400%
200%
100%
75%
50%
25%
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2004-1114-Minutes for Meeting August 11,2004 Recorded 8/20/2004
DESCH TES COUNTY OFFICIAL UBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK Q �OV�-1114 NANCY COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 08II0I2004 10;40;12 AM 1111111111111111111111111111111 2004-1114 DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK CERTIFICATE PAGE C tL 0 t C � This page must be included if document is re-recorded. Do Not remove from original document. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2004 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St.., Bend Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tom DeWolf. Also present were Judy Sumners and Mike Viegas, Risk Management; Catherine Morrow, Paul Blikstad and Tom Anderson, Community Development; Anna Johnson, Commissioners' Office; Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; media representatives Jason Carr of Z-21 TV, Jeff Mullins of KBND radio, and Chris Barker of the Bulletin; and thirteen other citizens. Chair Michael M. Daly opened the meeting at 10: 00 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2004- 374, a Services Agreement Renewing the Drive 2 Survive Skid Car Program. Judy Sumners indicated that she had spoken with Legal Counsel about the proposed agreement, and he indicated there should either be a selection process followed, or an exemption requested for this work. Commissioner DeWolf said that there are a number of reasons why a request for proposal would not be necessary. Commissioner Luke added that since the program utilizes a County vehicle and takes place on County property, the agreement would be necessary for just the instructor. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 11, 2004 Page 1 of 13 Pages Judy Sumners pointed out that an exemption can be used when there is a unique situation; and no one else has expressed any interest in doing this work. The instructor has been involved in this type of program for over fifteen years, and has very specialized experience. This will be addressed at a later date. 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Policy No 2004-109, Revising the Employee Travel, Meal and Miscellaneous Expense Reimbursement Policy to Comply with Current IRS Guidelines. Commissioner DeWolf said that it is his understanding that Commissioner Luke will contact Representative Walden regarding Salem not being included in the cities listed by the IRS. DEWOLF: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on Ordinances No. 2004-017 and 2004-018, regarding an Expansion of the Bend Urban Growth Boundary. Chair Daly read the preliminary statement, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B. In regard to disclosure of bias, prejudice or personal interest, all three Commissioners indicated they had none. No challenges from the audience were offered. Commissioner Luke said that written testimony was just submitted by The Friends of Deschutes County. (A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit C.) Catherine Morrow explained that this proposed ordinance came about as a result of a periodic review work task for the City, who is the applicant. This issue is covered by a joint management agreement adopted by the City and County in 1998. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 11, 2004 Page 2 of 13 Pages Joint meetings of the City Planning Commission and the County Planning Commission were held in January, and hearings were continued into February, after which the Planning Commissions made recommendations to the governing bodies. The County Planning Commission's recommendations are explained in the staff report provided to the Commissioners. The recommendations received from the City of Bend are slightly different. The City adopted an ordinance on July 21 that amended the City's general plan to change the urban growth boundary and designate the land as industrial; findings were adopted to support the change. This information is contained in the County's proposed ordinance. The action requested of the Board is to approve ordinances to amend the County's comprehensive plan to make the same findings, and zone the property as industrial reserve. Commissioner DeWolf asked if a date has been set for a decision. He added that the letter from The Friends of Deschutes County states that the need for industrial land has been overestimated by as much as 300%. Catherine Morrow replied that she had just received the letter herself and has not had a chance to review it. Brian Shetterly, Planning Manager for the City of Bend, said that the proposal is a result of action taken by the City Council on July 21 to amend the Bend area general plan to expand its urban growth boundary into Juniper Ridge by about 500 acres. (At this time, he referred to an oversize map.) It would take in all of Section 10 located west of the Central Oregon Irrigation District canal. Commissioner Luke asked how close the area is to Deschutes Junction; Mr. Shetterly replied that it is roughly three miles. He said that the proposal to expand Bend's urban growth boundary goes back to at least the year 2000, and was informally identified as future industrial land as far back as the 1980's. The City acquired the property from the County in 1990. The proposal has its origins in a period review task of the City in 1999 to update buildable lands for commercial and industrial, and to expand the urban growth boundary if the need for this type of property exceeds the 20 -year supply for future industrial development. An economic lands study was done, and it was found that there is not sufficient land to accommodate the 20 -year need. After analyzing alternatives, it was recommended that at least 245 acres in the Juniper Ridge area be added. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 11, 2004 Page 3 of 13 Pages This proposal expands somewhat on the size of the area to be included. Of the 513 acres, the initial site analysis shows 340 acres that are buildable, after deducting rights of way, future neighborhood buffer areas and street dedications. As with bringing any large, vacant sites into the urban growth boundary, there is a potential for significant impacts to the properties in the vicinity. The City is also aware of major infrastructure changes needed in the future to handle this type of change. The City is sensitive to the concerns of local property owners, and this will be taken into account as the City moves forward with zoning changes. Mr. Shetterly stated that representatives of the City meet regularly with the staff of the County and state agencies that are impacted by the proposal, as well as with local property owners to discuss potential impacts. In December 2003 Deschutes County adopted a provision that the City be required to develop a master plan for the 513 acres and the City -owned 1,000 acres to the north. The City is committed to carrying out the planning process, which will include significant public input before development takes place. There is also a policy in the City's general plan that says the same thing - master planning is to take place before development occurs - with opportunities for public involvement. The City has contracted with OTAK Consulting to hold a number of public open houses and hearings that are scheduled through fall 2004, and the City will consider adoption in early 2005. Commissioner Luke asked how many public hearings have taken place. Mr. Shetterly said that the Council had one, and the Planning Commissions of the City and County had two. There was significant public testimony offered at the Planning Commission hearings. Commissioner Luke inquired as to whether any recommendations were taken from testimony and used to modify the plan. Mr. Shetterly stated that a commitment to complete the development plan and involve the public was agreed upon. He said that this is the first significant addition to the Bend urban growth boundary since it was established in 1981 with the Bend general plan. This type of thing doesn't happen often, but the City believes it is warranted at this point, in this location and at this size. Ultimately it gets to the fundamental need for the City to have an adequate supply of industrial land to meet demands. This is important to the community and for planning efforts. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 11, 2004 Page 4 of 13 Pages Commissioner DeWolf stated that the letter received says the claim for the need for industrial land is overestimated, and that there is currently enough industrial land located within the city limits to satisfy the twenty-year demand. Mr. Shetterly said that the letter sounds similar to one received by the City of Bend, which was responded to as a part of the record before the City Council. The letter proposes one way to do the analysis to come up with different results. The City disagrees, and it is felt that the groundwork done by the City was adequate and does conform to Goal 9. Catherine Morrow pointed out that the issue is covered in Exhibit E to Ordinance No. 2004-017, a memorandum dated June 16, 2004 to the City Council from Brian Shetterly, providing additional findings. Commissioner DeWolf asked if the letter was essentially the same. Phil Philiben (off the microphone) replied that it is essentially the same letter, which was done in collaboration with The Thousand Friends of Oregon. Catherine Morrow added that notice was provided to all property owners located within one-half mile, all individuals who have participated in this issue up to this point, and anyone who requested information. At this time, Chair Daly opened the public hearing. Phil Philiben, 2285 NE Meadow Lane, Bend, Executive Director of The Friends of Deschutes County, then spoke. He said he wouldn't reiterate what was already included in his letter. Commissioner Luke stated that the letter included a statement that the group had done its own analysis of the current buildable inventory. He asked if the analysis was available. Mr. Philiben replied that he could provide it; he was instructed to submit it to Catherine Morrow. Mr. Philiben expressed concern how the City came up with the numbers for the acreage needed. He said that originally City Planning came up with a figure lower than that desired by the City Council. His other question was where is the infill redevelopment within the current urban growth boundary, which has not been addressed. Commissioner Daly pointed out that the County Planning Commission recommended 300 acres for industrial development, but also recommended that the entire 500 acres be brought into the urban growth boundary. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 11, 2004 Page 5 of 13 Pages Mr. Philiben closed with the statement that all of his other concerns are included in his written statement. Tony Aceti, 21235 Tumalo Road, Bend, then testified. He said he is not speaking just for himself, but also for the Fagens and others living in the Deschutes Junction area. (He referred to an oversized vicinity map at this time. He was advised that the map would need to remain to become part of the formal record on this issue) He said that as State goal exceptions pertain to rural lands, to bring this amount of land into the urban growth boundary takes away the ability of him and other property owners to do a rezone of their rural lands. He stated that the current propaganda is that there is not enough industrial land located within the urban growth boundary, necessitating an expansion. He said he and his neighbors don't want to lose the opportunity to rezone their properties to a higher use. He added that there is infrastructure at Deschutes Junction, and there is a potential for increased commercial uses there. There are public water and paved roads at that location. He said that in his case, the buffer zone is about a mile out. He stated that his land is zoned EFU, but the cost of operating a farm, along with the poor quality of the land, means making a living is very difficult. He added that he spoke with the Oregon Department of Transportation and was told that there are no future plans to develop Deschutes Junction. Commissioner Luke pointed out that there is already an overpass at the site. Mr. Aceti said that he received a similar letter from Steve Jorgensen of County Planning, stating that there are no plans to upgrade the area. Mr. Aceti stated that he and his neighbors are getting all of the traffic impacts, and there would be greater impacts from the Juniper Ridge area. There are many vehicles every day using the Pleasant Ridge Road shortcut. He said he is getting all the problems of being rural with no opportunity to get the benefits of rezoning and reutilization. He stated that the Fagens have pointed out that Deschutes Junction could be developed as the opening gate to Bend, with businesses to accommodate travelers and truck traffic. He explained that he has received a letter from a Windermere Commercial land broker stating that there are buyers who could utilize the property at Deschutes Junction if it were rezoned. He said he also received two letters from pacific Power indicating that they are interested in his land. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 11, 2004 Page 6 of 13 Pages Mr. Aceti reiterated that the biggest concern about rezoning urban lands and expanding into Juniper Ridge is that it eliminates the opportunity for him and others to rezone their land. He added that the area may have been an unincorporated community at one time, and asked that the Commissioners take a look at it. He said that a lot of properties in that location are shovel -ready. Commissioner Luke pointed out that there is no public sewer in the area. Mr. Aceti replied that there is a school in the area that uses a septic system, as are the local business. Commissioner Daly asked how the Juniper Ridge expansion would affect Mr. Aceti. Mr. Aceti replied that the biggest concern is that some kind of access to Deschutes Market Road will eventually be required. All of the area owned by the City runs nearly to Deschutes Junction. This has meant significant traffic impacts. Mr. Aceti also stressed that he would lose opportunities to do something with is property. The Highway 97/Deschutes Junction interchange created negative impacts to his land already, such as property damage, vandalism, theft and a loss of income to his hay selling business. He added that the criteria used for rezoning lands outside of the urban growth boundary are that there not be any available within. With this change there will be a lot of land available to rezone, and he will never be able to adjoin city property. The local property owners expressed their concerns to the state, but they didn't oppose the rezoning and said it is up to the local jurisdiction. Commissioner Luke pointed out that changing EFU land to commercial or industrial is nearly impossible, since state law makes it very difficult (Copies of the documents referred to and submitted by Mr. Aceti are attached as Exhibit D) At this time Dugan Pearsall, the manager of Cascade Pumice, spoke. He said he shares some of the same concerns as Mr. Aceti in that this change could inhibit his ability to fully utilize his property. Some of his property is grandfathered in for industrial use, but some is not and remains EFU. He said he would like to meet with Catherine Morrow and Brian Shetterly regarding Phase II of the Juniper Ridge development. In regard to the overpass, he went through a process to rezone EFU land to industrial, and it was an expensive, difficult process that took three years. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 11, 2004 Page 7 of 13 Pages He added that because his property has 1,000 feet of railroad siding, he gets two or three requests every year from potential buyers who want railroad access who say they can't get it anywhere else. Commissioner Luke asked if Mr. Pearsall is testifying against the expansion, or wants to get on record to be involved in Phase Il. Mr. Pearsall said that he would like to participate in Phase Il, since this change will inhibit his ability to utilize his land. Roger Lee of EDCO (Economic Development for Central Oregon) then testified. He said that the City and County did excellent work in trying to figure out what amount of land was adequate and the best location. He added that he and his group are fully supportive of the methodology and numbers; and, if anything, they are conservative. The State requires a twenty-year supply of industrial land, which perpetually puts the cities behind the curve. When revisions take place later, they are out of date. At this time he gave five examples of industrial zoned areas in Bend. Reed Market Road Business Park: This area was developed four years ago, and the final phase is sold out. It encompasses twenty acres. North Brinson Park: This area has five lots available, along with a few resales; some of this property is being used for expansion of established businesses. The final three in North Brinson Park will come on when Empire Avenue is completed. These cost $8 per square foot, or $350,000 per acre. This cost is comparable to that of San Francisco and Seattle, and higher -end parks in Portland. Salt Business Park: This is located off Empire and Brinson, and was started two years ago; there are only four lots available. It has just recently been paved, and there is building activity going on. There were twenty-nine acres, but just six acres remaining. East Empire: This takes in twenty acres, and was 75% sold out in three months' time. He was shocked at the demand. The buyers are not speculating; rather, they need the space, and larger building will be going in. This is an example of absorption. The Industrial Park Zone: This is located in one area of Bend. Reservations were made before the lots were ever offered for sale. Once the infrastructure was in, all lots were purchased immediately, and buildings are now going up. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 11, 2004 Page 8 of 13 Pages In addition, there is some light industrial land located off American Lane, but the lots are not very deep and there is poor road access. He added that all it takes is a drive around Bend to see all of the activity. The absorption rate is being accelerated and demand will be even greater in the future. If the City doesn't expand into Juniper Ridge, available industrial zoned land will be gone within eighteen months. Businesses have moved to Redmond because no options were available for them to stay in Bend. Mr. Lee also said that even though the comprehensive plan shows heavy industrial land located in some areas of Bend, such as the Old Mill District, it is being used in different ways. No provisions were made for this type of conversion. The area stayed heavy industrial on the map, but is used differently, and no offset was taken into account. He added that it is very important to keep Bend economically viable, for new companies and for existing companies that wish to expand. Most new development in existing industrial areas is being done by existing companies. Commissioner DeWolf asked if there is documentation available that shows the land within the City limits that is zoned industrial but is being used in a different manner. Mr. Shetterly replied that he would provide the information. He added that the new park in the center of town wasn't included for analysis purposes; the map shows it as residential, but it is still shown as industrial on the comprehensive plan. Mr. Lee pointed out that the zoning map he has shows it as heavy industrial. Commissioner DeWolf stated that he wants to make sure the information The Friends of Deschutes County is using is correct. He asked that anything not being used for industrial purposes that is currently shown as industrial land be clarified, so that the ordinances can be properly defended if necessary. Commissioner Daly asked what the largest industrial parcel available in Bend is at this time. Mr. Lee replied that the largest conglomeration of lots is about eight acres. T -Mobile Company looked at Bend initially, but there was nothing available to them that is large enough for their needs. They didn't want to be located right next to residential areas off Empire Avenue. There was no further testimony offered at this time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 11, 2004 Page 9 of 13 Pages After a brief discussion, the Board indicated that the written record would remain open to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 18, 2004, and deliberations would occur at the Wednesday, August 25 Board meeting, which begins at 10:00 a.m. It was explained that although this issue is legislative in nature and anyone can write or contact the Commissioners at any time up to the decision, the public was encouraged to submit written comments as soon as possible so that the Commissioners would have adequate time to review them. 5. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Decision regarding File #DR -02-2, a Declaratory Ruling for Side -yard Setbacks in the F-2, Forest Use Zone (Applicant. Dowell). Paul Blikstad stated that the original hearing was held in August 2002, and there have been several extensions waiving the 150 -day limit. He said that he feels it is time to render a decision. DEWOLF: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2004-067, Regarding a Proposed Bend Area Transportation District - Formation and Placement on the November 2004 General Election Ballot. Mark Pilliod said that published notices provided for a public hearing. He added that statute covering the formation of the district requires the County to confer with the City as to the appropriate tax rate. Chair Daly opened the public hearing. Being no testimony offered, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner DeWolf pointed out that putting the issue on the ballot does not indicate that the Commissioners support or do not support it. It is the duty of the County to place it on the ballot. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 11, 2004 Page 10 of 13 Pages Commissioner Luke agreed, and said that citizens deserve to have the opportunity to decide. DEWOLF: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of an Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and the City of Bend in Regard to Solid Waste Flow Control. Mark Pilliod indicated that the proposed intergovernmental agreement was approved by the City with just a few adjustments, and is now ready for Board consideration and approval. A brief discussion took place regarding the changes, including a term for cause to terminate in the event of health or safety violations. Mr. Pilliod pointed out that in the event of a violation of environmental law pertaining to the landfill, the County would be given a reasonable opportunity to take corrective measures, but these are to occur in a timely manner. The Department of Environmental Quality would be the entity qualified to make that determination. DEWOLF: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of an Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and the City of Redmond in Regard to Solid Waste Flow Control. This item will be addressed at a later date. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 11, 2004 Page 11 of 13 Pages CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $509981.64. LUKE: Move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amount of $877.33. LUKE: Move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 11. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $615,008.41. LUKE: Move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 11, 2004 Page 12 of 13 Pages 12. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA There were none. Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair Daly adjourned the meeting at 11:45 a.m. DATED this 11th Day of August 2004 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary ael . Daly Chair Dennis R. Luke, Commission r Tom DeWolf, Commissioner Attachments Exhibit A: Sign -in Sheet (1 page) Exhibit B: Preliminary Statement (1 page) Exhibit C: Letter from The Friends of Deschutes County, dated August 11, 2004 (10 pages) Exhibit D: Various documents provided by Tony Aceti (15 pages) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 11, 2004 Page 13 of 13 Pages m U U) rn a 0 ` o P D c� � d v M O M a m n to s C w � c o n o) a p N 3 d cwa, W p � p 43 a v .Q � ' y a j n41 a `JL EX ibit109 Pae o m U U) rn a 0 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A L PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE DESCHUTES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS This is a public hearing on Ordinances 2004-017 and 2004-018. The county file number is PA 2004-02. This is an application from the City of Bend to amend the County Urban Growth Boundary to include 513 acres of land to be designated as Industrial on the Bend Urban Area General Plan and an amendment to the County Zoning Map to zone the land as Urban Reserve under Title 19 of the Deschutes County Code. The standards applicable to the applications before us are on page 1 of the Staff Report dated August 11, 2004. The Board will hear oral testimony, receive written testimony, and consider the testimony submitted at this hearing. The hearing is also being taped. The Board may make a decision on this matter today, continue the public hearing to a date certain, or leave the written record open for a specified period of time. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a report on this issue. We will then open the hearing to all present and ask people to present testimony at one of the tables or at the podium. You can also provide the Board with a copy of written testimony. Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the chair's discretion. Cross-examination of people testifying will not be allowed. However, if any person wishes ask a question of another person during that person's testimony, please direct your question to the chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the person testifying. Prior to the commencement of the hearing any party may challenge the qualifications of any Board for bias, prejudgment or personal interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts. Should any Board member be challenged, the member may disqualify himself or herself, withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity to hear and decide this issue. At this time, do any members of the planning commission need to set forth any information that may be perceived as bias, prejudgment, or personal interest? I will accept any challenges from the public now. (Hearing none, I will open the public hearing). STAFF REPORT SACDD\planning\SHELLS\Opening Statement Legislative.doc Exhibit Page ! of �_ The Friends of Deschutes County 2285 NE Meadow Lane Bend, Oregon 97701 August 11, 2004 Board of Commissioners Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 Re: Proposal for Urban Growth Boundary Expansion of the City of Bend- Juniper Ridge: PA 04-02 Dear Commissioners: On behalf of The Friends of Deschutes County, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary Expansion -Juniper Ridge. We are encouraging you to deny the proposed expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary of Bend for the reasons outlined below. The Friends of Deschutes County Position We are opposed to the Proposal to Expand the UGB because in preparing the Proposal, City staff relied in error on a flawed needs analysis. Neither the needs analysis nor supplemental findings presented in the Proposal demonstrate a need to expand Bend's UGB to provide an adequate supply of industrial land. The Friends of Deschutes County recognizes the need for the City of Bend to provide adequate opportunities for a variety of economic opportunities. We agree that large industrial sites are needed in Bend's buildable inventory in order to help Bend retain local manufacturing or warehousing firms that plan to expand, and to have a better chance to attract new firms that need larger sites. Our objective'is to ensure that if the City of Bend expands its UGB, it does so only on the basis of a demonstrated need. As you know, the demonstration of need is required under OAR 660-015-0000(14), and failure to adequately demonstrate need may open this process to further delay. In our opinion the needs analysis (the Economic Lands Study) is fundamentally flawed because of cumulative mathematical errors in the calculation of the forecast need for industrial lands. The supplemental findings in the Proposal do nothing to remedy the flaws in the needs analysis. Exhibit= Page of �� The Friends of Deschutes County Position (cont.) Using the data presented in the needs analysis and the Proposal, we have conducted our own analysis of the current buildable inventory of industrial lands in Bend and the current rates of demand for 1) industrial acreage overall and 2) large industrial sites. Our analysis of the same raw data provided by the City indicates there is a sufficient inventory within the current UGB to provide a 20 -year supply of industrial acreage overall and there may be a sufficient inventory within the current UGB to provide a 20 -year supply of large industrial sites. The City is asserting a "need" for "245 acres of industrial land" to accommodate demand over the next 20 years. The City of Bend has overestimated its buildable lands need by many hundreds of acres and has underestimated the capacity of its existing UGB to meet those needs. In addition, the City has vastly overestimated the gross acreage needed at Juniper Ridge to supply net buildable acreage. While the City may be able to justify a modest Urban Growth Boundary expansion, in our opinion, they have not done so. The Economic Lands Study conducted by the City of Bend relies on an estimated rate of industrial absorption. 1) Though the estimated rate of 32.2 acres/yr is based on a 14 -year averaging period, the Economic Lands Study fails to provide the methods and data showing what was averaged over the 14 -year period. It is impossible to determine if the figure includes absorption of lands zoned industrial/commercial that was used for commercial development. It is impossible to determine if the figure includes lands zoned for industrial that were rezoned, and so disappeared from the industrial inventory. In fact, it is impossible to tell where the absorption rate comes from. No matter what averaging period is used, it is essential to use statistically valid methods and data to calculate how many acres of industrial land are absorbed each year, before the yearly rates are averaged. 2) Not only is the 32.2 acres/yr value derived from undocumented methods and data, but also the value of 32.2 acres/yr has been upwardly "adjusted ", "to include acreage that would be reserved only for large site users." (ELS, Part 1, p. 24). As discussed in detail below, this upward adjustment is statistically invalid. Given that there is an identified need for large industrial sites in Bend, the City must base its forecast on a mathematically and statistically valid technique. The value of 32.2 acres/yr is estimated, upwardly adjusted, and the result of flawed statistical analysis. As such, it has no meaning, and cannot be used as the basis for a decision regarding a possible UGB expansion; for the UGB expansion must be based on a demonstrated need (OAR 660- 015-0000(14). Exhibit e Page Z of The City of Bend has in its possession the actual absorption rate of industrial lands in Bend for the seven-year period between 1997 and 2004. As explained in detail elsewhere in this comment, the actual rate of absorption based on City of Bend data is 10.6 acres/yr. Over a 20 year planning horizon, the difference between the actual forecast need based on the City's actual absorption rate value of 10.6 acres/yr and the invalid forecast need based on the artificial construct of 32.2 acres/yr is the difference between 212 acres and 644 acres, respectively. Since the City currently estimates its industrial lands inventory at 511 acres, the true forecast need does not exhaust the current inventory. This is not a question of conflicting estimation methods. The 10.6 acres/yr number is not estimated. It is not derived. It is a report. It is the City of Bend's observed rate of industrial absorption. When the City of Bend uses its own empirical, actual rate of absorption to forecast the future need for industrial lands in Bend, it will find there is no need to expand the urban growth boundary at this time, because the need for industrial lands can be met by the City's current industrial lands inventory. 1. Rate of Demand for Industrial Land In Part, one of the needs analyses, the estimate of the 20 -year supply of industrial land is initially overestimated by application of an estimated and upwardly adjusted annual average rate of demand for industrial lands that moreover incorporates only a portion of the available data. This rate used fails to incorporate the empirical data provided by the City in documents related to its proposal to expand the UGB. The rate appears to mistakenly aggregate demand for industrial sites overall and demand for large industrial sites, as discussed below. The empirical data show that the actual, observed rate of absorption of industrial lands in Bend is 10.6 acres per year. This is far below the estimated, upwardly adjusted rate used in the needs analysis of 32.2 acres per year. Use of an estimated rate when empirical data are available that drastically alters the estimated rate leads to an error in inference. Here the result is an estimated rate that is 300% of the actual rate of demand for industrial land in Bend over the next 20 years. The actual rate of demand for industrial land overall in Bend may be calculated using the following data provided by the City in the proposal and associated documents. 1) In Tallle 10 of the General Plan, the total buildable inventory of industrial lands in 1997 was reported to be 585 acres. 2) In the ELS Part 1, Table 16, dated December 2000, the total buildable inventory of lands was reported to be 549 acres. 3) On page 10 of the Proposal, dated April 21 of 2004, it is reported that 38 acres of industrial land have been absorbed since the ELS was completed in December 2000. Thus, the City's current buildable inventory as reported 2 weeks ago is 549- 38=511 acres. Exhibit 0 - Page Page -3 of �© 1. Rate of Demand for Industrial Land (cont.) From 1997 till now, the actual rate of absorption has been 74 acres (585-511). Since 74 acres of industrial land have actually been absorbed over the past 7 years, the annual rate of absorption averaged over the past 7 years is 74 acres/7 years=10.6 acres/year. To repeat, a rate of 10.6 acres/year of average annual demand for industrial land in Bend is based on recent, observed data over the past seven (7) years. Corrected Forecast for 20 -year Supply of Industrial Acreage (10.6 acres/yr.)(20 yrs.) = 212 acres Current Buildable Inventory of Industrial Land, Spring 2004 511 acres Acreage Available in 2024 beyond the Forecast Need for Industrial Land 299 acres The much higher rate of 32.2 acres/year of demand for industrial land is clearly a significant overestimation when compared to the empirically determined rate. The estimated rate is 300% of the actual rate. The forecast need for industrial land over twenty years using the actual rate since 1997 is 212 acres, while an estimate for industrial land over the next twenty years using the estimated rate in the needs analysis would be (20 years)(32.2 acres per year) = 644 acres. This difference of hundreds of acres in forecast need based on the estimated rate versus the actual observed rate is the result of the first in a series of apparently flawed mathematical operations in the needs analysis that cumulate in the 245 -acre purported "need" for additional acres beyond inventory used in the City's proposal to expand the UGB. Once the annual rate of future demand is calculated incorporating the best available data, the forecast need for industrial lands drops precipitously. Use of actual data provides a more accurate forecast than estimated, upwardly adjusted data. Addition of a subjective adjustment factor that cannot be evaluated is characteristic of opaque accounting methods that are inconsistent with the need to allow for public review. The needs analysis calculation of forecast need is apparently statistically flawed in that it relies on an upwardly adjusted estimated rate when an empirical rate is available. It is apparently mathematically flawed in that an upward adjustment to account for the need for large industrial lots should not be applied to the rate of demand, which results in a grossly inflated figure. This mathematical error is discussed in detail later in this comment. Exhibit C Page �4 of /o 1. Rate of Demandfor Industrial Land (cont) A forecast rate of demand based on actual rates of absorption since 1997 demonstrates that the supply of industrial lands in Bend within the current UGB is hundreds of acres in excess of the forecast need. The City asserts that use of the historical rate of demand for industrial land in Bend during the 14 -year period between 1985 and 1998 "best matched the qualitative test of reasonableness... to generate the average number of acres used or absorbed each year". In 2004, these data do not best match the test of reasonableness, because the actual need from 1997 has been shown to be significantly lower. This recent information cannot be ignored, as to do so would lead to a skewed result. Given that these annual demand data are available, it is a quick and simple matter for the City to use them to calculate a valid, empirically based rate of demand from which a defensible estimate of forecast need for industrial acres can be calculated. Z. Apparent Mistake in Aggregating Demand for Industrial Sites with Demand for Large Industrial Sites As noted on page 23, Economic Lands Study, Part 1: "Most of the industrial demand (in Bend) has been for one-half to two acre sites, with only a few new developments exceeding five acres. " The rate of demand for industrial land in Bend overall is dissimilar to the rate of demand for large industrial sites. The Economic Lands Study Part 1 (page 24) appears to be in error when it aggregates these two types of demand into one "rate of demand for industrial sites adjusted with large site user needs". The first concern is that in doing so the City is double counting the need for large sites, because the base rate used (ELS, Part 1, page 23) already includes the acreage of large site absorptions that have occurred in the past. Equally, of concern, the future rate of demand for land in each category is dissimilar. Demand for Industrial Sites There is a history in Bend for demand for industrial sites generally. The best estimate of a. the future rate of demand for industrial sites in general is to use empirically determined historical rates of absorption of industrial lands of this type, such as the 10.6 acres/yr actual rate of absorption of industrial lands in Bend since 1997 discussed above. Demand for Large Industrial Sites Historically the City reports there has been little demand for large industrial sites. The demand for large industrial sites is fundamentally different from the demand for industrial sites overall. Due to the lack of empirical data on which to base a forecast, there will necessarily be much more statistical uncertainty associated with the forecast for large sites than for other industrial sites. Exhibit C Page ,-S— of i By aggregating these two rates of demand, one a continuation of historical patterns, one a wholly new pattern that is merely anticipated and almost wholly subjective, the City loses the relative certainty which can be attached to a forecast for industrial sites overall. It is to the City's advantage to know at least one of these rates with a high degree of certainty. The rate of demand for these two categories should not be aggregated, because to do so adds unnecessary uncertainty to the forecast need for industrial sites that are not large. To demonstrate a need for a UGB expansion in satisfaction of OAR 660-015-0000(14), the City must provide the most certain estimates possible regarding whether or not the current buildable inventory is sufficient to provide a 20 -year supply of 1) industrial lands in general and 2) large industrial sites. The City should separately calculate these two rates of demand, separately forecast the need for each type, and separately assess the current inventory of buildable lands to see if the needs for each category, separately, can be met. 3. Misapplication of Upward Adjustment Factor to Account for "Roads and Easements" This comment refers to Tables 15 and 16 of the Economic Lands Study, Part 1, and page 24. The upward adjustment factor of 10% to account for roads and easements appears to be applied in error to the forecast need total acreage. In fact, the 10% adjustment should only be applied to the additional acres needed beyond available inventory. Otherwise, gross acres are being subtracted from net acres, leading to a mistaken" y inflated estimate of the additional need for industrial acreage beyond inventory. Here, independent of other errors, the apparently erroneous application of this adjustment to gross acres overestimates the need for additional land beyond inventory from 139.7 acres (i.e. from Tables 15 and 16, 549-676=-127, 127 +10%127= 139.7) to 195 acres. 4. Failure to Demonstrate a Future Need for Large Industrial Sites in Excess of Buildable Inventory a. Anecdotal Evidence Insufficient While interesting, the anecdotal evidence provided by a single phone call regarding telephone inquiries from "an average of 10-12 industrial firms per year expressing interest in locating in the Bend area, but requiring sites larger than ten acres" (page 21 of the Proposal) is not sufficient to demonstrate a need for additional acres beyond inventory. Exhibit C' Page �_ of lo 4. Failure to Demonstrate a Future Need for Large Industrial Sites in Excess of Buildable Inventory Anecdotal Evidence Insufficient (cont.) Furthermore, this anecdote cannot be reconciled with the statement in the preceding paragraph on the same page (page 21) of the Proposal, that there are currently, in the spring of 2004, 5 parcels within the UGB zoned for industrial use that are 10 acres or larger in size. (The City should specify the size of these five (5) parcels, for clarity.) In addition, given this availability of 5 parcels each 10 acres or larger in size right now, it is invalid to conclude, on the same page of the Proposal "The lack of suitable, large -lot industrial parcels has caused these firms to look in other communities for sites that meet their needs" (page 21, the Proposal). The City should provide evidence beyond the impressions of staff at Economic Development for Central Oregon that the need for large site industrial acreage cannot be satisfied with the current available inventory. These opinions do not constitute a demonstration of the need to expand the UGB. A method for calculating a 20 -year supply of large industrial sites using the City's own data is suggested below. b. Calculating a 20 -Year Supply of Large -Lot Industrial Sites in Bend Some numerical data are provided in the needs analysis and the Proposal that can be used to create a separate estimate of the 20 -year requirement for large industrial sites, apart from the demand for other industrial sites. A transparent and defensible estimate of the need for large site industrial acreage beyond inventory may be calculated using the data and assumptions provided by the City as follows. From page 23 of the Economic Lands Study, Part 1: "For Bend, a large industrial site means 10 to 20 acres. " From page 21 of the Proposal, dated April 21, 2004: "It is now estimated that there are five ... parcels inside the UGB, zoned for industrial use, that are ten acres or larger in size." From page 24 of the Economic Lands Study, Part 1: "Based on local business retention and recruitment efforts, using an average of 15 acres every 5 years results in additional demand for 60 acres for large industrial users. " Exhibit � Page -7 of /o b. Calculating a 20 -Year Supply of Large -Lot Industrial Sites in Bend To summarize, based on the above data and assumptions provided by the City, the available supply is currently five (5) parcels of 10+ acres, while the demand projected by the City is for four (4) parcels of 10+ acres (i.e. one parcel every five years for twenty years). How large the currently available five parcels may be is not stated, however in 1999, of the seven large parcels then available, five of them were over 20 acres in size (ELS, Part 1, page 21, Table 14). Therefore using the City's own estimated rate of demand and its assessment of current availability as of April 2004, there appears to be an adequate supply of large lot industrial sites as defined by the City, in the current buildable inventory. No data have been provided to indicate the rate of demand for industrial sites has increased since the City completed its needs analysis. In its proposal to expand the UGB the City is relying heavily on anecdotal evidence. The City needs to distinguish between the evident desirability of having an adequate supply of large industrial sites on the one hand, which has been clearly demonstrated, and the need for expansion of the UGB in order to provide an adequate 20 -year supply of large industrial sites in Bend, which has not been demonstrated. 5. Apparent Errors in Estimation of Needfor 513 Acres of Land at Juniper Ridge The City is claiming a purported "need" for the addition of 513 acres to the UGB at Juniper Ridge. This is 209% of the 245 -acre figure that was the projected need for acreage identified in the needs analysis. To justify the inclusion of 268 acres beyond the 245 -acre figure, the Proposal double counts factors already included in the 245 -acre figure. The "need" for addition of 513 acres rather than 245 acres at Juniper Ridge is explained in the Proposal as follows (page 11): "only about 338 acres of the 513 total acres of this site would be developable, taking into account a number of large rock outcroppings, significant native plant communities, and other geographical constraints, as well as the need to construct major streets and provide open space and buffers adjacent to residential neighborhoods". Also on page 11, the need for an additional 268 acres at Juniper Ridge is purported to meet an "urgent regional and statewide need for large -lot industrial sites". (As noted above, this statement is supported only by anecdotal evidence.) a. Double counting of Land Needs for Large Industrial Sites The 245 -acre figure is based on a subjective upward adjustment to "include acreage that would be reserved only for large site users" (ELS Part 1, pg. 24). Because the "need" for additional land for large -lot industrial sites is already included in the forecast need of 245 Exhibit (-- Page 9 of /�') acres, the inclusion of additional lands for large site users is double counting this factor. This contributes significantly toward overestimation of land needs at Juniper Ridge. 5. Apparent Errors in Estimation of Needfor 513 Acres of Land at Juniper Ridge (cont-) b. Double counting of Land Needs for Roads The 245 -acre figure includes a 10% upward adjustment to account for "roads and easements" (ELS Part 1, Table 15). Because the "need" for additional land for roads and easements is already included in the forecast need for 245 acres, the inclusion of additional lands for roads and easements is double counting this factor. This contributes significantly toward overestimation of land needs at Juniper Ridge. c. Double counting of Land Needs for Buffers, Open Space, Canal Setbacks, etc. The 245 -acre figure includes a 28% upward adjustment to account for "buffers, open space, canal setbacks, etc." (ELS Part 3, Table 1 and text, 190 acres to 245 acres). Because the "need" for additional lands for open space and buffers and canal setbacks is already included in the forecast need for 245 acres, the inclusion of additional lands for open space and buffers is double counting this factor. This contributes significantly toward overestimation of land needs at Juniper Ridge. Conclusion The City has failed to demonstrate a need to expand Bend's Urban Growth Boundary as required by OAR 660-015-0000(14). The purported "need" for 245 acres of industrial lands in the needs analysis is cumulatively overestimated, incorporates mathematical errors, and is unnecessarily uncertain because it aggregates two dissimilar rates of demand. Our own calculations using the City's data show the current buildable inventory for industrial lands in Bend includes: 1) sufficient acreage to meet the 20 -year demand for industrial acreage in Bend overall and 2) sufficient acreage to meet the 20 -year demand for large industrial sites. The purported "need" for 268 acres beyond the erroneous 245 -acres figure, for a total of 513 acres at Juniper Ridge, includes double counting for the additional lands needed for roads, double counting for the additional lands needed for large industrial sites, and double counting of the additional lands needed for open space and buffers. We recommend the City 1) separately recalculate the rates of demand for large industrial sites, and for industrial lands overall; 2) separately forecast the need for each type, and; 3) separately assess the current inventory of buildable lands to see if the needs for each Exhibit Cr Page 9 of Io category, separately, can be met. In this way, the City will be able to determine with the greatest possible precision and accuracy the true forecast needs for additional industrial acreage in Bend. Thank you for your attention to these views. Sincerely, Phil Philiben Executive Director The Friends of Deschutes County Contact information: philphilAbendcable.com (cell) 541-390-9650 Exhibit Page of ID COST OF FARMING ACETI PROPERTY IN ORCHARDGRASS HAY Assumptions 12 acres to be planted in orchardgrass 6 ton total seasonal yield per acre at 2 ton per acre for 3 cuttings 10 year life of planting $ 8 per hour labor cost includes payroll taxes $65 per hour contracted harvesting cost Initial cultivation to be done by owner with own equipment and hired labor 2 wheel lines used for irrigation with some permanent set lines for corners $140 Potential sales price per ton Capital Cost 75 $1,333 Cuttings $37.03 Irrigate Harvest Cost 6 3 289 24 4.01 Swath 5 $975 Cost per Cost per Cost per Cultivation Ref. # Hours Labor Material Equipmt. 10.83 Activity Acre Ton (5) Spray 1 0 $0 $360 $0 $360 $3 $0.50 Rototill 12 96 0 200 296 2 0.41 Disc 4 10 80 0 60 140 1 0.19 Remove rock 16 128 0 25 153 1 0.21 Level 12 96 0 200 296 2 0.41 Seed 2 6 48 173 100 321 3 0.45 Fertilize 3 2 16 450 25 491 4 0.68 $464 $983 $610 $17 $2.86 Total Cultivation Cost $2,057 Total Annual Harvest Cost $3,120 Irrigation/fertilizer Cost Fertilize 3 1 16 1242 75 $1,333 Cuttings $37.03 Irrigate Harvest Cost 6 3 289 24 4.01 Swath 5 $975 $975 $81 $13.54 Rake 4 780 780 65 10.83 Bale 4 780 780 65 10.83 Haul 3 585 585 49 8.13 $260 $43.33 Total Annual Harvest Cost $3,120 Irrigation/fertilizer Cost Fertilize 3 1 16 1242 75 $1,333 $222 $37.03 Irrigate Annual Swalley Charge 289 24 4.01 Annual Standby Charge 39 3 0.54 Pumping Charge 562 47 7.80 Pipe Changing 2880 100 2,980 248 41.39 Total Annual Irrigation Cost Land Cost 7 Annual Property Tax Annual interest on land purchase Total Annual Land Cost Total Annual Cost per Acre Total Annual Cost per Ton Payback Analysis 8 $545 $90.77 $5,203 $914 $76 $12.70 $2,520 210 $35.00 $286 $47.70 $3,434 $1,091 $181.81 -1 Page 1 exhibit ?age of Exhibit g 0{ / S- ■ 0) E c 0 / CL n ■ 0 k Cl) 0 § co 2 ° \ tq � \ 2 ' :3 CL cr \ / C13e $ . o £ � § CL ° ' 0 E k k 2 ) C ■ _ 2 & @ . k cm d Ea 9 Cl) E 2 k - m 2 m o c ® @ W 0 CO / § % 2 § > CD ® D m > ® k= k N 0 � k 0) \ c % \ c cn = G 6 m » \ E c Cl) kcz q o $ $ 0 f 7 « f 7\ c ■2 @ .CL 0 0 / e CL / m k 0 / 0 2 0 C 7 c 2 .2 b / / / P-0 CL 0 - R o _ /Co 0 k k L C\l' 69. cr 7 @ 0 k § 7 ƒ k � 7 R $ \ • 0 / 0 CL § £ o o c o t e 0 7 m m 2 7% R o G @ 0 2 E @ o — n o 0 2 f k oCf) I . @ / k ƒ_ o 3\ a / c � m e Co 2 @ — & $ \ 2 / E a / d � Q e / G c o@ > 3 E 6s CIS m . a a) �N 00 \ cok a 5 U') 2 o ® \ @ q « 2 » 20 k § c 7 § k � _ 0 0 0 CD k / 0 2 cr f k § � 0 2 c 7 2 j 3 ƒ CL \ R / / z CZ o / CL / (0 m � # CD _ q m m m r- @ Exhibit g 0{ / S- ■ 0) E Underpass Highway Ov crossing IF Pi -AJL 0) 7z Cell 541-419-0858 Sales Delivery At Hwy. 97 and Tumalo Rd. TONY ACETI Hay Depot 1-541-382-7616 * 21235 Turnalo Rd. — Bend, OR 97701 10 . - . I I SHEET m W 00 "78th" Line cn S1 Line �j' 14+00 Q.Q 20,+ 4J . ..... - _ _L84 __ __ _ _ TF17W-�- . , _ _ UMAL_ - O e- Ple, 's "DM" Line .dot to Scale i I "Cl" Line Z" Underpass Highway Ov crossing IF Pi -AJL 0) 7z Cell 541-419-0858 Sales Delivery At Hwy. 97 and Tumalo Rd. TONY ACETI Hay Depot 1-541-382-7616 * 21235 Turnalo Rd. — Bend, OR 97701 10 YOUT , --- D4— r - ` 2+00 14�r _ IRKROA ; L" Line 'y / �! / (Canal Widenin41 ;'��__ i '� / "S2" Line / Line 1 / - ' 00 / / \ :. \RFK / _ • -/ , / anal Crossin , f / / / 1 r / I I /-xhibit 'age 3 of /r SGN G. KOLB \),T E S DESCHUTES MARKET RD. U'XING SEC. y OG THE DALLES - CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY R G. KOLB A.-N. Z DESCHUTES COUNTY HK ED.ROADI PROJECT FISCAL SHEET M. BERRY G 0 Div. No. STATE NUMBER YEAR No. oro �<�O PVD T. BLUST OREGON c�td� �p� W376-03 1997 FILE NAME( J:\ADCADD\CIVIL\P\GYK-SAVE\W376-03\PLAN 1. DWG LAND RESOURCE CONSULTING Planning - Developments - Monitoring ►; 64756 Saros Lane A.K. MAJORS Bend OR 97701 (541) 385-7866 5/1/02 TO: Deschutes County Land Use Planning Department FROM: A.K.Majors, Land Resource Consultant SUBJECT: Soil Evaluation to determine least suitable site for Construction of a hay and equipment storage building; Tax Lot 201 Map # 16-12-26C RE: November 6th, 19979 decision of Deschutes County Hearings Officer, CU-97-72/SP97-49 On March 29th, 2002, I was contacted by the owner of the subject property to review the decision of the Deschutes County Hearings Officer, mentioned above, and if applicable, conduct a soil evaluation of the north irrigated area shown on the attached map. The Hearings Officer's findings on page 7, section 3, stated: "However, there is nothing in the record to indicate the soils in this area are different from those on the rest of the property on which hay is being produced", and also stated "there is nothing in the record to indicate this area could not be irrigated and maintained in hay production". This report is presented to assess those two aspects. On April 23, 2002, I inspected the subject parcel and conducted a soil inventory of the north and south irrigated areas. Also, I observed the layout of the total parcel and the attached map is drawn to scale depicting the contents of the property. I attempted to dig four soil pits at random on the north irrigated area. Pit #I within the northern portion was the only one that contained any appreciable depth, and that was only 10" (Photos 13 & 14). The other three pits (photos 7 through 11) showed soil depths from 3" to 5" with large bedrock underneath. Soil pit # 4 (photos 7 & 8) in the southern portion was definitely the worst. As indicated by photos #2 & 3 (taken from the overpass) the light colored areas are very shallow soil spots underlain by exhibit ?age __� of �S bedrock. Grass production is very limited in this area. After digging these four pits, I walked around the northern irrigated portion testing soil depth with my shovel. Seventy percent of the time I would hit rock within 5 inches. As shown in photo #12, surface rock was evident in numerous places. Photo #4 shows rock piled in the Juniper tree area that was gathered from the northern area sometime in the past. In a striking contrast, the southern irrigated area contains much greater soil depth. As shown in photos 15 through 18, soil depth is up to 16 inches. Grass density and volume is much greater in the southern area vs. the northern. Some of the northern end of the southern portion indicates shallower soil, however, as indicated in photo #6, uniformity of grass production is quite good. The northern irrigated area is approximately 3.8 acres. Its very shallow soil greatly limits volume of production. Its limited size does not economically warrant having an individual wheel line. The wheel line used in the Southern area could be used, but this would be a cumbersome time- consuming process moving it back and forth through the underpass. Considering all the factors, it is my professional opinion irrigation is not a prudent operation within this northern area. Due to the 100' setbacks required from the Tumalo Road and Hwy 97, the NE Juniper area only leaves room for the proposed equipment display site. The Northwestern portion with the present and proposed structures and required large vehicle maneuvering area does not afford any additional area for another building. In conclusion, it is my professional opinion based on the results of my soil evaluation, that the total northern irrigated area is the least suitable area for the production of farm crops and livestock. This is in respect to the remaining portion of the subject parcel that is available to place an additional structure on. Sincerely, a and Re o G Attachment' tant "xhibit 7> 'age of ,- y Oregon nwodom R Kulongosla. GmuTyx April 12, 2004 Tony Aceti Aceti's Hay Depot 21235 Tumaio Rd. Bend, OR 97701 Dear Mr. Aceti, Department of Transportation Region 4 Program & Planning Unit 630S5 N. 1-liuhway 97 Suite 107 Bend, OR 97701 (541) 388-6248 FAX (541) 388-6361 rod. r.cathcart!ic,odot.state.onus Thank you for meeting with me to discuss the US 97/Deschutes Jct interchange. At your request I did some research and found the following. We are currently developing the 2006 — 2009 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). No improvements for this interchange have been proposed for inclusion in this STIP. The frontage roads that you have heard about are referenced in two separate documents, the U.S. Highway 97 Corridor Strategy (Madras — California Border), and the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP). The frontage roads are part of a four phase approach to facilities management and improvement. The idea is to phase in improvements as follows: passing lanes at 3-5 mile spacing; continuous four lane section; grade separate the higher volume road intersections; full access control with median barrier and frontage roads. Since the Corridor Strategy and the TSP are both planning documents intended to provide management principles and guidance the phases are intended to be flexible guidelines rather than rigid steps, the order and application of various improvements may change as needed. You also inquired about our plans for the US 97/Gift-615` intersection. This intersection is not specifically identified in any plan at this time. The management of this intersection would be guided by the two documents identified above as well as the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. Thank you again for your inquiry, please contact me again if you need additional information. Respectfully,�7 Rod Cathcart Transportation Analyst cc. Jim Bryant, ODOT Region 4 Program and Planning Manager xhibit l7 ?age (o of /S To Whom It May Concern: The Juniper Ridge Expansion of industrial land is needed and we support it's approval. However as business owners at Deschutes Junction, we feel the area at the Deschutes Junction / Highway 97 overpass .should also be considered for re -zoning. There is. an ever increasing urbanization and industrialization of the area, both planned and unplanned. The completion of the overpass to -Deschutes -Market -Road will create more of this type usage. The increased usage of the area with only one section of the overpass completed, has already caused a large increase in truck and automobile traffic from existing businesses. We would appreciate the county considering a defacto zone change to this area rather than allowing piece by piece, creeping urbanization and industrialization as is now the case. OF gene S. Carsey Mike K. (Buffet Flat Antiques /-Th6 Funny Farm) exhibit D ?age -7 of _/�� Harry & Bev Fagen 53 NW Tumalo Ave. Bend, OR 97701 Deschutes County Commissioners 1130 NW Harriman St. Bend, OR 97701 RE: Juniper Ridge Expansion Dear Commissioners: August 10, 2004 With increased urbanization and industrialization of the Deschutes Junction it is obvious that there is a need for change to the zoning of that area. We support the approval of the Juniper Ridge Expansion. However, as property owners at Deschutes Junction/Highway 97, we feel it is important for a "further -sighted" land use plan of Deschutes Junction. As part of this, the land owners and businesses in the area around the overpass should have equal opportunity to zoning. The completion of phase II of Deschutes Junction overpass and raised median of Highway 97 will result in potential closure of Pleasant Ridge Road. Commuter traffic will be using Deschutes Junction even more, further impacting our property at the junction. The deceleration lane on Highway 97 South onto Tumalo Road is a significant problem --one that has resulted in damage to our fence numerous times and must be addressed for the safety of all motorists on Highway 97. The Northbound deceleration lane on Highway 97 should also be made more safe. We thank you for your time and consideration. We invite you to evaluate for yourselves the Deschutes Junction area to understand our growing concern. It would be our pleasure to work with you and the City of Bend to create a more welcoming Central Oregon at Deschutes Junction. Sincerely, Harry and Bev =gen � /n YJ; L(J f exhibit ?age -of WA PAC1F1C POWER A PacifiCorp Company Mr. Tony Aceti Hay Depot 21235 Tumalo Road Bend, Oregon 97701 Dear Mr. Aceti: Bend, Oregon 97702 Thank you again for your time today in speaking with me regarding property you own at Hwy 97 and Tumalo Road. As I mentioned Pacific Power is searching for an appropriate site to construct a new combined service center for our Central Oregon operations. Our needs require 10-15 acres with highway access preferably away from retail and residential areas for safety purposes. The day-to-day operation of a Pacific Power service center dispatches service trucks, line equipment vehicles with pole trailers and receives inventory of heavy equipment via semi truck trailer. We currently conduct this activity on a busy Bend city street with access that often finds us obstructing traffic flows and adding significant time to work schedules. The 13 acres of property you have for sale west of Hwy 97 and north of Deschutes Junction appears suitable for our needs. Because we serve the communities of Bend, Redmond, Prineville and Madras this site would allow Pacific to become more centrally located to our service territory and therefore responsive to outage calls without adding significant travel time to new construction. Pacific Power is a regulated utility under strict scrutiny to make investments prudently as we are doing so in behalf of rate payers. Should the Oregon Public Utility Commission find us outside of what is considered "reasonable and prudent" these costs may not be recoverable. Opening a discussion with you for the purchase of acreage near the $5.00 per foot range represents a value Pacific could consider. It is my understanding this property is currently zoned Exclusive Farm Use. I have spoken with one county commissioner recently regarding a change and/or a conditional use to another piece of property zoned the same. Although much of the surrounding property is zoned commercial/small industrial, the commission's response indicated it was near impossible to change. Should you find an opportunity to shift this thinking and Pacific Power could' support your efforts in any way please call me. Regards, f VMA. A a Van Burger Regional Community Mgr . Pacific Power 201 SW Columbia Bcnd, Oregon 97702 Cc: K Hill, B Coates Exhibit ?age '9 of /Y- -0 PACIFIC POWER A PacifiCorp Compnuy Mr. Tony Aceti Hay Depot 21235 Tumalo Road Bend. Oregon 97701 Dear Mr. Aceti, venu, unWon vIluc July 23; 2Q0 Last January I wrote you concerning your property for sale on Hwy 97. As mentioned before Pacific Power is searching for a suitable site to construct a combined service center to consolidate our Central Oregon operations. Ydur property is ideally located at the center of our Central Oregon service territory and would lend itself to certain operational efficiencies. When we spoke previously you were attempting to secure a zoning change from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). 1 believe that if Pacific were to include a substation with our proposed service center this could be considered an allowed use under EFU. Although we have determined the need for additional substation facilities north of Bend, operationally this may not be our best application. Our criteria in siting a substation gives greatest consideration to a complex network of facilities, how we tie them together and to not building additional transmission lines. Locating a facility in close proximity to existing transmission lines often minimizes opposition from potential neighbors and governing bodies from which we need permits. As you continue your efforts to re -zone your property please keep Pacific Power apprised of your progress. Regards, tAnga Jacobson Regional Community Manager Pacific Power 201 SW Columbia Bend, OR 97702 3xhibit T9 'age /y of 13— 1 Community Development Department 0 � Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 77, 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ April 2, 2004 Mr. Tony Aceti (for pick-up) Re: Deschutes Jct. Interchange Handwritten Letter Dated 3/17/04 Dear Mr. Aceti, Thank you for letter discussing the Deschutes Junction interchange and requesting additional ,information. I have addressed your questions with both my responses and the responses I had received from the Road Dept. I requested information from ODOT, but have not heard from ahem regarding any future interchange plans we may not be aware of. 9. Are there any present or long-range plans to up -grade the west side of the interchange that involves taking more of my land (taxlot 209)? CDD response: There are no present or long-term plans to my knowledge that would require the need for the acquisition of any more of your land (taxlot 201). Road Dept. Response: We are not aware of any long range plans beyond Phase 11. Any future plans would be an ODOT decision. Phase II work will have no impact on taxlot 201. 2. What is the capacity of the interchange design and what is the volume of use at present? CDD response: What I have is the most recent average daily traffic counts for the two roads entering the interchange. Tumalo Road: 2,928 (2003), Deschutes Market Road: 4,594 (2003). This shows that 61 % of the traffic accessing the interchange or turning northbound on US 97, is coming from the Deschutes Market Road side. I do not know what the theoretical capacity of the interchange is but I'd estimate that it is below capacity now and will continue to be below capacity after the Phase II improvements are completed. 3. May I have a footprint of the completion of the interchange with the phase 11 design, and possible completion date? CDD Response: That plot plan (from the County Road Dept.) is attached. Road Dept. Response: The completion date for Phase 11 is on hold until the BLM Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan study is complete and a decision is made concerning a possible frontage road on the east side of Highway 97. We are carrying the Exhibit Quality Services Performed zoith Pride 'age of S monies for Phase 11 in our budget in case it does get approval from the Board for construction. Hope these responses are satisfactory. Sincerel�� �3 'Steve Jorgensen Senior Transportation Planner .Deschutes County Planning 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 Exhibit_ ?age /,? --of is Y3, -v a N m --- C ' _T --�LA Rp Exhibit ,age of I J' 0 D n r V) rrm N ,som b Y3, -v a N m --- C ' _T --�LA Rp Exhibit ,age of I J' Pi r"""i Windermere C O M M E R C 1 A l July 22, 2004 Tony Aceti 21235 Tumalo Rd. Bend, OR 97701 RE: Market and Practical Needs for Deschutes Junction Dear Tony: I am a broker with Windermere Commercial Real Estate, formerly with Kerr, Oliver, and Brock Commercial Realtors. I have been working exclusively in the commercial arena in Central Oregon since 1992. Before that I was an exclusive commercial agent in the San Francisco Bay Area for five years. I've handled most of the commercial transactions in the Redmond Commercial market and North side of Bend for the past several years. My evaluation as to the highest and best use for your 22 acre property at Deschutes Junction located at the intersection of Highway 97 and Tumalo Road in Deschutes County, is to make a Master Plan for your property with mixed uses including Rural Service Convienience (RSC) zoning, which is a county zoning designation for retail and service uses that benefit nearby population bases that live outside the typical commercial zones located withinI the urban growth .boundaries of both Bend and Redmond. My data shows that there is a population base of over 4000 people within a one mile radius of your property that is located directly between Redmond and Bend, that do not have the availability of goods and services within reasonable distance. Your property, being located at the midpoint between Redmond and Bend, and having safe access from Highway 97 via the Deschutes Junction interchange project, is ideal for retail and service uses to accommodate this population base. In addition, the location of your property is ideal for accommodating travelers that can have easy access from Highway 97, that do not wish to enter the traffic areas of Redmond or Bend. Your property rests m the midst of other specialized zoning such as the School next to you and Rural Industrial Zoning next to you to the East. The impact of the exchange makes your property impossible to use as farmland, therefore, I believe your property's Windermere/Redmond-Commercial113 639 SW Highland Avenue • Redmond, Oregon 97756 • Business (541) 548-2772 Fax (541)548-9103 • www.windermere.com Exhibit ?age /I/ of lS highest and best use is RSC Zoning for Retail and Service users that could benefit from your location. Prime candidates for you property would be fueling centers for cars and trucks, eating establishments, and small retail service users. I have had parties, such as above, interested in your property if a re -zone would occur. Please call me if you have any more questions at 541.548.2772. Sincerely, S. Cleve Brock Windermere Commercial Exhibit 7) Wage /.h of /,S-
