Loading...
2004-1359-Minutes for Meeting November 08,2004 Recorded 11/12/2004CHUTLFDS CJ NANCY 7004.1359 NANCY BANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 11/12/2004 03;15;25 PM 111111111111111111111111111 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 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2004 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St.., Bend Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tom De Wolf. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Department; Joe Studer, Forestry Specialist; Gary Judd, Road Department; George Read, Tom Anderson, Devin Hearing and Paul Blikstad, Community Development Department; Dave Lilley and Jeanine Faria, Finance Department; media representatives Barney Lerten of bend com and The Bugle, and Chris Barker and Lily Raff of the Bulletin; and approximately sixty other citizens. Chair Daly opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was a Discussion of the Reading of a Proclamation, Declaring November 9, 2004 OnGuard — Community Watch Recognition Day in Deschutes County. Marie Phyllis, Executive Director of the Retired & Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP), and Lawrence Blakeslee, the Project Manager, gave an overview of the program. The program enjoys widespread support of government agencies and law enforcement. The volunteers watch for suspicious activities in the area, and many of the volunteers are delivery truck drivers who have been trained in how to spot suspicious activities while they are making their deliveries. Mr. Blakeslee then read the Proclamation to the audience. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 1 of 24 Pages DEWOLF: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 3. Before the Board was a Presentation regarding the Proposed Badlands Wilderness Designation. Bill Marlett, the Executive Director of the Oregon Natural Desert Association; Dr. Stu Garrett, and Kevin Lair of Wild Birds Unlimited joined him. Mr. Marlett stated that the primary reason for their visit is to present a petition signed by many of the property owners who have land near the proposed Badlands area. He also acknowledged the work of the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, Central Oregon Irrigation District; several citizens who are very involved in the project. Mr. Marlett then gave a presentation of the proposal. His presentation emphasized the unique geologic, plant and animal treasures found in the area. This project has been coming together for nearly twenty years. Four land exchanges would be part of the project to help consolidate and manage the area; approximately 1,100 acres would change hands. The Bureau of Land Management would make its own appraisal of the lands before any exchange would take place. He pointed out that recent polls indicate a majority of local voters support the Wilderness designation, and the proposal also has the backing of many organizations and over 150 local businesses. Kevin Lair of Wild Birds Unlimited explained that as a business owner, and also on a personal level, he supports this designation, which he feels would be an economic benefit for the area. He then gave an overview of who he believes would visit this area, many of whom would come to view the wildlife. These visitors generate a lot of income for local businesses. He stated that this kind of habitat is not typical of other local wilderness areas. The type of uses taking place now, primarily cattle ranching and off-road vehicle use, negatively impact the wildlife; and those people who watch and photograph wildlife find it difficult to do so under current circumstances. A wilderness designation would help alleviate this problem. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 2 of 24 Pages Dr. Stu Garrett, a local family doctor, said he has been working on this issue for about twenty years. One of the most significant happenings was an extensive study done by the BLM; they advised Congress that this area is suitable for a wilderness designation. The U.S. Geologic Survey has also sent staff there, and found that there are no significant public resources on the property. A lot of roads have gone in and many old junipers have been cut, and Indian pictographs have been damaged as well; the BLM feels this is an important issue and is addressing these problems. There are already hundreds of thousand of acres of trails and roads in the same area for off-road vehicle users. He noted that politics tend to be local, and issues like this need government support to succeed. He added that he hopes to see this area kept in its original condition so future generations will also be able to enjoy the area. The area is closer to town and more accessible to residents that the high altitude wilderness areas. He explained that Commissioner Daly's family moved into the area in the 1800's and therefore Commissioner Daly has a strong sense of historic preservation. He said that Commissioner Luke has worked very hard towards economic development in the area. And he added that Commissioner DeWolf moved into the area in the 1970's and like many others, enjoys the unspoiled areas which his family has enjoyed. If the Board of Commissioners supports this effort, Senator Wyden and Representative Walden will help with making it a reality. He asked that the Commissioners formally support the designation. At this time he presented copies of the petition to the Board. (A copy is attached as Exhibit B) Marilyn Miller, the Conservation Chair of the Juniper Chapter of the Sierra Club, then spoke. She noted that the Bend area is growing rapidly, and this is a wonderful opportunity to support preserving 37,000 acres for local residents and visitors. She said that she is a professional photographer and author as well as an avid birder, and has documented many times the problem of illegal off- road vehicle use. Some very old growth timber has been cut down illegally, and they need protection. Also, petroglyphs and historical caves and overhangs have been damaged by vandals. There's a lot of target shooting taking place, and trash and bullets are left behind. This activity also frightens the wildlife and people trying to enjoy the area. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 3 of 24 Pages She said there have been bird surveys done, and there are over seventy species using the area, including nesting golden eagles and other raptors. The people wishing to protect the area have conducted trash pickup events over the years; they also have collected over 500 signatures in support of conserving the area; these were presented to Senator Ron Wyden. She said she and her group are asking for the support of the Commissioners in protecting this unique area. Commissioner DeWolf noted that the Oregon Hunters Association is listed as supporting the proposal. Ms. Miller advised that they emphasize responsible use of guns, and the problem is target shooters who are irresponsible. The area would not be closed to permitted hunting. Commissioner DeWolf noted that this is an awkward situation for him. He has visited the area and feels that it is unique and wonderful, but closing ten miles of roads is a big deal to some citizens. The Commissioners would like to hold joint public hearings with Senator Wyden and Representative Walden, because people from various sides of the issue need to be heard. He said that personally he likes the idea of setting the area aside, because of irresponsible people and vandals. He asked that everyone be patient and give the Commissioners and Senator Wyden and Representative Walden some time to work through the process. Commissioner Luke noted that as members of an elected body, they cannot make decisions by listening to one side of an issue; he wants to have public hearings to hear from everyone who wishes to participate. He said he knows the land well, and as a Scoutmaster took his Troops to the area. He also wrote about this area for an Oregon State University geography class. He stated that some people want to modify the proposal, and it is not fair to make this kind of decision without hearing from everyone. Commissioner Daly said that he agrees with the other two Commissioners' statements, but is personally leaning towards supporting the designation. He has heard from some off-road vehicle users. However, he noted that they have many miles of roads and many acres available to them already. However, he stated that he feels it is important for everyone to have an opportunity to speak on this issue. Craig Miller, President of the Oregon Natural Desert Association, asked why those who are opposed to the designation did not attend today's meeting. Commissioner DeWolf stated that the meeting agenda is distributed through the media and is on the County's website, but not everyone would have been aware of it. Commissioner Luke noted that it was listed as a presentation, not a Board decision. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 4 of 24 Pages Mr. Marlett stated that they had hoped to get an endorsement, but primarily wanted to present information to the Board. 4. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2004-504, a Services Agreement with the Heart of Oregon Corps to Accomplish Hazardous Fuels Reduction Work on County -owned Property. (Commissioner DeWolf left the meeting for a few minutes.) LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. (Commissioner DeWolf returned to the meeting.) 5. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Chair Signature of an Intent to Award Contract Letter for the Knott Landfill 2004 Rock Removal Project. Timm Schimke gave an overview of the work to be done. The apparent low bidder, L & H Grading, did not present a full packet of documents as required by the bid criteria. An amendment extending the time period for two weeks for the work to be completed was distributed, and L & H did not acknowledge this change. However, this omission would not cause harm to the County. Commissioner Daly said that his concern is that the bid packet states that all items should be returned, no matter what the documents are. It sets precedence to waive this requirement. Commissioner DeWolf noted that it will be appealed in any case. Mr. Schimke stated that if there is a lengthy delay, the winner might claim the work is more expensive; otherwise, there is no urgency. A hearing was set for Monday, November 22 at 10 a.m. at the regular Board meeting, in anticipation of an appeal to the intent to award. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 5 of 24 Pages LUKE: Move signature of an intent to award contract letter to L & H Grading. DEWOLF: second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2004-088, Accepting Road Improvements and the Engineer's Report, and Setting a Hearing Date on the Final Assessment for Improvements in Kiowa Drive Local Improvement District. DEWOLF: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 7. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2004-089, Accepting Road Improvements and the Engineer's Report, and Setting a Hearing Date on the Final Assessment for Improvements in Bandley Road Local Improvement District. Gary Judd stated that this is located off Spring River Road, southwest of Sunriver. DEWOLF: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 8. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2004-090, Accepting Road Improvements and the Engineer's Report, and Setting a Hearing Date on the Final Assessment for Improvements in Oasis Drive Local Improvement District. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 6 of 24 Pages DEWOLF: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 9. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of the First Reading of Ordinances No. 2004-008 and 2004-009, Adopting of a Plan Amendment and Changing the Zone of a Parcel in the Terrebonne Rural Community from TeR-5 to TeR. Devin Hearing stated that the title should have read "consideration of the first reading of the ordinances." Also, the maps that were submitted to the Board were not accurate; however, the ones the Hearing Officer received were correct. TeR 5 is a five -acre minimum; it does not have the availability of water. Terrebonne Domestic Water cannot serve this property without this new designation. There is a plan to subdivide the property; hearings were held on the plat change and it was approved. Between last year and this year, the applicant filed for a partition on a different parcel, and it was adjusted on the Assessor's map but the GIS map hadn't been updated yet. Laurie Craghead explained that the Board is required to adopt the Hearings Officer's decision. The exhibit would need to change to match the one that the Hearings Officer approved LUKE: Move first reading of Ordinance No. 2004-008 by title only, subject to the map correction as recommended by staff. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Chair Daly then conducted the first reading of Ordinance No. 2004-008. LUKE: Move first reading of Ordinance No. 2004-009 by title only, subject to the map correction as recommended by staff. DEWOLF: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 7 of 24 Pages VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Chair Daly then conducted the first reading of Ordinance No. 2004-008. The second reading and consideration of adoption is scheduled for the Monday, November 22, Board meeting. 10. Before the Board was the Continuation of a Public Hearing (continued from October 13) and Consideration of the First Reading of an Ordinance for a Text Amendment to Titles 17 and 18 of the Deschutes County Code to Amend Cluster Development Regulations. Paul Blikstad gave an overview of the documents that had been received since this issue was addressed by the Board on October 13. He said that a Goal 5 analysis was brought up by Carol MacBeth, but it is staff's opinion that a Goal 5 analysis is not required. Also, the applicant's attorney, Liz Fancher, submitted an eight -page letter addressing the Goal 5 analysis, and she concluded that the analysis is not necessary. Staff agrees. Also received were letters from the 1,000 Friends of Oregon. It appears their main concern is the 150 -foot buffer being deleted from the cluster development requirements. The zoning covers cluster developments and planned developments; however, the 150 -foot buffer is required for cluster developments at this time but not of planned developments. There are two different standards. For example, Sunset View Estates off China Hat Road and Knott Road near Lost Tracks Golf Course is a planned development, and there is no 150 -foot buffer required. If it had been handled as a cluster development instead, density would have been much less. A 150 -foot buffer would have been required around all lots and all roads within the development. In staff s opinion, given the fact that outside the wildlife area combining zone there is a 65% open space requirement, and within the wildlife area you have to have 80% open space, the 150 -foot buffer is not a necessary standard anymore. The State has raised the minimum lot size in these rural areas to two acres. He said his personal opinion as a planner is that this is why the County isn't seeing any proposals for cluster developments. It can't really be done. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 8 of 24 Pages Commissioner Luke asked who presented comments to the Planning Commission. Mr. Blikstad stated that Paul Dewey had; but 1,000 Friends of Oregon had not. However, the arguments are basically the same in regard to keeping the 150 -foot buffer. Mr. Blikstad then addressed the issues listed in Mr. Dewey's letter of November 1. BLIKSTAD: In regard to his item #1, I don't remember any gross changes to 17.22.020, so I'm not sure what he's referring to there. On page 1 of his letter, item #2, he addressed 17.22.030, improvement requirements, the sentence is, "all roads and partitions shall be dedicated to the public, without reservation or restriction, except in destination resorts or cluster developments where private roads are allowed." His concern is that we are going to somehow allow planned or cluster developments, where their primary access is — not to the lots, but to the property that is being developed — his concern is that we are going to allow that to be a private road. It's our contention that that is not how this is written and that's not how it's interpreted by us. DEWOLF: We haven't done that in the past, have we? BLIKSTAD: No. LAURIE CRAGHEAD: Although it might not hurt to do exactly what Mr. Dewey suggested; to make it clear that it is within the internal structure of the development. BLIKSTAD: We're in total agreement with that. It's just a word change, from "in" to "within". His item #3, page 1, again I think we can use the term "within" to make it clear. Same issue, dealing with frontage. He had a concern, too, under item B. This Board made a decision on a partition out in the forest zone, and specified in that decision — the Thomas decision on Bull Springs — that even on Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management lands that they had to have at least twenty feet of frontage. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 9 of 24 Pages We're more than willing to write that into the Code. That's an easy fix. I think that's what he is referring to, that there should be some frontage standard even on Forest Service or BLM roads. CRAGHEAD: He also wants to make sure that it's clear that you have to have frontage, instead of decision it on a case by case basis. That it should actually be written in the Code. BLIKSTAD: He's also concerned about destination resorts. I only added that because even in destination resorts we have to apply Title 17, which is the County's subdivision partition ordinance. I guess I want it clear that road frontage standards in destination resorts are really subject to the conceptual master plan review, not necessarily anything in Title 17. CRAGHEAD: I think Mr. Dewey's point is whether this was included in the notice to DLCD. If not, that this should be left to a different time. DEWOLF: Was it? BLIKSTAD: It was not. CRAGHEAD: I think there could be an argument there, but there are also changes that can be made that come up during a hearing that you find out about. This particular Code provision was noticed to the DLCD, just not this particular change. The Board has a right to add other changes throughout the hearing process. This particular provision is somewhat unrelated to roads within a cluster development. BLIKSTAD: I have no problem striking it, if it's going to be an issue. DEWOLF: I'm fine with deleting it, if you think we can deal with it in other ways. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 10 of 24 Pages BLIKSTAD: It just makes it clear. For instance, with Pronghorn we set a standard in their conceptual master plan. So we don't even apply this. Technically I guess we should, but it is really superceded by the conceptual master plan. CRAGHEAD: I think you could include it or not. If you include it I don't know if he would have any argument procedurally, because you can add provisions that you determined are necessary. The purpose of it is to make sure that you deal with the roads up front in the conceptual master plan. I don't see any harm in that. The cleaner way to handle it would to be to not leave it in. However, if this were the only issue there probably wouldn't be an appeal on it. BLIKSTAD: We'll still apply the same standard. In Mr. Dewey's letter, item #4, page 2, he's addressed 18.128.200. This is the crux of the cluster development changes that we are proposing. This is item (b)(1) on the first page of our proposed changes, under 18.128.200(b). Again, their concern is that we are removing the 150 -foot buffer. Kevin Harrison did prepare some drawings as part of his memo to the County Planning Commission. It is our contention again that if you require this 150 -foot buffer, we won't see any cluster developments. It can't be done. CRAGHEAD: And to clarify, that's because the buffer is determined before you divide it into the cluster. There is a provision further down under (b)(3)(d) to require 100 - foot setbacks. BLIKSTAD: Their concern under item (b)(2) is the fact that we changed the definition of open space. This is a major point of contention with the opponents — what to allow in the open space areas. Mr. Dewey has requested specifically that we restrict or prohibit off-road vehicle use in these open space areas. I'm not so sure that this is a planning issue. Maybe I'll let Legal Counsel speak to that. If we put it in our Code, I don't know how enforceable it is from a planning standpoint. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 1 I of 24 Pages CRAGHEAD: Well, if you've got in the Code that it is illegal in open space property, and if the property owner is allowing off-road vehicle use, then it is a matter of Code enforcement. BLIKSTAD: We would be in total agreement with adding that language, that off-road vehicle use be prohibited in open space areas. I think that's entirely warranted, because I don't think it was necessarily allowed under the prior language. His item "d", again he reiterates the request that we leave in the standard that says that the development has to be on the least productive land. It is our belief that this language was put in at a time when you could do cluster developments in the exclusive farm use zone and the forest use zone, which you can no longer do. DEWOLF: So you're not talking about productive land. BLIKSTAD: For sure in the RR -10 zone land that we have, it wouldn't be irrigated. It wouldn't be RR -10 if it were; it would be MUA-10. If it has irrigation in the MUA-10 zone, it's our contention that this wouldn't impact that. Paul, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that MUA-10, although it means multiple use agriculture, is not necessarily agricultural. It's usually a rural residential type of zone. BLIKSTAD: That is correct. It is a rural residential designation. Again, it's our contention that this standard is no longer necessary. His item "e", at the bottom of his letter, states that, "We disagree that roads should be counted as open space." Now, here he is talking about roads that may be required to be dedicated — not necessarily built — but dedicated specifically if the County Road Department or transportation planner felt that a road across this particular piece of ground was necessary to provide access to adjacent lands. What the applicant has requested is that if you require us to dedicate that, that it can still be counted as open space. That's kind of an important decision point. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 12 of 24 Pages This came up with our County Road Department when this text amendment came through. You have parcels out there in the County that are in the outskirts and aren't necessarily right next to public roads. They could be landlocked. If you can get a public road to them, and then potentially develop that property as a planned or cluster development, the question becomes, does the County's overall transportation system need a road to get past that property or through that property to serve other land — to or through. That language was requested by our Road Department, that they have the ability to require these applicants to dedicate land — not necessarily build — but dedicate property for potential future public roads. The applicant came back with, if you are going to make us do that, how about letting us count that as open space. So that's an important issue. DALY: What if they are required to build it at the time; it wouldn't be open space, would it? BLIKSTAD: No, it definitely wouldn't be open space if we required them to build it. DALY: What if you require them to build it later? CRAGHEAD: Then the partition or subdivision has already been created, based on the cluster development standards. DEWOLF: I don't see how you can designate it as open space if it's dedicated for road purposes. BLIKSTAD: It's up to you. We don't have a recommendation on that. DEWOLF: I say no. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 13 of 24 Pages DALY: But it may never be built, either. CRAGHEAD: It's irrelevant. It's still available to build upon, and there's no way to take back a subdivision or partition. LUKE: You've got that in Terrebonne on the down side. We've had a lot of those where we did lot line adjustments, and people are farming it and have their fences right down to the public right of way. If you never build it, you can pretend it's not there. But if you ever have to build it, you've got a problem. DEWOLF: You shouldn't count it in the formula. BLIKSTAD: Okay. We will delete that proposed language. He has indicated that under the definition of cluster development, the change of language regarding commercial or intended uses is confusing. We didn't feel it was confusing; we indicated in the language in the last sentence, "no commercial or industrial uses prohibited by the applicable zoning ordinances are prohibited", and he suggested, "No commercial or industrial uses are allowed". CRAGHEAD: I think what Mr. Dewey is saying is that it is written exactly opposite of what you would normally write. He thinks it would be clearer — it's a wordsmithing issue. He wants, no commercial or industrial uses are allowed unless permitted in the zone". Something like that. DEWOLF: If it means the same, I don't care. BLIKSTAD: That's an easy fix. LUKE: Would a riding stable be considered a commercial use? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 14 of 24 Pages CRAGHEAD: It is also considered an agricultural use. I believe the way it is written is the riding stables would be allowed if it is for the property owners' use. If you are having lots of public come to it, that would be a commercial use. LUKE: So if you had a cluster development, like the one just outside of Sisters where they have open pastures and fenced areas for the horses, with houses along the outside, under the proposed change they could only offer riding lessons to people who live in the area. CRAGHEAD: I'd have to look further into it, but it seems the intention of open space is not to have more public traipsing through the open space areas. LUKE: As it is written now, those kinds of uses are allowed in agricultural areas. And that's what our ordinance says, that there can be no commercial or industrial uses that are not allowed in the zone anyway. And what you are saying now is that there cannot be any commercial or industrial, even if it is allowed in the zone. CRAGHEAD: No. If it's allowed in the zone, you can have the commercial uses in the zone, the way it is written. LUKE: I thought the current language says that if it is allowed in the zone, you can do it. What Paul was suggesting was "none". BLIKSTAD: No, he just didn't like the way we worded. He made the point that the ordinance doesn't say that you can't do these things; it says that you can do these things. LUKE: I see. It allows you; it doesn't disallow you. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 15 of 24 Pages BLIKSTAD: Exactly. I guess this is the last issue before the Board, in my opinion anyway. This is what open space is, and what is allowed as open space. They (the applicant) requested that we allow structures, including agricultural structures; that we allow driveways. CRAGHEAD: Actually, there are two issues. There are also some changes for destination resorts. DEWOLF: Well, if we are going to allow driveways to be open space, then I guess we should allow roads to be open space, too. BLIKSTAD: We were thinking more in terms of gravel or cinders, but not paved driveways. DEWOLF: But if I go in and do this development, and I'm counting on that as open space and later I go in and pave it, they no longer meet the provisions of the Code. Anything that someone is going to drive on, how can that be considered open space? What kind of structures are they talking about as open space? CRAGHEAD: Stables and barns. BLIKSTAD: They also suggested potential wildlife viewing blinds, elevated walkways, bridges, recreational facilities, park equipment and buildings — DEWOLF: Park equipment? So my tractor is now open space? BLIKSTAD: Swings, jungle gyms, things like that. DEWOLF: Well, someone is going to have to give me a better definition of open space, because I don't buy this. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 16 of 24 Pages CRAGHEAD: They also included community center buildings, utility facilities, and all sorts of things. DEWOLF: Are they throwing stuff up against the wall to see what will stick with us? CRAGHEAD: I think maybe some of them were thinking that these would be buildings where people would come to gather to use the open space. DALY: Who is suggesting this now, the applicant? BLIKSTAD: Yes. And the last thing they said was, "the percentage of open space developed with structures would not exceed 5%". DEWOLF: Of the total, or of the open space. CRAGHEAD: Of the open space. DALY: I could see a community center and what's around it as open space. CRAGHEAD: Although you don't know what all would be included in it, such as a pool, parking for traffic and so on. DEWOLF: What if you have two stories of 20,000 square feet each. Would that be a 40,000 square foot impact? CRAGHEAD: I think they probably are considering the footprint. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 17 of 24 Pages DEWOLF: I mean, if you restrict it to 5%, I'd be willing to talk about it some more. But it doesn't strike me that this is open space. DALY: It's an area that everybody can use, right? CRAGHEAD: It's a building; it's not open. DEWOLF: Community space is fine, but it's not what we are talking about here. DALY: Then what is open space; open to the sky? DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Is there a definition somewhere that says what it is? CRAGHEAD: That's what you are defining now. BLIKSTAD: This is a big issue, because this definition will apply to both wildlife area and non -wildlife area. DEWOLF: I don't buy it. MIKE MAIER: What about a golf course; is it considered open space? BLIKSTAD: It was, just the course itself. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 18 of 24 Pages CRAGHEAD: Right now the open space definition is unclear as to whether structures are a part of it. It does allow agricultural uses, but there is also qualifying language. So it's unclear. This would clarify and give some definition of what structures might be allowed in an open space. LUKE: There is a difference to me on what structures might be allowed in an open space, and if a structure is considered open space. To me those are different. CRAGHEAD: Except that if you are allowing it in open space, it is considered open space because you are including it in the definition. LUKE: I can see a footprint. I can see a fenced pasture as open space, with livestock or horses in it. I also wouldn't have a problem with a shelter for those animals in the open space. But I'd have a difficult time having a clubhouse be part of the open space. To me, there's a difference. BLIKSTAD: What about a barn? You said shelter. LUKE: To me, a barn is a shelter for horses or other animals. Is a riding arena? I don't think so. BLIKSTAD: Do you have any interest in setting a size limit? DEWOLF: I need to leave. I am late for an 11:30 meeting. I'll just listen to the tapes or whatever on what you discuss today. BLIKSTAD: I don't think we'll be making any decisions today. CRAGHEAD: But it is still a public hearing, because it was noticed as such. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 19 of 24 Pages DEWOLF: Okay. I need to leave. Commissioner DeWolf left the meeting at this time. BLIKSTAD: Would you like us to redo this? We could bring it back before you. I think open space is going to be the big issue. DALY: Is there a big hurry on getting this done? BLIKSTAD: Not from our end. But there is an applicant. CRAGHEAD: And, given Measure 37, we have to determine how this would all play into that as well. Measure 37 may have an effect on any action that's taken. We just won't know for a while what that effect will be. Chair Daly opened the public hearing at this time. PHIL PHILIBEN: I'm with the Friends of Deschutes County, and these questions regarding structures were raised before the Planning Commission. An animal shelter would be fine with me, but a clubhouse or pool would be far from what one would consider as open space. That's my comment. WILLIAM KUHN: My name is William Kuhn, and I live on Sisemore Road in the Tumalo winter deer range. I was able to download the items that were submitted, and in my reading of the various pages I did not see anything specifically addressing the minimum number of buildable lots in a cluster development. Is there any such addressing of that issue? BLIKSTAD: The minimum would be two per partition. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 20 of 24 Pages KUHN: In that case, I would strongly recommend that you increase that number to three. It is impossible to have two people in a cluster development agree on how to disagree. We have been trying to put language together that allows us to disagree on something and how to deal with that disagreement, and we can't do it. We also have questions about the access to the open space. Who has access to that open space? And, regarding the concept of inviting outsiders to this cluster development to be participating in something on that open space, you get into some OAR statutes regarding ownership of property. I think it's 105.672 in regard to the definition of ownership of that open space. And if one person is charging admission to come to that particular event, do the other people in that cluster development have an opportunity to participate in that income? Thirdly, I strongly suggest that there be a distinguishing between the open space in a winter deer range and all other development areas. I do think that there is a big difference between having an open space definition of a clubhouse in a winter deer range as opposed to a clubhouse that's not in a winter deer range. Would you please consider that. And I would also suggest, as a fourth item, that maybe it might be wise to have a public hearing on what is open space, or continue this hearing further to consider this. Thank you. At this time Commissioner De Wolf rejoined the meeting. BLIKSTAD: I like the idea of a list, and we may want to differentiate between open space in the wildlife area and open space in the non -wildlife wildlife area. That's something I'd like to take a look at. And then I'd like to take public comment on the list, because I don't think it's fair to the public if we just adopt. They should have the opportunity to review it. The hearing was continued to Monday, December 6, at the 10 a.m., Board meeting; and the issues to be discussed are not limited to just open space concerns. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 21 of 24 Pages The following items were addressed at the beginning of the meeting. 11. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Approval of Order No. 2004-092, Nunc pro Tunc, Authorizing the Advance of Taxes to Small Tax Districts for Fiscal Year 2004-05. Dave Lilley explained the reasons for this order. This helps to get taxes paid earlier, which helps the smaller districts; and saves the County a lot of administrative time. LUKE: Move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 12. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2004-093, Transferring Cash among Various Funds as Budgeted in the Deschutes County Fiscal Year 2004-05 Budget, and Directing Entries. LUKE: Move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 13. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2004-127, Appropriating New Grant Funds in the Health Department Fund for School -Based Nursing in La Pine and Increased Computer Security. Jeanine Faria gave an overview of the two grants; she said these two grants were not included in the budget, and the department now needs approval to expend the grant funds. The positions will be in place only as long as the grant funds are available. DEWOLF: Move approval. LUKE: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 22 of 24 Pages VOTE: DEWOLF: LUKE: DALY: Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. 14. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of an Oregon Liquor Control License Application for The Smoke Shack, La Pine. DEWOLF: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. LUKE: Move that the County bills for the week of November 15 be reviewed and approved by the Finance Director and the County Administrator. DALY: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Due to the lateness of the hour, those at the Board meeting were advised that the executive session previously noticed to immediately follow the Board meeting will be handled instead at 3:00 p.m. today, at the beginning of the Commissioners' regular update meeting with Community Development. Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair Daly adjourned the meeting at 11:57 a.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 23 of 24 Pages DATED this 8th Day of November 2004 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Tom`DeWolf, Comm' i ner Attachments Exhibit A: Sign in sheets Exhibit B: Copies of a petition in support of the proposed Badlands Wilderness Area Designation Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, November 8, 2004 Page 24 of 24 Pages 0 s 4 ' o w d � O Z d � x � LL e� O 4)r - i o C �V M M n CR` V t�a t C Cd CCL lU El V Z c �a Q S- xhi it D( Page _14- of Y cc O Oco � �j ''0 111111N L � U E o z � x cc LL 0 L. o r a CL ' ti N ^' V d d N N Q2 � o V � J to m Z Page _14- of Y cc O Contents Update on Badlands Wilderness Proposal Map of OHV trail system adjacent to the proposed wilderness Maps of proposed wilderness and associated land exchanges List of business supporters of Badlands Wilderness Bend city council resolutions in support of Badlands Wilderness • June, 2002 • April, 1986 Badlands poll results • May, 2004 • June, 2002 Bend Bulletin article on petition signatures Previous letter to county commissioners from local landowners For more information, please see ONDA's website: www.onda.ora Exhibit Page of November, 2004 Update on Oregon Badlands Wilderness Proposal Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) is collaborating with landowners, the local government, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), local businesses, and local recreation and conservation groups to secure support for designation of the Oregon Badlands Wilderness. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal would designate 36,505 acres as wilderness (see map) and includes the BLM-recommended Badlands Wilderness Study Area (WSA) managed by BLM's Prineville District. The proposal includes several land exchanges involving four local landowners and the BLM. The exchanges will adjust wilderness boundaries, secure two inholdings to enhance management by BLM, and consolidate land ownership. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF STAKEHOLDERS Ray Clarno Ray is a local landowner and grazing permittee within the Badlands WSA. Ray supports the wilderness designation and is planning to retire his grazing permit within the new wilderness to enhance wildlife habitat. This would allow for 50% of the proposed wilderness area to be cow free. Ray also supports a land exchange with BLM to consolidate both his and BLM lands and address wilderness boundary issues. Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) COID is interested in a land exchange with BLM to consolidate their existing land holdings adjacent to the proposed wilderness. ONDA is working with John Herlocker, Assitant Manager of COID. Hooker Creek Ranch Hooker Creek Ranch is interested in a land exchange with BLM to remove two 80 - acre inholdings from the proposed wilderness area. Matt Day, the owner and contact for Hooker Creek Ranch, is looking to identify a BLM parcel from their trade list. City of Bend The City Council has twice unanimously voted to endorse the Badlands Wilderness proposal, most recently in June of 2002 (see enclosed resolution). BLM ONDA staff have been working closely with BLM staff and managers. The BLM will further benefit from the proposed land exchanges and wilderness designation by securing better management boundaries, reducing user conflicts on an additional 4,000 acres, and consolidating public land ownership. Ad -Hoc Badlands Landowner Grouli A few years ago, fifteen landowners in or adjacent to the proposed Badlands Wilderness jointly submitted a letter to the County Commissioners endorsing wilderness. Now, in 2004, over 60 landowners have signed their names asking the Deschutes County Commissioners for their support of the Badlands Wilderness. Off -Road Vehicle Users Joanie Dufourd, a representative for local ORV interests, opposes the Badlands Wilderness proposal. Her concern (that the area will be closed to ORV use) is mitigated by the fact that: • The 199,465 acre Millican Valley/East Fork Rock ORV Play Area, located adjacent to the proposed wilderness area, provides ORV users with 643 miles of ORV trails (see map). In contrast, the proposed wilderness area will close less than 10 miles (about 5,000 acres) within the Millican Valley ORV area of seasonal dirt bike trails (open from May 1 st to November 30). • BLM is proposing to close the Badlands WSA to motor vehicles as part of their recent plan update. Additional information about Badlands is available on the Internet at www.onda.org Exhibit Page, 3 ofvs OHV Trail System and the Proposed Badlands Wilderness Designated OH Trail System , , Deschutes National , Forest i - Proposed Wilderness Area - 36,505 8 OHV Trail Svstem Area - 199.465 at N A Exhibit Cj> Page U1 A55 OREGON BADLANDS WILDERNESS AA T A - PROPOSED Legend and Statistics ss"ops Proposed Wilderness (36,505 acres) Existing WSA (29,814 acres) WSA to Non-federal (208 acres) Non-federal to Wilderness (635 acres) Mioldings (160 acres) Nonfederal Federally Administered Lands X WIMP- 1w, Oregon Nahrd DCserl AssadaHon April 17, 2004 1 0 1 2 8 Miles _ _ _ r ---- } f 1.cim Brno Exhibit C5 Page 0.5 of 35 County Line Rd \ \ \�•.. �L_ s Walker Rd • N r Exhibit d Page G;—of,' _ County Line Rd WWW Rd. PIN, llppoQ U —6 a Exhibit Page n of je CV Exhibit Page n of N Exhibit Page $ of \ �} \\ & { § 2 ff ..) � �(,}��� / f Exhibit Page $ of \ �} \\ & { § 2 ff ..) / f � \ ƒ \ \ \ ] cs Exhibit Page $ of . Proposed Badlands Wildernem Sfiatisties on Wilderness and Land lNebang",; source: OND A GIS revised 5/.1/04 Exhibit 6 Page �t(if Iro Wild 2, 9, fi, I 111,M (WSA) (228) RIAU (now-WSA) 6,165 Nonfeder.a.1 635 Inboldings119 Total (acres) rM"MRSEfts source: OND A GIS revised 5/.1/04 Exhibit 6 Page �t(if Nonfederal flderlf6O 100°/© 1,97.0 Clairno 239.0 100% 243.0 (4.00) COID 562.0 7% 697.0 (135.00) 159.0 100%undetermined undetern'q ned .. ............. ...... T otal (acre's)_ Note: 35 acres from COIR exchange will tmss-thni FILM to Clarno source: OND A GIS revised 5/.1/04 Exhibit 6 Page �t(if Badlands Business Supporters updated: 11-04 A Cup of Magic Donna Hoitsma, LMT Abracadabra Printing & Design Dotson's Photo Center Alder Creek Kayak & Canoe Eagle Creek Travel Gear Company Environmental Building Supply Art Impressions Family Health Care Center Unlimited ArcTeryx Bag Ladies of Union St. Be -Bop Biscotti Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream Bend Pet Express Big O' Bagels Bikram's Yoga Biscuits of Bend Blue Spruce Gallery & Studio The Book Barn Boomtown Brian Nelson Construction Bruce Jackson Photography Buttermilk Mountain Works Candlelight Dinner Cabaret Theatre Cascade Publications Inc. Chaco Cheryl Heinrich's Architecture CJI Construction Clarno Cattle Company Colors Full Spectrum Eatery Comfort Zone Coffee Shop Controlled Environments, Inc. Cork The Cosmic Depot The Curiosity Shoppe Curt Ringstad Fine Building D -Star Design & D -Star Laboratories Dana Nehl Bookkeeping Dancin' Woof Debra Burke Nutrition Counseling Dennis McKenna, CPA Deschutes Gallery Devore's Good Food Store & Wine Shop Fields Farms Finder's Keepers Fly Fishing and Outdoor Products FootZone Frame Design & Sunbird Gallery Frank Szczygiel Construction Geo -Spatial Solutions Glass Chameleon Gallery Good Life Acupuncture Great Harvest Bread Company Greg Burke Construction The Grove Restaurant and Lounge Half -Moon Outfitters Hilary Ort -Garrett, Physical Therapist Hooker Creek Ranch Hot Box Betty's Hummel, Doyle, and DeHoog. P.C. InClimb Rock Gym Interior Elements Iron Horse JB Davis Construction Jill's Wild Tasteful Women & Friends June Hog Art Company Juniper GIS Services Karen Bandy Design Jeweler Kelly Oberst Fine Building Kebanu Gallery Kirwin Communications Leapin' Lizards Toy Company Liberty Graphics Light of Venus Lin Alder Photography Living Earth GIS Longboard Louie's Lotus Designs Exhibit Page _IL— of _ Lubbesmeyer Fiber Studio Mark Monroe Enterprises Marz Bistro and the Astro Lounge Mels Antique Furniture Restoration Metolius Mountain Products Inc. Mid -Oregon Electrical Services Mockingbird Gallery Mondry Painting Montrail Mother's Juice Cafe Mountain Hardwear Mountain Laurel Physicians Movietyme Video Nancy P's Baking Company Nashelle Designs Nature's General Store Newport Avenue Market Nomad's Piercing Studio Northwest Adventure Of the Earth On the Way Bikes and Skis One Day Signs Oregon Body and Bath Orthopedic Massage Edu. & Research Institute Ouzel Outfitters Pandora's Backpack Parrilla Grill Patagonia Paulina Springs Book Company The Pennbrook Company Peter Geiser; American Express Advisors Pine Mountain Sports Pizza Mondo PonderFusion Portland Woolen Mills Powder house Ranch Records Rave On Ts RedPoint Climbing Supply Rising Star Futons RLX Ralph Lauren Ruff Wear Ryan's Deli & Catering Sage Creek Gardens Sage Custom Picture Framing Salomon North America Shevlin Commons Llc. Silver Moon Brewing Sky & Earth Designz Soba Noodles The Source Steve's Consigntime Strictly Organic Coffee Sun Country Tours Sunnyside Sports Taco Stand Topolino Trekkin' Tykes Outdoor Clothing The Village Baker Thomas Osborne Design Trivia Antiques Voila Fashions Wanderlust Tours Watergirl Weddings With Heart Westside Ride Westside Video Wild Birds Unlimited Wildflowers of Oregon Winter Farms Yarmo & Wasley Attorneys YES Electric Yoga & The Healing Arts Other Badlands Supporters: Bend City Council Oregon Hunters Association Central Oregon Trail Alliance (Local Mountain Bike Club) Juniper Group Sierra Club Exhibit Page _�2_ of 55 RESOLUTION NO. 2354 WHEREAS, the Badlands.area has received widespread support for inclusion in. the National Wilderness Preservation System, and WHEREAS, the Badlands is renown for its'lava outcrops, wildlife, wide :open . vistas and ancient petic oohs, and WHS UWt the designation of this land as a National WildoMap arca willpresoive it for futuro'geafttibns, now therefore, TIW,CITYC6UN=-DOM RBS%Vig as follows:. 1. That the Aadlands area tte ;adorsed for inclusion in the National Wilderness PiesemaonSystem: . 2, 'That a copy of this Rbsolutiom bo forwarded to the Bureau ofLand I�tanagament as ovidimo o of the endorsement by the City Commission. Adopted by-tho-aty Council tbis.5°' day of June, 2002 Approved by the Mayor. 9&,P- day if June, 2002 +50>__L xdlo+ --x°/0 t TO: Bill Marlett Oregon Natural Desert Association FROM: Lisa Grove and Ben Patinkin Grove Insight RE: Recent Polling Show Strong Majority Support Wilderness Designation for Badlands DATE: May 13, 2004 ' A Strong Majorityof 08.0hutes County Voters Favoethe Creation.of.4-Wilderness Area In the Badlands of Central Oregon Central.0rego„nlens-approve of the proposal tiD give the Badlands a federal Wilderness designation After explaining the proposal in a format that describes restrictions placed upon the land as a result of passage of a Wilderness designation, 57% of voters favor the proposal, while less than three in 10 (29X) were opposed. With a 28 percentage point favor margin this designation is clearly something Deschutes Coynty residents want. Nowt' rd like to get row<'e ctioFi io`a iwboual.'egu-dtrig ` the Badlands Central O on: The proposal, approv d y : would d finite ibiif17. acres of (eder}I land as a Wilderness area 1`f1e area is currently ri in*dW" Bureau of ; rad mttkima f ar` "BL MI ". Under this Wilderness dosig�ation,A motorized rehidss siidr a tri; iiirt'bfkes i�►d•UI'--kerrainvdhides Would not be allowed withln the designated Wilderness area and l`a ri ki of wdtdng, jeirvrodfid motor6ed vehicle trails would be dosed, Hiking, horse bade riding anti hunting would still be allowed. This arrangement is similar to oth`er'designated Wildemeis areas in Central Oregon such as Three'Slsters and Mill Creek. Doyou favor or oppose designating this area ai Wilderness, or aren't you sure( Favor, strongly 48% 57% Favor, not strongly 9% Oppose, not strongly 9% Oppose, strongly 20% 29% Undecided 15% Exhibit Page eJ of _ Views are more strongly held'on the support side, with nearly half (48%) supporting the plan "strongly." Indeed, strong support outpaces strong opposition by 28 points.. Contrary to conventional wisdom, even Republicans are more inclined to support than oppose the designation. In fact, opposition to the wilderness designation has fallen in this county by six percentage points since the last poll on this subject in June, 2002. In 2002, Democrats and young women were the most likely to support a Wilderness designation and Republicans, men and those aged 40-49 were the most likely to be opposed. To be clear, opposition did not outpace support among any single subgroup in the 2002 survey. Awareness of the Proposed Wilderness Designation Increases. From 2002 Not only has .the margin in support of the proposal increased, familiiarity with issue has grown as well. Wilderness designation for the Badlands is an issue with which two-thirds (66%) of Deschutes Countyy voters are familiar. This represents.a twenty pereentaSe point increase since 2002. Two years ago, less than half (46%) were aware.of:this'.issue: ; • am$ GWe*W9 �a>1-?bpular Political Figure in-Des'c�i�tas Con i Tl e` Co gi'essman receives enviable favorability ratings (M%. - a'vori�ble,.1=1 %. . wnfairorable), iikA; i etbrate overall, Walden Ua s, areB ore-ihiot(nedFW#upparbithts_ {�rQposal n.oppds0.4p* favor, 33X oppose) Nose wrath fa�ioi ble }views of tF►e County E Board of-Comrrii_¢a10nee5 also -support the Wilderness designation' y%a margin of40 peecentage . . Exhibit 5 Page tlp of 33. TO: FROM: RE: DATE: +5#> <--x%;t roVe V quirk R04. INN Bill Marlett Oregon Natural Desert Association Lisa Grove and Ben Patinkin Grove.Quirk Insight Recent Polling Show A Majority Support Wilderness Designation for Badlands June 26, 2002 A Majority of Voters Favor the Creation of a Wilderness Area in the Badlands of Central Oregon Central Oregonians approve of the. . .proposal to give the Badlands a Wilderness designation. After explaining the proposal.in. a format that describes restrictions placed upon the land as a result of passage.of a Wilderness designation, 54% of•yoters approved, while only 35% were opposed. With a 19 percentage point favor margin this designation is clea'rlysomething Central Oregonians want. Views are more strofi* field on the support side. Indeed, strong support Now rd Jake to get your reaction to a proposal regarding the Badlands area in Central Oregon. The proposal, if approved by Congress, would designate about 37,000 acres of federal land as a Wilderness alrea. The wea h currently managed by the Bureau of Land Manageiaent or Under this Wilderness detignagon, all motorized vehldes such as trucks, din bikes and ail-temin vehides would not be allowed wkhin the designated Wilderness area and 10 n4as of existing. yearvround motorized vehide trails would be dosed. Hikkag, horse back riding and Nnuing.would still be allowed. This arrangement is similar to other designated Wilderness areas in Central Oregon such as Three Sisters and MAI Creek Do you favor or oppose designating this am as Wilderness, or arerr'c you street Favor, str+oaVy .44%- 64% Favor, not strongly 10% Oppose, not strongly 10% Oppose, strongly 25% 3S% Undecided outpaces strong opposition by 19 points. Democrats, especially younger (under 50) Democrats and young women, are most in favor. Of those opposed. to.•the.proposal themost strident are Republicans, those age 40 to 49, men and Crook County voters. Thoagh to be clear, nearly every demographic subgroup is; more likely to support than oppose. the Wilderness designation. The only demographic sub -groups where opposition outpaces support is among Crook County voters and Republican men. Undecided Exhibit Page la— of voters tend to be older voters, primarily those age 50 to 59, older Democrats and older women. The Natural Importance of the Badlands Area Is a Compelling Reason to Support the Proposal The natural and geological uniqueness of the Badlands area is a compelling reason for voters to support the proposal. One-third (35%) of those surveyed say that this makes them much more likely to be in favor of the Proposal while only 17% say that this makes them less Let me tell you a little more about this Badlands area. This area is winter habitat for deer and elk and many species of birds. It also includes one of the oldest.stands of juniper trees in Central'Oregon, unique geological formations and several Indian petroglyphs. Currently, it is designated a BLM Wilderness Study Area, which means most of It is already closed to motorized vehicles. Does knowing this make you more or less likely to support Wilderness designation or doesn't It make a difference to you either way? Much more likely 35% Somewhat likely 12% No difference 36% . .Somewhat less likely 6% Much less likely 11% likely to support it. Thosemost persuaded by this argument (35%) include Democrats, Independents, older women and women in Deschutes County. This argument is also persuasive to undecided voters. The area's`uniqueness should be,a central part of..ONDXs communications strategy. Some Voters Appreciate That`Motorized Tralis Will Still Be Open When told that the proposal would not affect over 200 miles. of,adjacent off- road trails, most (49%) say the issue does, not affect them either way. One-fourth Even If this propoW ls•approyed, over 200 miles of.e�d$ft motorized trails adjacent to the designated a.wrould remain open for use on BLM lanrea ds. Does knowing this . make you more or less likely to support vWderness designation or.doesrlt It make a difference to you either. wayt .Muchmore likely 25% 38%_ Somewhat Nkely 13% No. difference . 49% Somewhat less pktly 6%. . Much less likely 7% 13% (25%) claim that it makes them more likely to support the proposal. Of the 25% who become much more likely to support the pr PO Independents, young Democrats, and Democrats in Deschutes Countytop the Iist...Only, l 3% ;claim that it makes them .less .likely to supportit. These, include Republicans and Aider men..It should.be noted that.44% of undecided voters find the argument to be persuasive. This .message clearly reassures voters still on the fence that the .proposal will. not completely close off the .Badlands to all motorized activities. Therefore it should be a component of ONDA's message. Exhibit S Page A'j!� of " to N G> vi wC7 V �'� c� 0 Q) wD d ..: F,, M - 6, , G 'b b O vi Q CA w .0 U _--8 G %., y G° o a� a as a� N ro vi G a�2' o �� ° Q" v �• �ro 2 "v ani 010 ,n d w v, a•..� cd O v ed atw 00) to o W y u 0 d v a oa ca o co ; b v �do ' o ^ g o G tea�G R v�C0C��F-4 C) O0) +'��oro� yv ME E Gcd ,�'} E+ ,� d R" ❑ y W y ¢ cn v ro O F. 4 +, ti � p .G '� bD � roG O bnPk G cd .G •'" W aro a d) y 'o"- ~ v w O VGu�Od~i m��vW ca y aiv W o G o - mqcd aim oCP .G va�"i O z w.a w o o,9 o N �W o � nn G0�0� ~mac o ca"cto q � 4 vGi r�{' vGp'�+ Oro bO O Aro V O V ce,, N y .7 �'i!i4M.b to a� Ob y v UQa o �' iei t, F. c .G, . V O G3, V cG y d,Gw jy"'' O pa -o 'C'� m w OZo ^ O V) �lz O by N 4) R O .G trod OEn V 0 �= �o 5,.cy O W -o t D cd 2 +a °�'� y y 4.1 p 4i cc�d G O O �a � G G G cd G Ga, ro oU) ar v cd U Exhibit Page of Qr 4 ��„+�+' C 0- N N ^ — E b14 d zd�°oa ob 3 O��Ew O O c "� rr a 1 O cd 4) a .8 t3 2 oc to N G> vi wC7 V �'� c� 0 Q) wD d ..: F,, M - 6, , G 'b b O vi Q CA w .0 U _--8 G %., y G° o a� a as a� N ro vi G a�2' o �� ° Q" v �• �ro 2 "v ani 010 ,n d w v, a•..� cd O v ed atw 00) to o W y u 0 d v a oa ca o co ; b v �do ' o ^ g o G tea�G R v�C0C��F-4 C) O0) +'��oro� yv ME E Gcd ,�'} E+ ,� d R" ❑ y W y ¢ cn v ro O F. 4 +, ti � p .G '� bD � roG O bnPk G cd .G •'" W aro a d) y 'o"- ~ v w O VGu�Od~i m��vW ca y aiv W o G o - mqcd aim oCP .G va�"i O z w.a w o o,9 o N �W o � nn G0�0� ~mac o ca"cto q � 4 vGi r�{' vGp'�+ Oro bO O Aro V O V ce,, N y .7 �'i!i4M.b to a� Ob y v UQa o �' iei t, F. c .G, . V O G3, V cG y d,Gw jy"'' O pa -o 'C'� m w OZo ^ O V) �lz O by N 4) R O .G trod OEn V 0 �= �o 5,.cy O W -o t D cd 2 +a °�'� y y 4.1 p 4i cc�d G O O �a � G G G cd G Ga, ro oU) ar v cd U Exhibit Page of TO: County Commissioners Linda Swearingen, Chair Dennis Luke Tom DeWolf FROM: Citizens for the `Badlands" SUBJECT: Request support from the County Commissioners to formalize the Badlands as a Wilderness'Area In the late 1970s, 34,000 acres were identified as the Badlands wilderness study area by the. BLK located 10 miles southeast of Bend. Under the Wilderness Act, if the Badlands is designated a Wilderness Area, there would be no changes pertaining to the gazing practices by permittees, including hauling of Water and gathering of cattle. The'major change for the public would include the elimination of motorized vehicles within the Badlands except for permittees in making use of their grazing permit. Based on the study, the US Interior Department declared the Badlands a Wilderness Area in 1991. In October 1992, President Bush also signed a declaration recommending the Badlands as a Wilderness Study Area. Since 1992, no further activity to formalize the . designation of the Badlands as a Wilderness Area has occurred: Over the past 15 years we have seen a continued decline in the. quality of the Badlands due to undesirable and illegal activities, almost 100 percent relating to the.use of motorized vehicles. The many hikers and people on horseback are disturbed with the noise and destructive activities. Property owners bordering the Badlands are experiencing destructive activities by individuals coming on and off the Badlands in their vehicles, such -as fence cutting and destroying gates. Following are a few of the most common illegal activities taking place on the Badland Wilderness Study Area: • Fence cutting • Destroying of gates 9 Cutting trees • Taking rock formations • Dumping garbagetfurnituretwaste • Campers leaving trash • Stripping stolen vehiclesAeaving stripped vehicles behind Exhibit Page r.Q_ of 3 • Cross country travel • Bon fires and partying during fire season • Trespassing onto private property • Livestock killed by arrows and bullets ''r O N r.- BLM BLM personnel have been ineffective in curtailing illegal activities in the Badlands due to a shortage of funds and regulatory personnel. Within the past two years, the BLM has attempted to use signs to inform the public of the legal and illegal activities allowed in the Badlands area; however, continued increase in population of the Central Oregon area has resulted in continued illegal activities in the Badlands area. Formalizing the Badland and reduction or eliminationof motorized vehicles in the area will allow BLM personnel better opportunities to manage the land at a lower cost. The major difference of designation the Badlands from'a Wilderness Study Area to a Wilderness Area will be the reduction of motorized vehicle activity. Your consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated. �j c� Exhibit Page 2,_ of County Commissioner Work Session November 8th, 2004 Submission: Local Landowner Petition requesting Badlands Wilderness Designation Contains: • 80 total signatures from landowners adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Badlands • 13 of 16 Deschutes County landowners that live directly on the border of the Badlands: Michelle Penner and Charles Brakefield Robert and Brenda King Betty and Kenneth Williamson William Gerhardt Brian & Tony Connors Gary Dodds Julie Myers Bussard Mark Phillips Ray Clarno Barbara Grabell Dan Jonas Brian Brown Jeremy & Stephanie Thompson Exhibit Page of 5S November, 2004 Dear Deschutes Board of County Commissioners: Re: Badlands Wilderness Petition We, the undersigned Deschutes County residents, live adjacent to or in the vicinity of the proposed Badlands Wilderness and are respectfully requesting Deschutes County's formal support of designating the Badlands as Wilderness. In 1976, Congress directed BLM to inventory public lands in Oregon and the West. After a 15 - year public process, the Secretary of Interior recommended the 32,000 acre Badlands Wilderness Study Area for wilderness designation in 1991. In October 1992, President Bush Sr. recommended the Badlands as wilderness to Congress. Since then, no congressional action to designate the Badlands Wilderness has occurred. Once designated wilderness by Congress, there would be no changes to existing grazing practices by ranchers, including fence repair, hauling water or gathering cattle. The only substantive change from how the area is currently managed is a permanent ban of motorized vehicles, except for grazing permittees, persons with inholdings and officials for emergency use, such as fire control. That said, it should be noted that BLM is proposing to ban motor vehicles from the Badlands WSA upon adoption of its Upper Deschutes resource management plan later this year. Since President Bush's recommendation to Congress, we have seen a continued decline in wilderness values of the Badlands due to incompatible, and sometimes illegal activities. Property owners bordering the Badlands are experiencing destructive activities, such as fence cutting and vandalized gates by vehicle users entering and exiting the Badlands. Moreover, Badlands is threatened by on-going cutting of ancient juniper trees, removal of lava rock formations, dumping garbage, squatting, stripping of stolen vehicles, cross-country vehicle use by dirt bikes and ATVs, partying, trespassing onto private property, livestock harassment and wildlife poaching. All these activities are exacerbated by motor vehicle use into the Badlands. Hikers, horseback riders and other recreation users are disturbed with loss of solitude caused by motor vehicles, while wildlife, such as, elk and deer, are likewise affected. It is expected that, with formal wilderness protection by Congress, BLM will have greater success in securing funds to increase monitoring and enforcement. Thank you again for your consideration. Exhibit F� Page -2.5 of S- oal of Ir xhi t Page v w 1 , of Ir xhi t Page iff 2 Page 25 of.— Cr u ;k i CQ 0 10 rA f � 14, cd 1 ti iff 2 Page 25 of.— Page L5LOf.gp, allo T ZP In Pr 0 Ts cy V ` kA Zz � Oo CD Page L5LOf.gp, r U 0 b Cd 0 b xiit 5 Page 2 sof _ rn No 1 i Ilk, Q o d `C � J h W O Q o vtpLo `� 0 r 70 A O \ a� c 2 z (Y QQ r U 0 b Cd 0 b xiit 5 Page 2 sof _ 34 5 �w P� " • � 1 r r ' 1 34 5 �w P� " • � Exhibit 5 Page 2a of33 ICC) 91 vv C6 V,%, clt Vl (i__ z Exhibit 5 Page 2a of33 lalo- a U b �bA U cd O y h eo � lV ! IZI 0 3 -T- s ,v a vJ z � EXiit Paget b_of'025_ h Z Page Kof 5a)— o)o coo CO N _� c � (�C c J O wrn W 1� cn OQ .' z . h Z Page Kof 5a)— F- I I Exhibit (2-- Page [SPage In H w y H a t f� a t �� pp N z � .. C F- I I Exhibit (2-- Page [SPage 'Stakeholders and Supporters near Badlands Proposed Wilderness qfn La Ptopose4 Wlan4s WiWemeS5 Key Stakeholders [ ] BLM Oregon Natural Desert Association N Petition Signers L Other -Private Miles w E [=3Proposed Wilderness 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 S Exhibit— 5 Page%33 of�