discussion regarding this item has been delayed until the May 24 Board
meeting.
Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Consent Agenda Items.
LUKE: Move approval.
DEWOLF: Second.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Page 14 of 17 Pages
VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
Consent Agenda Items
12. Signature of Resolution No. 2004-050, Transferring Appropriations within
the Deschutes County Insurance Reserve Fund.
13. Signature of Resolution No. 2004-044, Transferring Appropriations within
the Deschutes County Sheriffs Office Fund.
14. Signature of Order No. 2004-041, a Monthly Cash Transfer as Budgeted in
the Deschutes County Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-04, and Directing Entries.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
15. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of
$159888.55.
LUKE: Move approval, subject to review.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
16. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the
Amount of $1,141.64.
LUKE: Move approval, subject to review.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Page 15 of 17 Pages
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
17. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $856,761.26.
LUKE: Move approval, subject to review.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
18. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
A. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No.
2004-199, an Amendment to the Management Operating Agreement
between Deschutes County and Aramark Corporation regarding Jail
Food Services.
Sue Brewster said that this amendment would cover the cost of service and
food for the proposed uses for the Regional Work Center.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
B. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of an Oregon
Liquor Control License Application for Gordy's Truck Stop, La Pine.
DEWOLF: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Page 16 of 17 Pages
Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair Daly adjourned the
meeting at 11:35 a.m.
DATED this 12th Day of May 2004 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner
Tom DeWolf, Commissioner
Attachments
Exhibit A: Sign -in Sheet (1 page)
Exhibit B: Upper River Communities Wildfire Protection Plan (25 pages)
Exhibit C: Letter of Remonstrance, Bandley Road Local Improvement District (1 page)
Exhibit D: Letter of Remonstrance, Kiowa Drive Local Improvement District (1 page)
Exhibit E: Documents Presented by Jim Johnson re: Land Use Issue (16 pages)
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Page 17 of 17 Pages
0
co
a)
0
CD
rn
c
0
U
O
w
O
L
a�
m
a�
a
N
ti
L
V
No
N
0
N
�
r
4t
m
x
�
ca
D
U
c
o
t
�
a
c
as
�
a
J
.p
W12
n
Q0
d
c
m
s
v�
.E,
O
U
IL.
V
.o
�r
�1.
,C
c�
p
140J �
a
Q
F—
C
y
E
Z
<�
-
`
c
G1
_
s
xhib
t
age
of
co
a)
0
CD
rn
c
0
U
O
w
O
L
a�
m
a�
a
UPPER RIVER COMMUNITIES WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN
Comprising
PHASE I, SOUTHERN DESCHUTES COUNTY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN
This Community Wildfire Protection Plan is prepared pursuant to Public Law 108-148, the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). In accordance with the Act, This Plan describes the
measures necessary to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and restore healthy forest ecological
conditions on National Forest lands next to the following communities:
Haner Park
Wild River
Deschutes River Recreation Homesites 6
Fall River Estates
River Forest Acres Road District
Beaver Special Road District
Oregon Water Wonderland 1
River Meadows
Vandevert Ranch
Oregon Water Wonderland 2
Deschutes River Recreation Homesites 1-5
Crosswater
Sunriver
Spring River Acres
As required by public law 108-148, this plan includes the following:
• A map of the Wildland Urban Interface in the analysis area (`analysis area' refers to the
area covered by this plan, as described above);
• prioritization of areas requiring thinning and treatment;
• A description of the desired forest conditions sought by the residents of these
communities and by the collaborators to this plan;
• A description of the measures taken within each community to protect structures from
wildfire events within the planning area.
This plan does not include any "project level" decisions to implement specific projects within the
analysis area. It is the future responsibility of the Forest Service to plan and implement projects
accomplishing the goals of this plan. Project level plans and analyses include compliance with
existing laws (ie. the ESA, NFMA, Clean Water Act, etc.), as well as existing management plans
(ie. the Deschutes National Forest Plan, the Wild and Scenic River management plan, etc.)
COORDINATION WITH A SOUTH COUNTY PLAN
Exhibit
Page / of
1CADocuments and Settings\David Blair\My Documents\south county\CWPP 404 draftA
This plan covers approximately 50,000 acres of National Forest and BLM lands next to the
communities situated west of LaPine. The Steering Committee worked with LaPine Rural Fire
Chief Jim Court to resolve a concern about having the entire south county — that portion of
Deschutes County south of Sunriver — covered by a single plan. Under our agreement with Chief
Court, the Upper River CWPP is to be considered Phase I of the South County Plan; organization
and efforts to initiate collaboration and preparation of a phase II plan, covering the rest of the
South County, has already begun.
COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS
This plan was developed under the guidance of a collaborative steering committee consisting of
the following persons:
Bob Dryden, Beaver Special Road District
Sue Manly Hinton, Sunriver Nature Center
Jim King, Oregon Water Wonderland 1
Ken Lane, Vandevert Ranch
Don Mercer, Fall River Estates
Regan Olson, Mike Swope, Deschutes River Recreation Homesites Unit 6
Dick Patterson, Haner Park
Wes Perrin, River Forest Acres
David Blair, project coordinator
In addition, the following individuals participated in the development of this plan:
Forest Service:
State Forester:
LaPine Rural Fire District:
Bureau of Land Management:
Lorri Heath, Jim Schlaich
Stu Otto
Chief Jim Court.
Steve Castillo
A field trip to the analysis occurred on March 16 and was attended by Mr. Perrin, Mr. Mercer,
Mr. Lane, Mr. Blair, Mr. Otto, and Mr. Dryden. The group made approximately 11 stops
throughout the analysis area; held discussions at each stop about forest conditions and what the
forestry goals should be at each stop; took photos; and discussed how to prioritize areas for
treatment.
The first meeting of the collaborative group took place on April 18, and was attended by all
members of the steering committee and Bend Ft. Rock District Ranger Walt Schloer, State
Forester representative Stu Otto, La Pine forestry contractor Bob Otteni, USFS staff Lorri Heath,
Mark Rapp, Oregon Watersheds representative Marcus Kaufman. Discussions centered on how
to establish priorities within the analysis area; the need for clarity regarding the Wild and Scenic
River management plan; WUI boundary issues; the importance of forestry principles by
Professor Wally Covington; and the need to reference fire behavior and the importance of
managing bitterbrush in the WUI.
L DEFINITIONS
Exhibit a
Page -?— of
2CADocuments and Settings\David Blair\My Documents\south county\CWPP 404 draft.d(
For the purposes of this plan, the following definitions are provided:
1. BASAL AREA: The surface area of the cross section of a tree at 4.5' above the ground.
Basal area is a measurement of tree density on one acre of ground; it is a numeric
measure of the amount of tree biomass; if the basal area is very high, we know that the
trees are likely not receiving enough sunlight, nutrients, and moisture to thrive.
In the context of this plan, our goal is to retain basal area in primarily large diameter
trees, enabling `release' of those trees to become even larger, and assuring their success
and health.
2. LADDER FUELS: Tree branches, thicketed stands, brushy areas which serve as fuel to
a wildfire carrying the fire into the forest canopy. In the context of this plan, our goal is
to reduce ladder fuels, reducing the likelihood that a fire will stay low to the ground and
not become a crown fire.
3. CROWN FIRE: A fire that is carried through the crowns of dense, thicketed stands,
posing an extreme threat to adjacent communities. For example, the Fall River EA states:
"The common property line between private and public land (urban interface) in
the vicinity of the Fall River Estates subdivision is composed of a mix of
lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine. The shrub layer within these stands is
capable of producing flame lengths greater than 15 feet with a high to moderate
potential for a crown fire that could quickly threaten adjacent private property."
4. DESCHUTES WILD AND SCENIC RIVER PLAN: ?? still no information from the
Forest Service regarding the plan's requirements.
5. WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE (WUI): The interface between residential areas and
communities and the wildlands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of
Land Management (BLM). Under the HFRA, the WUI is statutorily defined as the area
of public lands within 1.5 miles of communities, or the area identified by communities
within a Community Wildfire Protection Plan as the area which best applies to local
conditions.
I. MAP
(should we identify the quarter mile buffer area?)
QUESTION FOR THE FOREST SERVICE: Is it useful for the current project area boundaries
(Fall,Dilman-Dorr, Klak) to be overlain on the WUI map?
II. FOREST CONDITIONS IN THE ANALYSIS AREA
The analysis area consists of public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) adjacent to the communities listed above; generally, the area from the
3CADocuments and Settings\David BWr\My Documents\south county\CWPP 404 draft.dk
Exhibit
Page _-3 of
northern boundary of the Sunriver development, upstream along the Deschutes River to Wickiup
Reservoir (see appendix XYZ, Wildland Urban Interface, Upper Deschutes River Communities).
The original forests in this area were dominated by ponderosa pine with an open understory, and
occasional lodgepole pine stands in the colder zones. Stand replacement fires were relatively
few. The area was subject to intensive timber harvest and fire suppression for the past 100 years,
resulting in current forest conditions that bear little resemblance to those existing pre -settlement.
Current forest conditions are similar to those of the area consumed by the Davis Lake fire of the
summer of 2003. An apt description is provided by the Forest Service in its Fall River EA:
"Historically, low intensity fires maintained and thinned ponderosa pine within the
project area by killing much of the understory trees and shrubs on a 7 to 15 year cycle. In
the absence of fire over the last 80 years, well-developed shrub layers and high stand
densities have placed the ponderosa pine stands at high risk for high intensity, stand -
replacing wildfires that can have detrimental effects on wildlife, soils and water quality.
An estimated 74 percent of the project area is classified as extreme or high for fire
behavior. The common property line between private and public land (urban interface) in
the vicinity of the Fall River Estates subdivision is composed of a mix of lodgepole pine
and ponderosa pine. The shrub layer within these stands is capable of producing flame
lengths greater than 15 feet with a high to moderate potential for a crown fire that could
quickly threaten adjacent private property"
The forests in the analysis area are predominantly ponderosa pine and thickets of lodgepole pine
with occasional large trees interspersed. Mixed conifer (ponderosa and lodgepole together)
forests are present in thickets. Some stands are lodgepole pine with large ponderosa pine
scattered throughout on an individual basis. For the most part stand structure is dense
seedling/sapling and pole size trees with some mature overstory ponderosa poine of up to 40
inches DBH. The majority of the forest area contains excessive ladder fuels with a high
incidence of dead and downed trees, bitterbrush, and piled slash; together, these conditions pose
an extreme fire hazard to the Upper River communities.
Most forests adjacent to the communities are thicketed stands having very high basal areas and
posing an extreme risk of catastrophic fire. Forests exhibiting healthy conditions, with
appropriate stem and basal area densities, are rare in the analysis area.
III. PRIORITY AREAS FOR TREATMENT
On the field tour and in discussions the group considered various ways to prioritize forest areas
for treatment. According to the Forest Service's Fall River EA, 74% of that project area has fuel
conditions which would generate extreme fire behavior; the Steering Committee believes that
figure likely applies to the entire area designated as WUI under this plan.
An approach emerged in which we would describe generic forest conditions, and rank these in
order of their relative urgency for treatment. On the field tour we attempted to rank the forests
according to this standard as well, and decided to establish three categories of forest conditions
and the relative risk of catastrophic fire:
4CADocuments and Settings\David Blair\My Documents\south county\CWPP 404 "A
Exhibit Q
Page ( of
A. Managed forests, stem and crown density are such that these forests pose little or
need for action in the short term. These optimally healthy forests contained a basal
area per acre of less than (120?).
B. Dense forests in need of thinning and underbrush removal to achieve an optimum
stem density and basal area. Many of these forests are mixed conifer.
C. Dense forests presenting emergency conditions and unacceptable threat of
catastrophic fire intensity. Most of the forests inspected during the field tour, and
within the WUI fit into this category. These forests exhibit a basal area per acre of
more than (200? 250? Feet per acre).
Because of the overwhelming presence — approximately 74% of the Upper River WUI - of forest
conditions described in (C.) above, the Steering Committee considers most of the WUI an
extremely high priority for action by the agencies. Areas within'/4 mile of residences which fit
this forest description should be considered in need of an emergency response by the agencies.
Appendix C of this plan contains the site specific observations and priorities described by
representatives of each neighborhood.
IV. DESIRED FOREST CONDITIONS
Residents of the Upper River Communities chose to live in this area for the aesthetic values of
living `in' the forest. People want diverse, multi -structured forests, with an emphasis on
restoring the large tree ponderosa pine forests which were lost over the past century. Upper
River residents understand that a healthy, fire resistant forest is also an aesthetic forest. They
value quality deer and elk habitat, and understand that these habitats must be carefully managed
to reduce the fire hazard associated with browse; that there is a tradeoff between encouraging
extensive stands of bitterbrush for deer, and managing a forest that is resistant to catastrophic
fire. Upper River residents recognize and embrace the need for environmental sensitivity. They
understand that healthy, fire-resistant forests project an image that appeals to and attracts
visitors, resulting in a positive economic impact for Central Oregon. This image — of open
forests of large, yellow bark ponderosa pines — could in many areas be restored by removing the
obscuring thickets of lodgepole and small diameter ponderosa.
The community residents represented by this plan understand that they live in a crisis zone; that
without immediate, serious action to thin forest thickets within the wildland urban interface, they
face an extreme risk of losing their homes and neighborhoods to a catastrophic fire. The
communities intend that the Forest Service and BLM act immediately to plan projects within the
Upper River Communities Wildland Urban Interface to reduce the immediate threat posed by
dense forest thickets. Again, from the Fall River EA:
"During the last 20 years, there have been more than 25 large wildfires greater than 100
acres on the District. Due to extreme fire behavior, these fires have been difficult to
control; resulting in the loss of dozens of homes and important riparian and old growth
habitat. While reducing fuels immediately adjacent to the urban interface can help
control low to moderate intensity wildfire; the reduction of fuels at a larger landscape
5CADocuments and Settings\David Blair\My Documents\south county\CWPP 404 draft.d(
Exhibit P)
Page S- of as
level is essential to reduce the risk of high intensity crown fires moving through or over
urban interface fuel reduction areas, administrative sites and recreation areas. From a
forest health perspective, a larger landscape approach is needed to protect important
forest values such as water quality, scenic views, old growth and wildlife habitat."
Our recommendation is that the Forest Service immediately use the authorities provided through
the President's Healthy Forest Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act to undertake at
least one project in 2004, using a categorical exclusion (project must be less than 1000 acres),
demonstrating to the public the vision put forth by this plan. We would review the project upon
completion, seek reactions and comments from area residents and the public, and reconvene the
steering committee to adopt further guidance to this plan, in an effort to ensure that forest
projects are in tune with the wishes of the Upper River Communities residents.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS: The communities seek forest thinning and brush removal
projects which have some or all of the following features:
• In general, the dominant strategy in all areas should be thinning from below, in an effort
to restore large tree ponderosa pine -dominated forests.
• In exclusively lodgepole pine stands, where site conditions are favorable to ponderosa
pine, intensive thinning should occur with a replanting strategy to restore a proper ratio of
lodgepole to ponderosa. As a general matter, the communities agree with the agency goal
of restoring pure ponderosa pine stands throughout the analysis area.
• Within'/4 of a mile of any residential area, and within 300 feet of roads, trees should be
widely spaced, thinned to protect and enhance the large trees on any given site. Ladder
fuels and shrubs are aggressively managed via mowing or burning. Lower branches
could be trimmed. In this zone, the overriding priority should be the development of an
aesthetic, large tree ponderosa pine forest, spaced to provide the maximum protection
against a crown wildfire, and a severe limitation on ladder fuels. We would expect
regular mowing and thinning entries to maintain this area as a shaded fuel break, and
management to assure less than 4 foot flame lengths in the event of fire
• In the interior areas farther than 1/4 mile of residences, we would expect thinning and
brush removal from below to accomplish greater diversity of forest structure, a greater
variety of size and age classes, efforts to promote remaining large diameter ponderosa
pine, and a mosaic of shrub and other vegetation to support wildlife. Throughout the
WUI designated by this plan, forests should be thinned to an extent that leaves
insufficient ladder fuels and brush to enable a fast moving crown fire.
• In mixed conifer stands where the agency goal is to maintain a mixed stand (as opposed
to converting to pure ponderosa pine), the goal should be a ratio of 70% ponderosa to
30% lodgepole pine. In general, the Steering Committee intends that ponderosa pine be
retained over lodgepole pine because it attains a greater age and diameter and is more
resistant to fire, insects and disease than thin barked lodgepole and white fir.
6cADocuments and Settings\David Blair\My Documents\south county\CWPP 404 draft.d(
Exhibit
Page - (�o of
Current Forest Service standards and guidelines prohibit (?) thinning within 300 feet of
the Deschutes River. Many residential areas face a fire threat from forests within this 300
foot buffer. In general, the same thinning standards described above should apply within
1/4 mile of residential areas, even if that area is within 300 feet of the Deschutes River.
Appropriate thinning should occur closer to river, accompanied by extreme sensitivity to
environmental concerns.
As a general guideline, the Steering Committee intends that that agency leave a per acre
basal area of between 60 and 90 square feet per acre. Agency decisions to leave greater
basal areas should be specifically explained. While thinnings may be designed to
promote multi-age class, multi -diameter forests, at a minimum, at least (70% ?) of the
basal area on a site should be with the largest diameter trees on the site. (the idea here —
and there is definitely a better way to say this — is to require that when thinning occurs,
70% of the trees left standing shall be the largest trees on the site.)(I will have
representative photos of different basal area thinnings, in different size classes, at the
meeting)
• The committee is extremely concerned about projects that leave us with a `half measure'
of protection from catastrophic fire. For example, the Fall River project proposes to
reduce the acreage classified as `extreme' for fire behavior would be reduced from 74%
to 58%; in general, the committee seeks a greater rate of risk reduction closer to
residential areas.
(CONTEXT: FULL QUOTE: Overall some 4,620 acres would be treated and the percentage of the project area classified as
high or extreme for fire behavior would be lowered from 74 percent to 58 percent. The juxtaposition of treatment areas is
designed to reduce the risk of a large stand replacing wildfire occurring within the project area for the next 10 to 20 years while
also providing for the return of fire to the project area as an agent of fuels reduction. Within the areas treated to reduce fuel
loading; 1,637 acres of ponderosa pine would be thinned to maintain and restore ponderosa pine late and old -structured forest that
is more resilient and resistant to insects, disease and wildfire. To further improve forest health and scenic views, some of the over
story lodgepole pine trees that are competing with the under story and or infected with mistletoe would be removed from 1,495
acres, followed by thinning of the young under story to accelerate the development of later structural stage lodgepole pine while
breaking up fuel continuity that is conducive to fire spread. An additional, 348 acres of lodgepole pine that has experienced high
beetle mortality would be regenerated by using sheleterwood trees. An estimated 2,132 of the 4,620 acres are located within
scenic views and treatments would be designed to ensure maintenance or improvement of scenic views.")
VI. MEASURES TO REDUCE STRUCTURAL IGNITABILITY WITHIN
COMMUNITIES
This section will consist of a discussion of the plans and efforts brought forward through
Senate Bill 360 in the Upper River Communities.
IV. TOOLS TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS OF THIS PLAN:
• Issuance of neighborhood stewardship contracts, enabling neighborhoods to
accomplish the goals of the plan within 1/4 mile of neighborhoods.
• Expanded use of correctional crews in areas where thinning is labor intensive.
7C:\Documents and SettingsWavid Blair\My Documen ou county\CWPP 404 dmft.d(
Exhibit
Page -7 of Zr
Consideration of longer term contracts, possibly enabling a biomass power
generation facility or other local generation facility to attract investment and
defray the costs of activities to carry out this plan.
8CADocuments and SettingsDavid Bla AMy Document& �unty\GGWPP 404 drafLch
Exhibit
Page S of Zs'
a,.
Guidelines* for Effective (Gdzen<->USFS) Partnerships
(4/15/2004 Revised Version)
1. All parties share in the decision-making process and responsibility for results.
2. Focus on mutual benefits and seek win/win outcomes.
3. Agree on course of action and measurable outcomes to achieve above.
4. Develop mutual understanding of roles, responsibilities and goals.
5. Maintain good communication including continual check-in on progress and
timely response to reasonable requests.
6. Combine resources whenever possible (time, money, skills, etc.).
7. Strive to continually improve both the communication and partnership.
8. Work conscientiously to adhere to these guidelines.
9. Hold each other accountable and respectfully address the inevitable lapses
that occur.
*from Kyrie Murphy, Partnerships Coordinator, Deschutes & Ochocco
National Forests
Exhibit 18
Paize of 2_1�1
DRAFT ONLY - NOT TO BE SENT!!!
Leslie,
On behalf of the Upper River Coalition, I am writing to request reconsideration of
your refusal to modify the new East Turnbull planning unit. Sadly, I have still not seen a
copy of your response to our request and I am limited to feedback that I have received
c/o Senator Smith's office.
The rationale for our request was as follows;
• We understood that Sue Stewart was going to be the team leader for the project. We
have had a very positive track record with Sue and looked forward to her leadership.
While we know we've lost Sue, we would be dealing with one FMO rather than
having the current confusion about what's Marks and what's Lori's responsibility.
• A watershed/ecosystem-based unit seems more appropriate than the traditional
timber harvest based divisions such as Klak, Fall, Dillman, etc.
• Our interpretation of the HFRA suggests that it is now a mandate to focus on WUls
such as ours. Rightly or wrongly, the paradigm for planning and designation of
planning units has changed.
From what I understand; the basis for your rejection was two fold. #1- Changing
anything at this point would cause a delay which, given the seriousness of the fire
hazards involved, neither side wants. #2- Extending East Tumbull to Wickiup would
exceed normal size parameters for your planning units.
Let me address the both the size and timeliness issues:
While I have not yet computed the acres involved in a long and narrow WUI from Bend
to Wickiup; I doubt it would exceed your 15K size limit.
Secondly, a two staged implementation of East Tumbull would allow you to proceed
exactly with the unit as it currently exists on your drawing board and then respond —
stage two — to our Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) when it is completed in
a few months.
I know first hand from living out here that the Klak, Fall, and Dillman units are at
various stages of completion and switching to a WUl focused unit would necessarily
result in some overlap and require adjustments.
I am available only my email until April; however, I would appreciate an electronic
copy of your letter to the Commissioners and any other reactions you might have
regarding this follow-up request for reconsideration.
As you probably know, Kyrie Murphy has provided us a set of Partnership
Guidelines (attached, just in case) to create and maintain a positive and productive
relationship between the citizens living in the upper river WUI and the USFS. We have
adopted them as our ground rules for relating to the USFS and will work conscientiously
to adhere to them. Additionally, we would propose that you consider an "off site" retreat
with you and your senior managers and a handful of our high influence leaders to look
at our CWPP and to discuss the use of these Partnership Guidelines as a way to
address our fire hazards in the most positive and rapid manner possible.
Sincerely yours,
Jim King
riverspirit@uci.net
LX
?age ® of ��
Upper Deschutes River Natural Resource Coalition (UDRNRQ
Proposal for a 5016 non profit corporation (4/10/04 Draft)
Rationale:
The purpose of the UDRNRC is to enable the neighborhoods of the Upper Deschutes
River to act collectively on natural resource problems within the region. This cooperative
approach would simply expand the existing work of the neighborhoods when it is deemed
helpful and/or necessary to do so. Current (& possible future) examples of natural resource
problems are fire prevention, illegal dumping, invasion of non-native noxious weeds,
degradation of fish/wildlife habitat and riparian areas, insect infestations, and problems
associated with water quality and quantity. Having 501 c3 non-profit corporate status would
enable the Coalition to solicit funds directly to help address regional problems as well as save on
the cost of mailings, grant writing, etc. As proposed,
• It would be limited to natural resource problems (vs infrastructure issues such as
roads, sewers, etc.)
• It would focus on neighborhood problems rather than individuals. (Thus, a coalition
of neighborhoods vs collection of people)
• It would be limited to the geographical area between Bend and Wickiup Reservior.
• It would be limited to matters shared by the majority of the 14 neighborhoods.
• It would be designed to "accordion" to involve all the neighborhoods when a problem
is common to all or be reduced to serve a subset of neighborhoods when a problem
impacts only some of the neighborhoods.
• It would be non political
Governance:
The goal will be to evolve a simple, yet effective structure for making decisions on
potential projects and for general support of neighborhood leaders. As proposed,
• The overall coalition would be governed by a steering committee made up of elected
representatives from each of the 14+ neighborhoods. An "elected representative"
could be either an existing officer from a neighborhood/road district or someone
elected (appointed?) by a neighborhood board to serve on the steering committee.
Neighborhood staff could serve in such a capacity if appointed by a neighborhood
board to do so.
• Legally, the officers of the neighborhood associations would be the "members" who
select the "board" by identifying someone to serve on the steering committee.
• It would "sunset" after 3 years from the date of incorporation unless "continued" by a
majority vote of the neighborhood representatives.
Each specific project would develop appropriate "project specific" governance to address
coordination, fiscal accountability, documentation/reporting etc. for the during of that project.
Cost of Development and Annual Fees:
Funds from a National Forest Foundation grant have been sought to develop non-profit
corporate status and annual fees would be assessed from each neighborhood. Annual fees would
be kept to the legal minimum unless supported by outside grant funding.
Exhibit P
?age I 1 of 'S
UPPER DESCHUTES RIVER NATURAL RESOURCE COALITION
NEIGHBORHOOD #1
NEIGHBORHOOD #2
NEIGHBORHOOD 93
NEIGHBORHOOD #N -_1
(Proposed Governance)
COALITION
COMMITTEE
Chair
Co -Chair
Secretary
Treasurer
Media Relations
Member Relations
PROJECT #1
(see attached)
PROJECT #2
(see attached)
PROJECT #3
(see attached)
IPRO�#4I
PROJECT #N
.......
xhibit eT�
'age —LZ, of Z�
UDRNRC List of Current and Proposed Projects (5/15/04)
#1- Federal Lands Project
Purpose: To develop a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) for the upper river corridor in
accordance with the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.
Status of Funding: Private contributions have been obtained (additional funds are being sought from
member neighborhoods) to retain David Blair to develop a CWPP Plan, set up meetings with the Forest
Service and to coordinate involvement of our Congressional delegation.
Status of Project: Approximately 50% completed with a June 1 target for the completion of the written
plan. Negotiations with USFS will be on-going thereafter.
#2- National Fire Plan (NFP) Fuels Reduction Grant
Purpose: To obtain NFP funding to assist the 8 neighborhoods needing assistance with neighborhood
fuels reduction efforts. (2300 homes, 2200 vacant lots, $750 million in value)
Status of Funding: Proposals were submitted by COIC on our behalf for funding next year. The request
for our 8 neighborhoods exceeded 1 million dollars but our request was combined with requests from all
of South County. Notification regarding our grant application is due in June. Rumors about our chances
have not been positive.
Status of Project: Most neighborhoods are proceeding on their own.
#3- National Fire Plan (NFP) Planning Grant
Purpose: To obtain NFP funding to assist the 11 (original) neighborhoods to develop neighborhood fire
prevention plans and to update and restructure their governance documents (CC&Rs, By -Laws, etc.) to
include stronger fire protection standards.
Status of Funding: Proposals were submitted by COIC on our behalf for funding next year. Our request
for the 11 neighborhoods for $50,000 was combined with requests from all of South County (totaling
$250,000). Notification regarding our grant application is due in June. Rumors about our chances have
been positive.
Status of Project: Many neighborhoods are proceeding on their own to develop neighborhood level fire
protection plans and some are contemplating possible changes to their governance documents.
#4- Adopta-Roadless Area Project (Title II Grant Application)
Purpose: To partner with the Ranger District to help close roads, plants trees and provide long term
stewardship protection of roadless areas adjacent to our neighborhoods. The concept provides that
neighborhoods would adopt, help restore and protect these roadless areas.
Status of Funding: Title II funds have been applied for which would enable quicker action to restore
these areas. Most of the road closures were included in the 1996 Wild and Scenic River Mana eg ment
Plan but have not yet been closed. Notification about Title II funding is due in June and funds, if we're
successful, would be available next summer. Speculation is that we are very competitive for these funds
and some progress is possible without additional funding.
Status of Project: Three neighborhoods have been involved with the Forest Service to pilot test this
concept and have already help close and restore 8-10 side roads leading down to the river.
#5- Organizational Development for Coalition (National Forest Foundation Grant Application)
Purpose: $14,500 has been sought to assist the Coalition to obtain non-profit corporate status to expedite
receipt of grants, reduced costs for mailings, grant writing etc. Also for monies for training assssors,etc.
axhibit
?age 13 of 25
Upper Deschutes River Natural Resource Coalition (Revised 511512004)
Coalition Liaison: Jim King (OWW1) at 593-9393 or riverspirit e,uci.net
Member neighborhoods listed as the RiverJlows:
Haner Park (a)(b)(c)
Contact: Neil Easterla, Pres.
Dick Patterson Wild River Association (b)(c)
Contacts: John Butler, Pres.
Jim Ulrey, Liaison
Deschutes River Recreation Home Sites, Unit 6 (a)(b)(c)
Contacts Mike Swope, Pres.
Regan Olson, Bd Member,
Fall River Estates (b)
Contact: Don Mercer
Aileen Winge
River Forest Acres Road District (a)(b)(c)
Contacts: Jim Pease Road District Pres.
Patty Pease, Fire Prevention Comm, "
Wes Perrin*
*Coalition Media Relations Coordinator
Beaver Special Road District (a)(b)(c)
Contacts: Bob Dryden, Pres
Brance Davidson, Tres.
Oregon Water Wonderlands 1 (OWW1) (a)(b)(c)
Contacts: Al Zupo, Assoc. President
Walt Seaborn Co-chair Fire Committee
River Meadows (a)(b)
Contacts: Achille Castioni Pres.
Bill Hayes, Prop Manager,
Oregon Water Wonderlands 2 (OWW2) (a)(b)
Contacts: Larry Snell, Pres.
Larry Haug,
Al Randolph
Deschutes River Recreation Homesites 1-5,7-13. ,(a)(b)
Contacts: Conrad Ruel, Road District
Heather Risseeuw, Fire Comm.
Spring River Acres Nalley Ridge Acres (b)(c)
Contact: Carl Jansen, RD Pres.
Member neighborhoods involved with Federal Lands Projects:
Crosswater
Contact: Cathy Smith
Sunriver (c)
Contacts: Bill Chapman,HOA Assoc Pres.
Kelly Walker, Environmental Director
Vandervert Ranch
Contacts: Ed Chirgwin Assoc Pres
Ken Lane
(a) designates neighborhood participating in NFG application for fuels reduction grant
(b) designates neighborhood participating in NFG application for planning grant
(c) designates neighborhood participating in Title HAdopta-Roadless Area Project
Exhibit 'b
Page __i�f- of 25-
Public Partners Committed to Working with Coalition:
United States Forest Service:
Walt Schloer, District Ranger, 383-4760
Robin Vora, Deputy District Ranger, 383-4766
Lorri Heath, Cascade Fire Management Officer 549-7640
Kyrie Murphy, Partnerships Coordinator 383-5522
Les Moscoso, Recreation Planner 383-4712
Oregon Department of Forestry
Stu Otto, Service Forester, 447-5658
Tom Andrade SB 360 Implementation, 549-6761
Lapine Rural Fire Protection District
Jim Court, Fire Chief, 536-2935
Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council
Scott Aycock, Grants Coordinator, 548-9525
Upper Deschutes Watershed Council
Ryan Houston, Director, 382-6102
wschloerCn.fs.fed.us
rvorap_fs.fed.us
lheath@fs.fed.us
vmurphy@fs.fed.us
Imoscoso@fs.fed.us
sotto e,odf.state.or.us
TAndrade@odfstate.or.us
ChiefCourt@lapinefire.com
scotta@coic.org
rhouston@de schuteswatersheds. org
Project Wildfire, OSU Forestry Extension Service
Teresa Hogue 548-6088 x18 teresahoguep_oregonstate.edu
Stephen Fitzgerald stephen.fitz eg rald@oregonstate.edu
Deschutes Soil and Water Conservation District
Jeff Rola 923-2204 jeff-rola&or.nacdnet.org
Cylvia Hayes — Consultant cylvian@,bendnet.com
Public Partners Committed to Working with Federal Land Project:
Deschutes County
Catherine Morrow, Community Development Dept 385-1707
Lapine Community Action Team
Kristi Otteni 536-3972
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Steve Marx 388-6363
Watershed Research and Training Center (U of O)
Marcus Kauffman (541) 346-0661
Private Partners Working with Coalition:
David Blair, HFRA Consultant, 389-0548,
cmoffow@co.deschutes.or.us
LCAT e,uci.net
steven.d.marxp_state.or.us
marcusk@darkwing.uoregon.edu
dblair@bendbroadband.com
Exhibit 11�
Page 1 S of a S
Exhibit
Page of S
Citizens in the Fuel -Reduction
Equation: Problems and Prospects
for Public Forest Managers
Bruce Shindler
INTRODUCTION
n the western United States, today's public forests are threatened by
drought, increased stand density, insect outbreaks, and the potential
for catastrophic wildfire. While fire professionals are attempting to re-
duce hazardous fuels and restore forest health, often through the use of pre-
scribed fire, citizens are judging the degree to which agency personnel can
deliver on their promise of safe, effective management practices.. It is un-
likely that there is anyone involved in fuel management who has not con-
sidered the tension between implementation and the public's acceptance of
lighting the woods on fire. Fuel managers and technicians understand that
on any given day, their actions may involve a career -altering decision.
Citizen support is an essential component of effective fire management
programs, particularly fuel reduction activities that typically occur at the
wildland-urban interface. Whether it is over the use of prescribed fire or vari-
ous forms of thinning, the public has legitimate concerns about practices
that occur close to their homes or other places they deeply care about. What
else could we expect? Most citizens grew up being told repeatedly that sup-
pressing all forest fires is good and is a normal part of forest management.
More recently, what many have heard about the use of prescribed fire has
come from high-profile escapes such as the 2000 Cerro Grande fire in Los
Alamos, NM. As for thinning, much of the public recognizes this treatment
as logging. For various reasons, this is not an activity that has enjoyed broad
or consistent support on public forests in recent years.
Fire managers are not alone in their need to consider public responses
to forest practices. Any management program is likely to falter if agency
personnel have not adequately incorporated citizens' concerns. One need only
look at the daily headlines to appreciate the extent to which adverse public
139
Exhibit
Page II of ZS
9
CHAPTER 14
opinion can postpone, modify, or
prevent the implementation of
Plans, irrespective of the underlying
science or benefits to the landscape.
At the same time, the inclusion of
citizens has been difficult for many
in the resource professions. There
is a persisting view among agency
personnel that, compared to deci-
sions based on sound science and
good economics, public judgments
are largely a nuisance; if citizens
only understood the facts, they
would support the efforts of re-
source professionals. But informa-
tion alone is rarely sufficient to
change citizens' opinions or behav-
iors (Stankey 1995). In the end,
public understanding, and how
people come to accept management
programs, is based on a suite of fac-
tors largely interpreted through per-
sonal experiences (Shindler and
others 2002).
In light of the critical role citi-
zens play in an agency's ability to
implement fuel reduction practices,
improving our understanding of
the factors that contribute to pub-
lic acceptance of treatments seems
essential. This chapter relies on pri-
mary research by the author and
other scientists to examine six prob-
lem areas common to fuel manag-
ers across the West. Although each
situation can stem from a unique
set of circumstances, the nature of
public responses about fire manage-
ment suggests they can be orga-
140
nized and subject to critical think-
ing. For example, situations where
agencies have been able to move
forward with treatments are typi-
cally in communities where resi-
dents are fairly sophisticated in
their knowledge of fire issues and
where personnel have built credible
relations.
SIX FACTORS THAT AFFECT
PUBM ACCEPTANCE OF FUEL
REDUCTION
Todays fire -management pro-
fessionals operate in a world of high
expectations. Unfortunately, many
often have a low level of under-
standing about citizen concerns,
possess inadequate communication
skills, and frequently work in a cli-
mate of diminishing public trust in
forest agencies (Blahna. and Yonts-
Shepard 1989). If managers fail to
pay attention to public concerns,
they are condemned to responding
to negative reactions. One of the
difficult choices managers face is
which "public" to pay attention to;
local, regional, and national publics
often have different perspectives
about natural resource problems
(Brunson and Steel 1996). When a
forest practice occurs "somewhere
else," it may be a non -issue or at
least have little impact on people's
lives. This seems to be the case for
fuels reduction, where recent re-
search shows that urban publics
seem to be less concerned about the
threat of wildfire and have a low
level of awareness about treatments
as compared to rural residents
(Steindler and Brunson 2001). An
initial implication is that those
more directly affected by fire will
be the first to judge management
actions. Therefore, this analysis fo-
cuses primarily on the community
level where fuel -reduction practices
are implemented. The purpose is to
encourage thoughtful consideration
of factors that both constrain and
facilitate acceptance of fire manage-
ment programs.
1. Public acceptance of fuel treat-
ments depends on the process of how
and why decisions are made as much
as the decision itself.
Research throughout the last
decade has repeatedly shown that
the public's idea of legitimate man-
agement practices involves the qual-
ity of decision-making procedures.
Of particular importance in forest
communities is the opportunity for
citizens to participate in planning
processes, especially when practices
such as prescribed fire and thinning
operations are viewed with uncer-
tainty or skepticism. In these situ-
ations, we should recognize that no
management decision occurs in iso-
lation from other factors. Public
acceptance usually is shaped by the
cumulative nature of peoples' inter-
actions—their previous contacts
with agency personnel, the accuracy
Exhibit )5
Page l � of ZS
and credibility of the information
Provided, whether the agency fol-
lows through on its decisions, the
sincerity and honesty demon-
strated, and so on. How well citi-
zen groups and individuals are in-
corporated into decisions, especially
ones that affect their livelihood and
quality of life, is critical to their
judgments.
Along with questions about
how much area to treat and which
treatment to use, fuel managers also
should be asking questions about
their local constituents. For ex-
ample, who should be included in
the discussion, what is the public's
role in this project, and what do
people need to know to participate?
It is pretty clear that citizen partici-
pation in planning is most usef d
when people have an understand-
ing of the consequences of available
choices. One common reason citi-
zens do not initially support new
(or different) forest practices is that
they do not have much experience
on which to judge them. Gaining
public acceptance often relies on
the ability of fire managers to frame
choices in clear and meaningful
ways; often this means engaging the
public through personal contact.
Managers have had success using
forums such as homeowner or
property associations, neighbor-
hood groups, and local watershed
councils. In these settings, people
can actively engage one another to
CHAPTER 14
talk through their concerns, actu- cies that employ them. Unfortu-
ally walk the particular landscape to nately, the most troublesome find -
be treated, examine the risks and ing in our recent research is the ero-
consequences of various choices, sion of relations between citizens
and work out acceptable strategies and resource management agencies
to unique local problems, all with (Shindler and Toman 2002,
the likelihood that greater trust will Stankey and others, in press). Par -
be built among the parties. ticularly in the Pacific N th
Attending to the procedural
aspects of decision-making can be
a powerful tool. Even in conten-
tious settings, when people come to
understand the rationale for a de-
cision and have had an opportunity
to be part of it, they can choose
between difficult alternatives and
will usually support the outcome.
Well-documented assessments of
citizen involvement (Lawrence and
others 1997) show that public
opinions about the process manag-
ers used influence not only whether
people accept resulting policies, but
also how they feel about the deci-
sion -makers. Inattention to these
procedures will result in public dis-
affection, regardless of outcomes.
2. It makes little difference how good
a fuel -management plan may be,
nothing will be supported unless the
people involved trust one another.
Mistrust is the trump card that
can dissolve any kind of planning
process or project. There is little
doubt that public acceptance is
strongly linked to how citizens view
the sincerity and credibility of re-
source professionals and the agen-
or west,
these feelings are often attributable
to the tension over adherence to
agency policies (e.g., the Northwest
Forest Plan) set at the national or
regional level and the public's view
about the need to manage existing
forest conditions at the community
level. In many cases, citizens have
personal relationships with local
managers ("I trust Joe to do the
right thing"), but they are skepti-
cal of the larger organization's mo-
tives ("I don't trust the Forest Ser-
vice to let Joe do his job"). Al-
though this perception is common,
it does not explain away all con-
cerns. For example, many cases ex-
ist in which local stakeholders be-
lieve managers have not followed
through on their commitments.
This could be failure to provide
information about fire activities, to
include citizens in planning local
projects, or to successfully deal with
an administrative hurdle (e.g., the
eleventh -hour appeal that stops or
delays a project for so long that the
contractor pulls out).
The initial requirement for
improving relations and building
public trust is an organizational
Exhibit
Page _1��
141
CHAPTER 14
commitment to multi -partner co-
operation. This concept should be ti
no stretch for fire management b
agencies; county, state, and federal e
agencies cooperate with one an- o
other all the time. The final link s
involves citizen partners. Success
will depend on whether the leader-
ship on federal and state forests is
serious about genuine involvement 1
of stakeholders and how well the
actions of fire management and
outreach personnel reflect this phi-
losophy: There are many good ex-
amples of cooperative efforts (and
trust -building) in the region. Fed-
eral and state managers on the
fledgling Blue Mountains Demon-
stration Area are attempting to re-.
duce fuels and accelerate the resto-
ration of healthy forests, while at
the same time promoting an eco-
nomic stimulus in local communi-
ties. On the Deschutes National
Forest, the Sisters Ranger District
has created a partnership with the
Friends of the Metolius to jointly
carry out a fuel -reduction demon-
stration project in a high -use rec-
reation area. The Friends group has
put up interpretive signs and will
conduct public tours of treatments
as they occur. In a separate arrange-
ment, Sisters personnel work coop-
eratively with the Black Butte
Ranch Homeowner's Association to
thin the forest interface surround-
ing private lands; property owners
now do much of the work them-
selves.
Given the nature of public sen-
ment about federal agencies, it has
ecome necessary for local manag-
rs, to the extent possible, to filter
ut for citizens the national politics
urrounding forest management.
Currently, most collaborative efforts
and the trust -building process re-
main the job of personnel at the
owest organizational levels, where
relationships are established and
face-to-face interactions can make
a difference for residents and their
communities. The informal nature
of these situations is perhaps the
most productive form of relation-
ship -building. As Putnam (2001)
described it, "Trust is built by lean-
ing forward when we listen, not
when we speak." Thus far, success
can usually be tracked to single in-
dividuals with strong interpersonal
qualities and a commitment to
communication. Broad -scale
progress will occur in a meaning-
ful way only when agencies pro-
mote these ideas and support per-
sonnel in their outreach efforts. -
forest managers usually focus their
attention on ecological conditions.
For example, they consider the spa-
tial context of settings (e.g., func-
tion and location, how much area
to treat, the most efficient form of
treatment) as well as its temporal
context (e.g., how often treatments
are needed, how effective these will
be in the long term). Although
technical and scientific knowledge,
and the focus on biological compo-
nents of forests, is clearly required
for fire management decisions, such
a system is limited in its capacity
to address the diverse value -based
concerns that exist among a broad
public (Stankey and Shindler
1997).
3. Technical, science -based planning
for fuel management does not ad-
equately incorporate public concerns.
A reliance on science -based
planning generally has served re-
source professionals well over the
decades; so much so that we have
adopted a value system that places
a great deal of emphasis on techni-
cal expertise in the management of
forests. Under this system, public
Thinking like a regular citizen .
can be important for several rea-
sons. Along with opinions, citizens
have knowledge about particular
settings just as managers and scien-
tists do. This knowledge may be
acquired through scientific inquiry,
but more likely it comes from the
various interactions between people
and the places they live, work, and
recreate. Citizens also think in spa-
tial and temporal terms, although
they do not use this same terminol-
ogy to describe their concerns (and
their temporal perspective can be
relatively short). Forest settings are
most likely thought of as familiar
places with unique characteristics.
Citizens are concerned about how
the place has been cared for over
142 Exhibit-
Page z_0 of Z--5-
time and by whom, and what ex-
pectations they or their community
have for future uses (e.g., will my
family continue to have access for
the same purposes we currently
enjoy?). People develop an under-
standing about forests from their
experiences as well as beliefs about
what is right, useful, and acceptable
for a particular place.
For example, informing a com-
munity that prescribed burning is
necessary because the fire return
interval for the area is 15 years may
not mean much (or may even be
suspect); particularly to long-term
residents who cannot recall a for-
est fire in 30 years or more. It also
may be difficult to convince
homeowners about the benefits of
prescribed fire when we have little
evidence to show them where wild-
fires have occurred in previously
treated sites. In another example,
this one from the southeast United
States, many people "know" forests
should be burned more frequently
than what is called for by govern-
ment fire protection models be-
cause such activity provides better
forests for hunting wild turkeys.
Anyone who has worked in such
communities understands it is dan-
gerous to ignore these local insights
simply because they do not con-
form to what scientists know about
fire in forest systems. Failure to give
credence to the value knowledge
(Dissanyake 1986) held by citizens
can be a fatal flaw for managers
who choose to follow only the sci-
entific approach.
It is often difficult to incorpo-
rate peoples' experiential knowledge
into fire management plans even
though it can add rich information
to the discussion. One recent at-
tempt on the Sisters Ranger District
involved an open house to discuss
a forest health operation on the
Santiam Pass. Residents were asked
to record on maps the places that
were important to them so that
managers could understand how
connected people were to specific
sites. These activities are useful only
if managers do something with the
information generated. Most often,
accounting for the views of citizens
puts fire professionals into unfamil-
iar territory and pushes some be-
yond traditional problem -solving
strategies. But a failure to consider
public concerns may jeopardize the
very forest conditions agencies seek
to promote. It can add to an atmo-
sphere of distrust and reduce pub-
lic acceptance of agency informa-
tion, irrespective of its validity or
reliability. While community mem-
bers will respect. scientific knowl-
edge, they want forestry decisions
to be based on local experiences, as
well as good science.
(NAPTER 14
Achieving natural conditions is
a common goal of forest manage-
ment agencies today. However, af-
ter 250 years of manipulation, what
Americans perceive to be natural
about their forests is not necessar-
ily what is natural. Perhaps most
classic example comes from public
perceptions of forests that have
been altered by long -held Forest
Service policies about extinguishing
fires. Fire suppression has changed
forests in all western states, creat-
ing severe consequences for forest
health and esthetic conditions.
However, for generations Smokey
Bear decreed that suppressing any
forest fire was normal and a good
thing. Now foresters tell people
such stands are not natural and that
managers need to intervene in or-
der to return "the balance of na-
ture."
The real issue here is the extent
of our agreement and understand-
ing of differing standards of natu-
ralness. Some recent attempts have
been made to pinpoint an histori-
cal era (e.g., pre-Euroamerican
settlement or turn -of -the -century .
forests) on which to base ecosystem
management practices. But any
such thinking that attempts to hold
up one picture of a natural forest
from a bygone era tends to discount
4. Achieving natural, healthy forest the influence of human ecology. As
systems is complicated by a range of Williams and Stewart have argued
perceptions of what "natural" forests (1998), forest ecosystems are largely
might be. human constructs; we ascribe posi-
Exhibit 43
Page 3-( of gS
CHAPTER 14
tive attributes to forests based on
what society thinks they should
look like. If this is true, then the
problem is one of agreeing on what
our "natural" forests should re-
semble and on which essential eco-
logical components their manage-
ment should be based.
Recently forestry professionals
have run with this idea and at-
tempted to mimic natural condi-
tions, sometimes by reintroducing
fires that reflect historic patterns or
using silviculture treatments that
look like small, natural distur-
bances. Preliminary research indi-
cates that public reaction to such
treatments is generally favorable
(Shindler and Reed 1997, Brunson
and Shelby 1992); however, not
everyone accepts these approaches.
In the case of thinning, for ex-
ample, some groups see these treat-
ments not as mimicry, but as sim-
ply a contrived excuse by federal
agencies for continuing to commer-
cially harvest public forests. Of
course, the use of fire to create
natural conditions brings with it
other judgments about risk to prop-
erty, increased amounts of smoke,
and diminished air quality. In any
case, there is no clear sailing with
the "natural -is -better" argument.
Solutions are complex and, thus far,
broad -scale agreement simply does
not exist. The situation is muddled
by a long history of intensive man-
agement on public forestlands and,
more recently, by public scrutiny of
agency intentions.
While the idea of natural for-
ests may be appealing to the pub-
lic, legitimate questions arise about
what these specific conditions are
and how we should achieve them.
The answers may vary from one
setting to another, but reaching
agreement on them must include
citizens. After all, we are asking
people to accept the premise that
active manipulation by managers
can restore forest conditions that
are just as natural as those that oc-
cur without human intervention.
We will need to find ways to dis-
cuss the options with a public that
is uneasy about the use of fire and
silvicutural approaches to forest
management. Public opinion may
turn on judgments about these
treatments, but also on the manage-
ment objectives behind them.
S. The initial basis for judgments of
forest landscapes is visual; we need to
aim for a more comprehensive under-
standing of forest conditions.
There is little doubt about the
importance of visual appearance in
how people judge forest conditions.
Visual images are powerful because
they are based on direct, immedi-
ate, and observable experience.
However, many of our forests now
encompass different age classes,
stocking levels and stand densities
that may be more or, less healthy,
and more or less attractive, but are
still considered natural by the pub-
lic. With so much of our western
forests in transition (influenced by
health and density problems), for-
estry professionals are in a position
to help instill a different way of
thinking about forest landscapes.
The premise is that judgments
about healthy forests ought to go
beyond perceptions of scenery.
Sometimes management practices
are "ugly" (certainly for a while),
but if we are promoting the long
view of ecosystem stewardship it
will mean imparting a different, or
expanded, set of factors for public
evaluation. A preferable form
would be one that encourages
people to look beyond the scenic to
the ecological perspective (Steindler
and others 2002). This is likely to
be a tough sell. For example, par-
ticipants involved in on -the -ground
observations of prescribed fire and
thinning treatments in Oregon's
Blue Mountains felt the most im-
portant consideration was the visual
impacts (slash and burned material)
and not information they were
given about the treatment (Reed
1998). Fire -management practices
can produce short-term distur-
bances that contribute to "messy,
discolored" forests, and changing
the public's mind about what they
observe will be difficult.
However, recent research also
indicates that methods to get be -
144 Exhibit
Page '-sof 2
yond these first -impression assess-
ments and help people understand
the ecological basis for treatments
have promise. In the Blue Moun-
tains example, once visitors spent
some time on a treated site, they
also considered the extent to which
managers had accomplished their
fuel -reduction objectives (Reed
1998). In other cases, positive judg-
ments were linked with informa-
tion about the scientific basis for
the practice (gibe 1999), the extent
to which practices met community
objectives for economic benefits or
recreation uses (Bliss and others
1994), and whether the opinions of
citizens were considered in plan-
ning treatments (Steindler and
Neburka 1997). Citizens react to
esthetic impacts, but their responses
are also rooted in knowledge of for-
est practices and the reasons for
their implementation.
Therefore, one approach is to
help citizens evaluate forest settings
not only by what is there, but also
why it is there (Shindler and oth-
ers 2002). Fuel managers can pro-
vide opportunities to raise aware-
ness of management objectives and
show people what treatment out-
comes look like, both initially and
over time. For example, demonstra-
tion and interpretive sites and
guided field visits are particularly
useful in expanding the set of fac-
tors citizens use to form judgments
about fire management (Shindler
and Toman 2002). Practices that
result in setting fire to the woods
or cutting down trees have a much
better chance of being accepted if
people understand the rationale
behind them, can picture the out-
comes, and recognize the potential
benefits.
G. It is a misconception that informa-
tion alone will lead to increased un-
derstanding. People learn and change
their behavior based on relevant per-.
sonal experience.
From the previous points, it
appears that forestry professionals
simply need to educate the public
about fire management and citizens
will understand the problem and
support our actions. Certainly tech-
nical information is useful to citi-
zens, but it is unlikely that people
will be enlightened and change
their opinions solely on what we
tell them. Previously we observed
that people's judgments are based
on a suite of factors, many of them
involving the degree to which ex-
periences are personalized. The
same is true with environmental
learning. It is not information itself
that leads to understanding; facts
must be appreciated and inter-
preted by individuals (Jamieson
1994).
Serious thought must be given
to what it means to "educate" the
public about fire management and
fuel reduction. People tend to re-
CHAPTER 14
spond to meaningful examples in
recognizable places, instead of the
provision of anonymous informa-
tion that comes from brochures,
newspaper articles, written plans,
and so forth. Studies of citizen -
agency interactions (Cortner and
others 1998, Shindler and Neburka
1997) show that people do not re-
spond well to traditional one-way
forms of communication such as
agency meetings for information -
sharing or scoping purposes that are
commonly used to satisfy National
Environmental Policy Act require-
ments or otherwise engage the pub-
lic. Such approaches provide for
little genuine participation by citi-
zens and little commitment either
in the plan itself or in the process
by which it was developed. Instead,
the most useful forms of informa-
tion exchange are more interactive
ones in which citizens can engage
resource professionals in genuine
discussion about fuel -reduction
strategies and determine for them-
selves which treatments seem most
appropriate for local problems
(Shindler, and Toman 2002,
Shindler and others 2002). Reach
ing citizens depends not only on
how they interpret information, but
also on how they feel about the
providers and the methods used to
communicate it.
Once citizens become part of
the process, having credible infor-
mation is even more essential than
Exhibit j3
Page 5-3 of a S
]45
CHAPTER 14
before. Feedback from citizen par-
ticipants (\•inter and others 2002,
Shindler and Neburka 1997) shows
discussion about the nature of the
options is just as important as pro-
viding technical details. This will
they have expectations about what mean that personnel must be forth -
substantive information should be coming about the difficult deci-
included. People want current, ac- sions, including the uncertainty of
curate information given in terms
they can understand. They want to
know how serious conditions are
and how certain the risks. Residents
expect fire plans to account for the
proximity of homes and include
contingencies in case of escapes.
They want to know that mitigation
measures are in place to reduce
impacts on air quality. They also
want to know whom to contact
about questions and concerns. Ex-
pectations are high because fire
management often becomes very
personalized for citizens. Our com-
munications should reflect that we
understand this and are prepared to
follow through.
CONCLUSION
The role that fire management
personnel are being asked to play
today is much different from that
of the past, when citizen participa-
tion was minimal and technical ex-
pertise was foremost. In this new
role, greater public acceptance will
be achieved by being responsive to
the suite of ecological and social
factors affecting fuel management.
The ability of fire -management
professionals to engage citizens in
outcomes associated with the use of
fire and thinning treatments. Citi-
zens in forest communities are ca-
pable of responding to information
about tradeoffs, including the posi-
tive and negative consequences,
particularly when it comes to ma-
nipulating landscapes close to
places they care deeply about. They
will act more responsibly when they
have the full extent of relevant in-
formation, not just selected bits
dispensed by forest managers.
When given a set of choices, even
ones that are limited or imperfect,
citizens will often choose the lesser
of two evils and accept it
(Ehrenhaldt 1994).
LITERATURE CITED
Blahna, DJ, and S Yonts-Shepard.
1989. Public involvement in re-
source planning toward bridging
the gap between policy and
implementation. Society and
Natural Resources 2: 209-227.
Bliss J, S Nepal, R Brooks, M
Larsen. 1994. Forestry commu-
nity or granfalloon? Journal of
Forestry 92(9): 6-10.
Brunson, MW, and B Shelby. 1992.
Assessing recreational and sce-
nic quality: how does "New
Forestry' rate? journal ofForestry
90(7): 37-41.
Brunson, MW, and B Steel. 1996.
Sources ofvariation in attitudes
and beliefs about federal range-
land management. Journal of.
Range Management 49: 69-74.
Cortner, HJ, MG Wallace, S Burke,
and MA Moote. 1998. Institu-
tions matter: the need to ad-
dress the institutional chal-
lenges of ecosystem manage-
ment. Landscape and Urban
Planning 40: 159-166.
Dissanyake, W. 1986. Communica-
tion models and knowledge
generation, dissemination, and
utilization activities: a histori-
cal perspective, pp. 61-75 in
Knowledge Generation, Exchange
and Utilization, G Beal, W
Dissanyake, S Konoshima, eds.
Westview Press, Boulder CO.
Ehrenhaldt, A. 1994. Let the people
decide between spinach and
broccoli. Governing 7(10): 6-7.
Jamieson, D. 1994. Problems and
prospects for a Forest Service
program in the human dimen-
sions of global change, in Break-
ing the Mold. Global Change,
Social Responsibility& and Natu-
ral Resource Management, K
Geyer and B Shindler, eds.
USDA Forest Service, Portland
OR.
Lawrence, RL, SE Daniels, and GH
Starkey. 1997. Procedural jus-
tice and public involvement in
natural resource decision mak-
ing. Society and Natural Re-
sources 10: 577-589.
Exhibit 6
146 Page -i � of .2S
Putnam, H. 2001. Sustainability on
the ground. Journal of Forestry
99(8): 48.
Reed, M. 1998. Using Citizen Site -
visits to Evaluate Prescribed Fire
andMechanical Thinning Treat-
ments. MS thesis, Oregon State
University, Corvallis.
Ribe, R 1999. Regeneration har-
vests versus clearcuts: public
views of the acceptability and
esthetics of Northwest Forest
Plan harvests. Northwest Science
73: 102-117.
Shindler, B, and M Reed. 1997.
Forest.Management in the Blue
Mountains. Public Perspectives
on Prescribed Fire and Mechani-
cal Thinning. Oregon State Uni-
versity, Corvallis.
Shindler B, and J Neburka. 1997.
Public participation in forest
planning: eight attributes of
success. Journal of Forestry
95(1): 17-19.
Shindler, B, and MW Brunson.
2001. Fire Conditions on Public
Forests and Rangelands A Na-
tional Survey of Citizens. Joint
Fire Science Program Research
Report. Oregon State Univer-
sity, Corvallis.
Shindler, B, and E Toman. 2002. A
Longitudinal Analysis of Fuel
Reduction in the Blue Moun-
tains. Public Perspectives on the
Use of Prescribed Fire and
Mechanized Thinning. Oregon
State University, Corvallis.
CHAPTER 14
Shindler, B, M Brunson, and GH
Stankey. 2002. Social Accept-
ability of Forest Conditions and
Management Practices: A Prob-
lem Analysis. PNW GTR -537.
USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station,
Portland OR
Stankey, GH. 1995. The pursuit of
sustainability: joining science
and public choice. The George
Wright Forum 12(3): 11-18.
Stankey, GH, and B Shindler. 1997.
Adaptive Management Areas:
Achieving the Promise, Avoiding
the Peril. PNW-GTR-394.
USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station,
Portland OR
Stankey, GH, B Bormann, C Ryan,
B Shindler, V Sturtevant, and
C Philpot. (In press). Learning
to Learn: Adaptive Management
and the Northwest Forest Plan.
USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station,
Portland OR
Williams, D, and S Stewart. 1998.
Sense of place: an elusive con-
cept that is finding a home in
ecosystem management. jour-
nal of Forestry 96(5): 16-23.
Winter, GJ, C Vogt, and JS Fried.
2002. Fuel treatments at the
wildland-urban interface: com-
mon concerns in diverse re-
gions. journalofForestry 100(1):
15-21.
Exhibit ] 47
Page a S of -;)-.-
Board of County Commissioners
Of Deschutes County, Oregon
C/o. Deschutes County Road Department
61150 S.E. 27th Street
Bend, Oregon 97702
Mammoth Lakes, 23rd April 2004
Regarding Bandley Road Local Improvement District.
To the Board of County Commissioners,
I write to you to object to the proposed improvement project, Bandley Road L.T.D.,
because I am not in a position at this time to come up with $ 10'000.00 for this project.
There also was a vote on this on March 19th 2004 and the Deschutes County Road
Department has not yet released the result of the vote.
Finally what are my options? I would like to keep the land but I do not have the funds to
support the project.
Ueli Luthi
P.O. Box 1390
Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546
Spring River Acres, Unit No. 5
Lot:3 Block:7
Tax lot: 201012B015300
rr �'�
~'2i 204
CiESCI-IUTES CC
Exhibit RC H ES
Page t of t
M
Board of County Commissioners
c/o Deschutes County Road Dept.
61150 S.E. 27th St
Bend, OR 97702
ATTN: Tom Blust, Road Dept Director
Re: Improvement Project: Kiowa Drive L.I.D.
Benefited Property: 161222CO02600 65350 93`d Place
APR 2 6 2004
DESCHUTES CO
ROAD DEPT
This letter is notification as you require of our objection to the proposed improvement
and assessments of the Kiowa Drive project. We own bare land at 65350 93`d Place and
at this time don't know whether we will be selling it or building on it in the future. We
don't want to have to pay the extra money for these road improvements.
Earl R. Ellis
i L
Dar&I llis� o
16858 S Creekside Ct
Oregon City, OR 97045
(503) 631-3733
Exhibit T)
Page I of
JOHNSON
VS
DES CHUTES COUNTY
PRE -LAWSUIT
PRESENTATION
Jim Johnson
3110 NE Barrington Ct.
Bend OR 97701
541-389-4511
Exhibit
Page / of /6
SITE FLAN
LOT 2Fo
R I VER BEND ESTA
DESCHUTE5 COUNT
SCALE: 1"=30'
A. Initial "Rim Rock" as dei
B. Second and current "Rim
C. "Rim Rock" as determinc
HEARING EXHIBIT B
File No. V-03-3
............ . _ ...---_ ...__.._ .__.....
_.._..----.....---
APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM
File No. V-03-3
¢S4V-
Exhibit F -
Page _- �L- of 6
"xhibit
'age of ��,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
�Q 4
PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF BEND, OREGON
Variance Application ) Application Number: V033
Jim Johnson, Applicant ) Transcript of Proceedings
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Hearings Officer: Tia Lewis
City Planner: Mathew Martin -
Transcribed on July 14, 2003 by Bend's Girl Friday:
I hereby certify that one audiocassette was presented to me
by Jim Johnson, has been hereby transcribed into this 20 -page
document, which is as accurate as possible to the extent of
the content of the tape's irregular quality of the recording
provided.
MISEW011
1 0 21
— Bmd 0R 97702
Transcription, VARIANCE HEARING APPLICATION, April 15, 2003, Page 1
H�xhibit---C
?age q_ of / (P
1 (Tuesday, April 15, 2003, 7:00 pm)
2 PROCEEDINGS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
3 TIA LEWIS: Good evening. Hi, my name is Tia Lewis and I
4 will be your Hearings Officer tonight. We have two matters
5 scheduled on the agenda tonight. We're going to... [Papers
6 rustled during pause.] We have two matters on the agenda tonight
7 and we're going to switch the order. The first matter scheduled
8 is CU035LM02167. The Applicant is Robert Hass.
9 The request is for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a
10 single family dwelling with attached garage in the flood plane
11 zone. It is also an application for a single family dwelling for
12 landscape and management review. The second application is V033.
13 The Applicant is Jim Johnson. The request is for approval of
14 several variances to the side yards set back and rim rock set
15 backs in the landscape management zone.
16 We are going to go ahead and take the variance application
17 first, simply because it looks like it might be shorter and we
18 can have it done with and let these people go on their way. So,
19 before I open the matter for hearing, I am going to go over a few
20 of the procedures tonight.
21 The purpose of tonight's hearing is for me to receive
22 relevant testimony and evidence on the land use matters scheduled
23 for hearing. The order of the proceeding will be as follows: I
24 will open the hearing and Staff will give a Staff Report. The
25 Staff Report will be followed by the Applicant's presentation. I
26 will then offer an opportunity for public testimony and support
Transcription, VARIANCE HEARING APPLICATION, April 15, 2003, Page 2
Exhibit E
Page -5- of l�
I of the Application, followed by any public testimony in
2 opposition to the Application, and to the extent that there is
3 public testimony in opposition.
4 I will allow the Applicant a brief opportunity for
5 rebuttal. I will then also allow Staff an opportunity to give
6 final Staff comments and we will close the hearing.
7 To give testimony tonight, please raise your hand so I can
8 recognize you and come to the podium to speak. Before speaking,
9 please sign in on the sign up sheet and state your name for the
10 record. If you are submitting or have submitted written
11 comments, please do not read from them verbatim. If you already
12 submitted them, I have already read them. And if you are going
13 to submit them tonight, I will read them. If you could just
14 summarize them for me. . . if you would. . .
15 Oregon Law requires me to disclose whether or not I have any
16 1ex parte contact. Those are contacts between me and one of the
17 parties outside of the hearing process. I have had no ex parte
18 contacts on either of the Applications scheduled for hearing
19 before me tonight. I have picked up the files from the Planner
20 on these matters and have reviewed the files. I do not own any
21 property in the vicinity of either of the Applications scheduled
22 tonight nor have any interest in any property in the vicinity.
23 I do practice law in the private capacity. I am a partner
24 with law firm of Merrill O'Sullivan. Prior to tonight's hearing,
25 I did run conflict checks within our conflict system for the
26 Applicants name and any of the people that I knew to the parties.
Transcription, VARIANCE HEARING APPLICATION, April 15, 2003, Page 3
Exhibit F
Page & of
I For either matter I did not discover any conflicts; however, that
2 does not mean that someone here tonight, of which I was unaware,
3 could have been represented by somebody in my firm; however, I
4 have no knowledge of it and do believe that any representation
5 would not affect my ability to be impartial.
6 I am required to give every party an opportunity to
7 challenge my qualifications to be City's Hearings Officer tonight
8 on the basis of bias, prejudgment, or personal interest. I will
9 now give any one the opportunity to do so.
10 Ok, seeing none, I will proceed. I have not conducted a
11 site visit on either of the Application's tonight and when I open
12 the matter for hearing, we will take up the issue of whether or
13 not I will conduct a site visit. Unless I hear an objection, I
14 will rely upon the prior circulation of the Staff Report to list
15 the substance of applicable criteria for tonight's hearing. All
16 testimony and evidence you give tonight should be related to
17 these criteria or any criteria you believe to be applicable. The
18 failure to address an issue with sufficient specificity to afford
19 me or another party an opportunity to respond, may preclude an
20 appeal to LUBA.
21 On that issue, likewise, the failure of the Applicant to
22 raise constitutional or other issues concerning proposed
23 Conditions of Approval may preclude the Applicant from seeking an
24 action in Circuit Court for damages concerning that proposed
25 Condition of Approval.
26 Are the procedures understandable and does anybody have any
Transcription, VARIANCE HEARING APPLICATION, April 15, 2003, Page 4
Exhibit C
Page -7 of ((v
1 questions? OK, seeing none, I will open the hearing on V033 and
2 will begin with the Staff Report by Matt Martin. Thank you.
3 MATHEW MARTIN: Thank you. For the record, my name is
4 Mathew Martin. I'm an Assistant Planner with the Deschutes
5 County Community Development Department. The purpose of
6 tonight's hearing is to take evidence and testimony both orally
7 and in writing on an Application. For related variance requests
8 the land use file number is V033. Specifically, the Applicant is
9 requesting approval of variances to the side yard set back
10 standards of the Rural Residential Zone and rim rock set back
11 standards of the Landscape Management Combining Zone.
12 The Applicant in this matter is Jim Johnson and current
13 property owner is Victoria Johnson. The criteria applicable to
14 this matter are on the overhead to my left.
15 Notice of tonight's hearing was mailed to owners of record
16 of properties of 250 feet of the subjects' property and of public
17 agencies. No written comments from neighbors were received in
18 response to this notice. I have provided the Hearings Officer
19 with copies of the transmittal responses from public agencies. I
20 must add for the record, a fax was received this afternoon from
21 William Boyer, Chairman of Friends of Deschutes County,
22 requesting the file remain open for at least another week.
23 At this point, I would like to provide some basic findings
24 of fact and then address each of the variance requests. The
25 subject property has assigned addresses of: 60670 and 60671
26 River Bend Drive, Bend, Oregon, and is within the River Bend
Transcription, VARIANCE HEARING APPLICATION, April 15, 2003, Page 5
Exhibit
Page of 6
1 Estates
2 Subdivision. The subject property is a total of approximately
3 .63 acres in size and is intersected by River Bend Drive.
4 Approximately .25 acres identified, as part of Lot 63 is located
5 to the south of the street. The remaining .38 acres, identified
6 as Lot 26, is located to the north of the street. This portion
7 of the property is displayed on the enlarged plot plan for -your
8 reference.
9 These were combined by lot line adjustment in 1989. The
10 portion of the property to the south of street is level with
11 minimal vegetation and is where the septic system for the
12 proposed dwelling will be located. The dwelling is proposed to
13 the north of River Bend Drive. The topography of this portion of
14 the property consists of a level area located on top of the rim
15 rock.
16 There is also a large portion of the property located at the
17 base of the rim rock at river level. The location of the rim
18 rock on the property was identified and staked by Staff
19 approximately 80 feet from the street. Vegetation on the site
20 consists of mature and immature pine trees and other native
21 shrubs and ground cover. The majority of the larger trees are
22 located on the lower portions of the site between the top of the
23 rim rock and the Deschutes River. As I previously stated, the
24 subject property is within the River Bend Estates Subdivision.
25 Zoning in the area is rural residential or RR10 and the lots in
261 the area are all privately owned and developed with single family
Transcription, VARIANCE HEARING APPLICATION, April 15, 2003, Page 6
Exhibit E
Page J of l�
1 dwellings or currently vacant.
2 In the RR10 zone a single-family dwelling is permitted
3 outright. The property is also within the Landscape Management
4 Combining Zone, where a single-family dwelling is also permitted
5 outright, subject to site plan review. The proposed dwelling has
6 been sited to the minimum set back standards of these zones
7 except, those that are subject to the variance requests. The
8 proposed dwelling qualifies for a rim rock set back exception
9 because the subject property was created as part of the River
10 Bend Estates in 1961 - long before the current rim rock standards
11 were adopted in 1992. The rim rock set back exception will allow
12 a structure to be sited to a minimum of 20 feet from the rim rock
13 and also require the height of the structure not exceed the set
14 back from the edge of the rim rock.
15 It is these two standards the Applicant is requesting
16 variances to. As proposed, the structure is 20 feet in height
17 and 10 feet from the rim rock. Beyond these two standards, Staff
18 believes the proposed structure complies with the remaining
19 exception criteria; specifically the vegetation between the
20 structures creates a substantial buffer that minimizes the
21 visibility of the structure from the river. Staff recommends
22 that if the Hearings Officer approves the variance requests that
23 the retention of this vegetation be made a Condition of Approval.
24 Now I would like to address the request for the minor
25 variance for the required minimum side yard set back. Please
26 note the Applicant did request the minor variance but did not
Transcription, VARIANCE HEARING APPLICATION, April 15, 2003, Page 7
Exhibit r,
Page /6 of 1(o
1 address the criteria in the submitted burden of proof. However,
2 the following are Staff's conclusions based on the submitted
3 information and physical characteristics of the property: Lot 26
4 is 80 feet wide along the street and tapers to approximately 68
5 feet in the rear. This tapering forces a small portion of the
6 rear of the proposed 60 foot wide structure, which is sited to
7 the minimum 20 foot front yard set back to encroach into the
8 minimum 10 foot side yard set back by 1 foot. Taking this into
9 consideration along with the limited area of the lot located on
10 top of the rim rock and that the septic system is proposed across
11 River Bend Drive, Staff believes this is efficient use of the
12 site.
13 There is no vegetation significant size or that provides
14 screening located in the proposed building site. This along with
15 the topography of the building site being level the proposed
16 structure will have limited impact on the natural features of the
17 site. With the north walk line along the river, solar shade
18 "protection and access to light -for adjoining properties is
19 adequate. In addition, Staff does not believe the minimal
20 encroachment in the required side yard set back will have any
21 effect on the privacy of the adjoining properties and finds it
22 significant that only one neighbor had called to simply obtain
23 more information about the proposal and not express opposition to
24 the encroachment.
25 And now I would like to address the request of the area
26 barrens the rim rock set back standards. As previously stated,
Transcription, VARIANCE HEARING APPLICATION, April 15, 2003, Page 8
Exhibit F
Page /I of /6
1 there are physical constraints of the lot and biddable area,
2 specifically only 80 of overall 225 feet of lot's depth are
3 located on top of the rim rock and available for development. If
4 all of the minimum set backs were met, only 2,400 square feet
5 will be available for building. With such a relatively small
6 area buildable for this structure, the septic system is proposed
7 and approved to be located on the portion of the lot across the
8 street.
9 The Applicant indicated that the owner would sustain a
10 substantial financial loss by not being able to sell the property
11 if the proposed zoning was not approved. The public benefit in
12 this matter is, if the 20 -foot rim rock set back were met, the
13 structure would be less visible from the river. Staff believes
14 that if the existing vegetation between the proposed dwelling and
15 the river were retained, there would be little additional visual
16 impact. With these reasons, Staff believes the literal
17 application of the ordinance would create a practical difficulty
18 resulting in greater private expense than public benefit. The
19 commission creating the difficulty in this situation is the
20 presence of the rim rock in the limited portion of the lot
21 located on top of the rim rock and available for building. The
22 rim rock in the area is undulating and is not consistent from lot
23 to lot, and therefore, unique to the site. The intent of the rim
24 rock set back standards is to minimize the visual impact of the
25 structure when viewed from the river.
26 There are substantial vegetation located between the
Transcription, VARIANCE HEARING APPLICATION, April 15, 2003, Page 9
Exhibit r
Page of l
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
C. Chapter 18.132. VARIANCES
Section 18.132.025. Minor variances.
A variance seeking to depart from on-site requirements
of DCC Title 18, such as setbacks and area requirements, by
no greater than 10 percent of the required distance or area
may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body in
conformance with DCC 18.132.025.
FINDING: The applicant is seeking a minor variance of 1 -foot to the 107foot side yard
setbacks. The site plan submitted with the application shows the back corner on the
west side of the structure extending into the side yard setback by 1 -foot. Ten percent of
the 10 -foot side yard setback is 1 -foot, which is consistent with the applicant's variance
request. The applicable criteria are addressed below.
A. In the case of a setback or size variance, the applicant shall show
that the approval will result in:
1. More efficient use of the site;
f FINDING: The Hearings Officer agrees with Staff that two building constraints exist on
the approximate 0.38 -acre site that result in reducing and restricting the potential building
area of the property: (1) Rimrock that limits the developable area above the rimrock to the
front 80 feet, not including the required setbacks, and (2) the width of the lot is
approximately 81 feet along River Bend Drive and tapers to 67 feet in the rear. With such
a relatively small building envelope, the applicant has proposed to locate the septic system
on a portion of the lot located across River Bend Drive. The Hearings Officer agrees with
Staff that the minor variance will meet the applicant's design objectives and provide for a
more efficient use of the site considering the building constraints of the property.
2. Preservation of natural features where
appropriate;
FINDING: The record shows that there is no vegetation of significant size or that
provides screening located in the proposed building site. The Hearings Officer agrees
with Staff that this criterion can be met through the imposition of a condition of approval
requiring the retention of all vegetation between the building site and the river.
3. Adequate provision of light and privacy to
adjoining properties; and
FINDING: Because the north lot line is the lot line fronting along the Deschutes River,
the proposed dwelling will meet the solar setback standards of Title 18. The variance is
only needed for the rear portion of the structure and not the entire length. The Hearings
Officer agrees with Staff that the minimal variance to the side yard setback will have
minimal, if any, impact on the adjoining properties.
4. Preservation of topographic, vegetative and
Hearings Officer Decision
File No. V-03-3
Page 8
Exhibit C
Page /30f /G
April 27, 2004
Mr. Jim Johnson
3110 NE Barrington Court
Bend,, OR 97701
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
P���62oZ�2n
r ` 0
IV
App {fie \
0 1VIAlLED
R �
oESCHUTFS C17 -
SUBJECT: Property Identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map #18-11-23A as
Tax Lots 2501 and 6301; File No. V-03=3.
Dear Jim:
You have asked if the statements made by Matt Martin describing a 2,400 square foot
building envelope, as contained in the transcript of the hearing before the Hearings
Officer on the above -referenced land use application, constitute findings of fact upon
which you can rely in building a house on this property. For the following reasons, in my
opinion, the answer is no.
Findings of fact and conclusions of law that you can rely on would be those adopted by
the hearings body in the decision for a particular land use permit. In this instance, the
Hearings Officer rendered the decision on V-03-3, which was later upheld by the Board
of County Commissioners in their review upon appeal. The statements made by Matt
Martin at the initial hearing relate to the request for the variance to the rim rock setback
standards described in Section 18.84.090 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC). The
potential buildable area was germane to the variance criteria found in Section
18.132.020 of the DCC. Ultimately, the Hearings Officer found that a variance was not
appropriate in this instance because the Code already contained exception provisions
that exhausted all variations for rim rock setbacks. That conclusion was upheld by the
Board upon appeal. Therefore, in my opinion, the decision contains no findings of fact or
conclusions of law that reference the 2,400 square feet or that describe any particular
buildable area other than those found on page 8 of the Hearings Officer's decision,
which I have highlighted and include with this letter.
I understand this is a sensitive issue for you and I urge you to seek your own legal
review as necessary to test the validity of my statements. I offer these statements
simply as opinions from the perspective of a land use planner and not as legal advice or
as part of any land use decision. As for solving the design problem on this lot, I still think
the best solution would be for staff to meet with your designer on-site to ensure a full and
complete understanding of the location of all required setbacks so that the design of the
house will conform with those criteria. We are ready to do so at your request.
Quality Services Performed with Pride Exhibit
Page / `f of r(o
I have included copies of the Hearings Officer's and Board's decisions for your benefit.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
evin M. Harrison, Principal Planner
KMH:slr
Enclosures
Exhibit
Page /S of
,I -ES
tll
-: Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
May 6, 2004
Mr. Jim Johnson
3110 NE Barrington Court
Bend, OR. 97701
RE: Property Identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map #18-11-23A
as Tax Lots 2501 and 6301, File No. V-03-3.
Dear Mr Johnson:
This is in response to your letter to George Read dated April 30, 2004. Mr. Read
is currently on indefinite medical leave and I am. serving in his stead as Acting
Director.
I have reviewed the pertinent documents pertaining to this matter including the
original staff report, the Hearing Officer's decision and correspondence between
Kevin Harrison and yourself. I concur with Mr. Harrison's opinion regarding
testimony at the hearing versus the final Hearing Officer's decision. Community
Development staff must rely on the findings contained in that decision in
considering any future development of the property. The decision does not
appear to guarantee a house of 2,400 square feet.
It appears that the central issue surrounds location of the rimrock setback. As the
Hearing Officer states, as staff has affirmed, and as you appear to acknowledge,
the setback must be a minimum of 20 feet (based on a house height of no more
than 20 feet). As you know, the rim undulates on your property. The setback (and
consequent buildable area) follows that undulation. I urge you to take advantage
of staffs offer to meet with you and your designer on the property to confirm
precisely where the setback lies. Hopefully this will provide you with the
information you need to define your options on house design.
Please feel free to contact me should you wish to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
Tom Anderson
Operations Manager/Acting Director
Quality Services Perfonned with Pride Exhibit E -
Page 6 of l