The URL can be used to link to this page

2005-1415-Minutes for Meeting September 21,2005 Recorded 12/13/2005COUNTY TES FICIAL NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,FCOUNTY CLERKS yu COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 1211312405 03;24;28 PM IIII I IIII IIIIIIIilllll I II III 20-145 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 PUBLIC HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2005 Commissioners' Meeting Room - Administration Building - 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Michael M. Daly and Dennis R. Luke. Also present were Joe Studer, Commissioners Office; Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; and Tom Anderson, Community Development Department; media representatives Barney Lerten of News Channel 21 and Chris Barker of The Bulletin; and approximately 30 other citizens. The purpose of the meeting was to conduct a public hearing regarding a Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and to discuss a Measure 37 claim for Gardner. Chair Tom DeWolf opened the meeting at 1: 30 p.m. Chair DeWolf read the Measure 37 opening statement (a copy is attached as Exhibit A) No Commissioners expressed bias, personal interest or prejudgment on this issue, and there were no challenges as to bias, personal interest or prejudgment from the public. Tom Anderson: The Measure 37 claim before the Board today was submitted by Gardner. Their property is a 28 -acre piece of property currently zoned EFU. Their desire is to subdivide the property into approximately 35 - half -acre lots. Claim of damages indicated on the claim is $1.85 million dollars. Claimant has provided ownership evidence indicating an acquisition date of November of 1970, which appears to be unbroken since that time. The County did have some zoning in place at that time; PL2 was adopted the month prior to that in 1970. The lot size indicated by the applicant may or may not be allowable in particular zone depending upon which zone they fall into. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 1 of 47 Pages There may also be issues associated with the lot size and the feasibility of a septic system. However, those issues would be addressed in the subsequent land use application following the issuance of the waiver. The order before you would give direction to CDD to review a subsequent land use application based upon the laws that existed in November of 1970. Chair DeWolf: Are there were any representatives from the proponents of this or the claimants. Isa Taylor: I am the applicant's attorney and my address is 354 SW Upper Terrace Drive, Suite 101, Bend, OR 97702. On behalf of my client, they are comfortable with the language of the order as proposed to the extent that they are able to develop the property in the same manner they could have in the 1970's when it was acquired. Chair DeWolf: I want it to be clear that what we decide today does not give permission for the applicant to go ahead and develop the property and that permits would still have to be applied for. We would be waiving all land use regulations back to the date in the order. I just want it to be clear that what the Board is doing is not allowing construction and that a permit would allow that. Ms. Taylor: My understanding that your use of land use regulations in the order is the same as that as defined by the language of Measure 37 land use regulations. Commissioner Luke: This was not a land use action. Ms. Taylor: The applicant did ask for 1/2 acre lots but as they proceed through the application process later, they are very willing to adjust that lot size. The last sentence of the order was somewhat unclear to them stating that the current procedural regulations will be applied but then the things that are listed are setbacks, access, and height in landscaping. They understand those to be more substantive but in any case, they are willing to comply with procedural regulations. Chair DeWolf: Are there any opponents to the claim present? Linda Tenbrinks: I reside at 61915 Ten Barr Ranch Road, Bend. I live across from the subject property and have 5 acres. I have reviewed Order 2005-090 and presented my remarks. Per my documentation, (a copy is attached as Exhibit B), the claim has not met the minimum standards for consideration and approval by the Board. I am requesting that the Commissioners deny the request for waiver of existing land use regulations or compensation under Measure 37. I question the claimant's motive for this action and it would cause market loss, crime, traffic, and livestock problems in the future. I am concerned about the lot size suggested of 1/2 acres. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 2 of 47 Pages Commissioner Luke: Measure 37 does not give the Commissioners a lot of choice and that they do not approve the subdivision, the lot size, etc. Measure 37 waivers of claims are not land use actions. There is a process that the claimant's would still have to go through, and a lot of the issues you raised today would be addressed in that process. We have people that testify against a lot these claims and some of them are going to court. The legislature has not addressed the uncertainties of Measure 37, especially transferability. There will be a lot of these claims end up in court over the next few years before we get resolution of Measure 37. Linda Wohlers: I own Ten Barr Ranch near the proposed development. I agree with Ms. Tenbrinks comments. Just to verify with the Commissioners, what you are saying today will be noted and there will be further situations where concerns can be brought up? Commissioner Luke: "Yes." Ms. Wohlers: Could I be notified of those meetings. Mr. Anderson: If a land use application is received from the property owners and if you are within the legally prescribed notice area surrounding that property, which he believed to be 750 feet from the edge, then you would receive notice. However if you give us your name directly and we receive an application on that property, then we can notify you. Ms. Wohlers: I may be outside of the notice area. Commissioner Luke: You can talk to Tom Anderson further after the hearing and he can get your address. Peter Shannon: I live at 61845 Ten Barr Road and live south of Ms. Wohler's property. I own 40 acres. My comments probably fall into the land use requirements outside of Measure 37. Commissioner DeWolf: Comments are fine but anything to do with land use is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is if they meet the qualifications for a Measure 37 claim as was passed by the voters. Mr. Shannon: Submitted and read his recommendations (a copy is attached as Exhibit C.) Basically, the Commissioner's hands are tied in this matter. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 3 of 47 Pages I bought my property last year and if I had known that there was an application claim (which there was no Measure 37 at that time) I would not have bought it. It was my desire to get away from small lots and urban type developments. It has been commented that the smallest acreage out there is 5 acres. Should the development be approved, things can be done to decrease the negative impact such as increase set backs, maintain vegetation and native trees where possible, and possibly increase lot size to integrate with the surrounding properties. Should I want to sell my property, someone may not want to buy it because of the potential development across the street. Commissioner Luke: I do not know about this claim, but there are claims that neighbors are making about the negative impact to their property in court. Mr. Shannon: I am sure they would. Commissioner Luke: Mr. Anderson will be able to get your address after the hearing so that you could be notified if there was a land use action. Chair DeWolf Is there was a rebuttal. Ms. Taylor: No rebuttal. Chair DeWol£ As there is no further testimony, we will close the public hearing. LUKE: Moved approval of Ordinance 2005-90. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. CHAIR: Chair votes yes. Chair DeWolf We will now move into the main reason for the hearing this afternoon and that is the discussion of the possibility of the County adopting an ordinance to best solve the vacant lot and defensible space issue in Deschutes County. If an ordinance is the way that we can best accomplish that goal, we will consider that and we do have a draft ordinance that many of you may have seen. If there are other ways to address the issue, we are open to them. Our goal is to find something that will work well for our County in addressing our challenging natural disasters, one of which is forest fires. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 4 of 47 Pages No decisions will be made today; we are just here to take testimony. We will begin with some background from the County Forester, Joe Stutter, then we will hear from Rick Gibson with Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), and then we will take comments from the general public. Commissioner Luke: This is not something new. Fire danger has grown substantially and some citizens have taken it upon themselves to contact owners of vacant lots and write letters of encouragement on how to clean up those lots. Joe Stutter: I have been with the County for about a year and am in my 37th fire season. Prior to working for the County, I worked with BLM and the United States Forest Service. I have had the chance to respond to 100's of incidents and have seen the effects Wildland urban interface fires in Deschutes County. I have been able to look at protection issues around most of the country, where we have it and where we do not. The meeting today is to address the vacant lot and defensible space ordinance. (He addressed four maps.) The first is of Deschutes County and is a map of unprotected lands (about 175,000 acres.) The second map is large fires of 100 acres or larger since the year 1900 — 2003. You can see how they have impacted the unprotected lands in Deschutes County. It is not just an eastern County issue but includes Alfalfa, Redmond, City of Bend, and all unprotected land. Commissioner Luke: What does unprotected land mean? Mr. Stutter: Some background information. There is no agency responsible for the protection for either structures or wild lands. From the map showing unprotected area, 74% of the County is Federal. Other areas shown were Oregon Department of Forestry, various fire districts, then City of Bend and City of Redmond. What happens is that in the unprotected areas you may have usual threats and may have an agency respond. We will talk about why it is important to deal with the unprotected areas. It is no ones land in terms of response. In the unprotected land in Deschutes County where there is no form of fire protection cost now covered by the State of Oregon under the Conflagration Act may soon become costs to the County if proactive fire prevention measures are not taken. A little more background: In 1997 the Oregon Forest Urban Interface Fire Protection Act was passed, also known as S13360. It was designed to address a growing problem of fire in the wild lands and urban interface. Deschutes County was one of two counties in the State chosen for implementation. Although Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 5 of 47 Pages specifically designed for defensible space around structures, vacant lots were also addressed but only for those areas identified as high density extreme. You can't see it well, this is the ODF protection, (Joe showing map) there is 176,000 acres in Deschutes County. Of the 176,000, a little more than 3,000 is high density extreme. There are three classifications: high, extreme, and high density extreme. We will talk about that in just a moment. Within the past two years... Our past year there has been significant events happen that have caused the County to consider how to address defensible space on vacant lot issues on unprotected lands and the vacant lot issues on private land, protected by ODF. The first one I want to highlight is the Community Fire Plans that have been developed in Deschutes County. I apologize for the artwork; at least the stand that you can see is improvised. This is Deschutes County Upper Coalition Plan, Sunriver, greater Sisters, greater La Pine, and the boundary of greater Bend. We have some work to do but in every one of these, the issue of how to deal with vacant lots is of primary concern. The second issue in Oregon is on the east side of the Cascades is over 6 million acres of unprotected lands, all on the east side. The State of Oregon has an ongoing effort to review the wild land protection policies. The State Fire Marshals office has the task to examine unprotected lands in Oregon and how the Conflagration Act will serve those areas in the future. The way that it is going is that the County would eventually assume responsibility for protection or for the cost of protection in the Conflagration Act. Within the last month, Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) has reconvened a group of private citizens and agency personnel; some are in this room, to consider changes to the vacant lot language of S13360. The results of that effort will not be known for at least a year. Since 1997 with SB360 and then again in 2003 with the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, a lot changed with that legislation. Deschutes County is the fastest growing County in the northwest and one of the fastest in the United States. We have fire adapted eco systems that evolved due to fire exclusion by the wild land agencies. The Wildland urban interface is expanded in expeditional fashion. In many cases, the structures have become more flammable than the vegetation. Eighty percent of the population in Deschutes County was not here for the Aubrey Hall fire in 1990. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 6 of 47 Pages Commissioner DeWolf: How much? Mr. Studer: Eighty percent of the population was not here in 1990 for the Aubrey Hall fire. The cities of Bend and Redmond have already instituted vacant lot ordinances. In fact, Deschutes County instituted an ordinance against shake roofs in 2001. Just some statistics as a refresher: One hundred and seventy-five thousand acres of unprotected land. ODF has 176,000 acres in Deschutes County. Three thousand of that is classified as high-density extreme, which means that it is covered by S13360. Almost 53,000 were classified as extreme and 10,000 were classified as high. Everything in the green is Federal jurisdiction of the wild land responsibility. Commissioner Luke: As a point of clarification, ODF does not own that property, they just have jurisdiction to fight fires in that jurisdiction. Mr. Studer: Good point Dennis, thank you. It is indeed private land that ODF protects. They have come up with what I believe is a problem statement. Deschutes County must identify fire prevention measurers on unprotected lands of the County for both defensible space and vacant lots and work with Oregon Department of Forestry to address a vacant lot issue on private lands protected by the department. We have developed five (5) alternatives: # 1. Deschutes County would take the unprotected, take on ODF area. The problem the solution causes is that it will essentially make SB360 null and void in Deschutes County, thus negating much of the work ODF has completed. This option will require Deschutes County to assume the leadership role on private lands now protected by ODF. #2. Deschutes County would have an ordinance for the unprotected lands that you see in the red, and also would address the high and extreme classifications on ODF protection. This has some potential to confuse the public if we have different standards. For example, in high density extreme the standard is a 20 -foot fuel break around the perimeter. If, in the draft languages, those numbers were different there is a possibility of confusion there but it certainly is an option. #3. Deschutes County would, again, have an ordinance for the unprotected. Board of Commissioners would request to Bob Young, the District Forester, to reconvene the Deschutes County classification for SB360 and take a look at high- density extreme options that we have within the County. This would allow ODF to Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 7 of 47 Pages move forward with the SB360 program in Deschutes County and allow the County to address like issues on unprotected lands where the County has the jurisdiction. #4. Would be much like the ones before where you would have an ordinance for this unprotected. The private lands (showing map) in Deschutes County that ODF protects. We would await this group of private citizens and agencies to look at SB360 statewide. #5. Option for us to not address the unprotected lands in Deschutes County and allow ODF and that group to look at SB360 statewide. That concludes my opening remarks. Any questions I may answer. Commissioner Luke: No, you've taken a look at....the County owns a lot of land especially in south County, a lot of individual lots. You've done an estimate on what it would cost the County to clean up to the SB360 standards. What would that be about? Mr. Studer: For the 360 standards, we have not a whole lot of lots that would be in the high-density extreme. If we went with eh County ordinance, County wide the costs would be somewhere between 2 and 4 million dollars to the County to treat County owned lands. We had this discussion if we're going to have an ordinance then we need to be good neighbors and take care of our property. There is also perception that there are indeed a lot of vacant lots in the south County. When you look at the rest of the County, where Deschutes County owns property and vacant land, you can see that it is substantial; it is not just a south County issue. It is severe there. Commissioner DeWolf. Anything else? Ok, Rick Gibson. Rick Gibson: I am the fire policy and prevention manager for the Department of Forestry. I would say that I have also been a part time resident of Deschutes County and a taxpayer for 25 years. I am relatively familiar with the situation here in the County in addition to the statewide responsibilities that I have. Commissioner Luke: So, you were here during the Aubrey Hill fire? Mr. Gibson: I was on the fire, yes. I have heard and actually read a couple of times over the last week or two now that the Department of Forestry is in a turf battle with Deschutes County over this ordinance. I want to say here this afternoon that unequivocally that is not true. We have an excellent ongoing working relationship with Deschutes County at all levels. We frequently site Deschutes County as being one of the outstanding examples of how to properly Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 8 of 47 Pages deal with fire and the Wildland urban interface. So, there is no conflict over this ordinance between you and us. The Department of Forestry is not opposed to the Deschutes County ordinance. I do however need to make you aware of the ramifications and Joe touched on this somewhat too. The ramifications will, by State statute, occur if you proceed with the ordinance as it is currently drafted. Eight years ago, the legislature passed the Forest Land Urban Interface Fire Protection Act in 1997, more commonly known as SB360, into law. Commissioner Luke was on the committee that considered that legislation. Deschutes County Commission supported that legislation and came over and testified in support of it. The Act was and continues to be a unique groundbreaking approach to try and deal with fire in the Wildland urban interface. It relies heavily on education and awareness. It focuses on a bottom up approach rather than a top down approach. There was a concern that if we went to the top down approach that you would end up with a heavy handed mandate philosophy on what land owners are supposed to do to make their properties more fire safe. The State wanted to avoid that. One element of this from the bottom up philosophy is the statutory position that says that SB360 shall not supersede or replace a more restrictive local ordinance. Because the ordinance as it is currently drafted is more restrictive that SB360's standards, we would be forced to suspend implementation of 360 here in Deschutes County. If you go forward without modification, that is what we would have to do. Again, we are not opposed to the ordinance and if you decide to go forward with it, we will assist and support you to the best of our ability. There are, as Joe pointed out, some properties in Deschutes County that are not currently subject to the standards of S13360. I believe that with some relatively easy modifications to the draft ordinance before you, these properties only could be addressed by the ordinance and the ordinance and SB360 could be made to coexist and actually dovetail together quite well. As I have said before, whatever you guys decide to do, we will work with you and try and make it better for the citizens and to promote fire prevention in the wild land interface. Commissioner Luke: We were told yesterday that the Department of Forestry is already moving forward to bring the SB360 back together on the statewide level. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 9 of 47 Pages Mr. Gibson: What has happened is some citizens from Deschutes County approached the Board of Forestry over vacant lot issues saying not enough vacant lots were subject to SB360. In response, Board of Forestry has commissioned an advisory committee to study that particular issue and report back to them. That effort got underway yesterday. Commissioner Luke: There are members from this side of the mountain as well as the other side of the mountain on that committee? Mr. Gibson: There are. There are members from Deschutes County, from northeast Oregon, southeast Oregon, Douglas County and from Klamath County. Those are the counties that are currently on the verge of implementing 360. Commissioner Luke: I hate to use the word fortunate but I have been fortunate enough when there has been a fire to be able to go to the camps and watch the operations. The cooperation between the Oregon Department of Forestry, the Forest Service, the local fire departments and the police and the sheriff is amazing to watch. I know that this does not happen every place but I am sure glad it happens here because it sure makes the job a lot easier for everybody and we appreciate the efforts of the Forestry Department in cooperating in that way. Mr. Gibson: Thank you. Unfortunately we have had quite a bit of experience and we have honed that skill. Commissioner DeWolf: It sounds to me like you are excited and willing to work with us on drafting a modification of this ordinance that could work really well for everybody. Mr. Gibson: Absolutely, yes. Commissioner DeWolf: Great, thank you. Mike? Commissioner Daly: That was my question. I was not under the impression that our ordinance was going to supersede yours. I thought we worked on that already and got it but maybe I misunderstood. Mr. Gibson: As is currently drafted there's fifteen (15) points in it where it would exceed 360. By statute you would have to fall back under that. Commissioner Daly: Have you redrafted something that we could look at that would fit or have you gone that far yet? Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 10 of 47 Pages Mr. Gibson: I did do a proposal which I don't have with me at the moment which would have changed section 1 and would have narrowed the focus just to certain vacant lots and unprotected lands. That would have allowed the ordinance and 360 to dovetail together and coexist. I think Joe might have received that, I am not sure. Commissioner DeWol£ Ok, thanks very much. Can I get a sense of how many people want to testify this afternoon? Looks like about a dozen. If everybody keeps their testimony to five (5) minutes or less, we'll be done in an hour. Two and a half minutes means thirty minutes ... We are wanting to give everybody the opportunity who wants to help us work on solutions here for Deschutes County to have that opportunity today. Commissioner Luke: This is not a land use hearing and we will leave the record open for those who want to submit emails or written testimony later. This is not the last hearing we are going to have on this, I guarantee that. Commissioner DeWolf. I also want to point out that if someone states something that you agree with, it is then recorded, it is in the record, and we do get it. So you don't have to repeat what others have said. If you would like to come up and say my name is so and so and I agree with what has been stated, that would be terrific too. A question. Yes sir. Gentleman asked if they could get together as a group, Deschutes River Coalition. Get them together then ... we are kind of repeating the same things. Commissioner DeWol£ Since I have a sign up sheet I am going to just kind of walk though this sign up sheet (a copy is attached as Exhibit D) The gentleman was not on the sign up sheet and was advised he could be added at the end. We'll go through the sheet then ask for other people to get them orally. Jim, you are first on the list. Jim King: I appreciate the opportunity to ... I wish to respond to the warm welcome. We have been here before challenging the County in terms of our right to file a community wildfire protection plan and some concerns we have about overreaching. We're here to help solve a problem today; we are not here to open up other issues. If you will just give us a chance to do that, we have a solution that I think will be helpful. We have a Coalition of the thirteen neighborhoods around Sunriver. We have a petition from all of those neighborhoods about the vacant lot issues. Some of those Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 11 of 47 Pages people... I thought we were going to be able to testify together but it is your call. What I realize, I used to be on your side of the table, is that I think we have got way too much information and we have made this much more complicated than we need to. Let me just kind of walk you through that sort of thinking. I did not get the staff report and the ordinance until last night so I apologize to you guys for not being able to provide you some background from our position. We sent you a bunch of stuff because we were flying blind. I apologize to you for that. Commissioner DeWolf. The thing that will help everybody understand is anything additional that you would like to add please send it in after this. This is not, like Dennis said, this is not the end of this. Mr. King: We realize that. Let me just talk you through. I used to teach this kind of stuff at college about policy analysis. We have... I think this is much more complicated that we need to. Our proposal is to think about maybe separating out the east County problem of unprotected lands from the south County problem of vacant lots. If you do that for a moment, just chase this logic. We have almost about 50,000 acres of Forest Service property out there that we live in the midst of. If you look at the policy, we have the Healthy Forest Restoration Act that covers that. We were able to.....we had some disputes with people about our being able to file a separate plan but we did it. We filed it fourteen months ago. We have a fabulous relationship with the Forest Service. We have four projects already done. We have five more on the table with them. We are fine with that problem. The Federal lands within which we live. Move next to developed lots. Senate Bill 360 covers that quite nicely and 360 covers all of our developed lots. We have been working with ODF every since they got that thing up and running, putting up signs, doing educational stuff. So, again, in terms of policy, we have got that covered. We move next to the vacant lots. There is a small number of our community that live in high-density extreme neighborhoods, they are covered. It is not a great policy; it is a 20 -foot perimeter. We know that it will get better over time but it is a policy, we have got that covered. So what we are left with, the policy gap, is those vacant lots in the high (we don't have any of those - we are all extreme) but the high and extreme neighborhoods. It may seem like a small piece to you but for us, it is huge. We have 4900 lots up here. Well over half of them are vacant. Almost all of those that are vacant are not covered by anything. So, you can appreciate our concern and why we brought this up and why we are pushing on this. We are very vulnerable. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 12 of 47 Pages The Park fire last week or two weeks ago helped us all realize that. It started in (unintelligible word) it jumped outside of area and almost burned... We were told by some experts that if that fire had had some higher winds, we could have had that thing ripping down the watershed right into my backyard. Two weeks ago I could not have got out of my house because I was just three days out of an operation. We see it as a crisis up there. What I ought to do is maybe have the people who are with our neighborhood stand up, the people who are with the Coalition. If a few of these people who would like to speak, just here this out. We have a staff report that has five alternatives. I called Joe today and begged him to include our option here. What we would suggest instead is an alternate. That is simply, once you separated out the vacant lots, next you just simply just extend ODF standards for high-density extreme vacant lots to the high and the extreme. We know that in a year they will have a better one. What it will do for you is that it allows you to get in easy with a mandate without a lot of expense. As all these people study the problem ... I mean ... I talked to Tom Andrey this morning and asked him about a number, about how long it is going to take. Their best guess is that it is probably going to take a year. What we are here to ask you is that for an ordinance that closes that policy gap now and then we will work with everybody in terms of getting that better standard for vacant lots. We know it; we are already working with it. The reality is our neighborhood is going to add whatever standard they want. They can go well beyond that without any problem. It does not interfere with ODF or anybody. What we have though is this huge gap and that is what we are here to talk about. I think there are a couple of people who would like to speak to that and then we can kind of wrap real quick. Commissioner Luke: I would like to comment on a couple of things. One, you say this may be a small piece; it is not a small piece. I have been working on this as a County Commissioner since 99 when we got the first Project Impact Grant, which turned into Project Wildfire. We have been working with a lot of neighborhoods out there. I have been on a lot of fires, the Commissioners have been on the fires, and they know the problem is out there. There are State regulations that have been in the way of... SB360 was passed in 97 and it took them almost six years to get that thing up and running. We know some things need to be changed. It is not a small piece to us. We understand the problem. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 13 of 47 Pages I was on the Park fire. I toured the neighborhood. I saw how close the fire got to those houses. Some of those houses were within less than 100 feet. There was retardant on top of those houses. That is the only thing that saved them and those big helicopters. We got a letter ... Joe has drafted a letter to the State Parks, that I am changing a little bit but I am going to encourage it to go to the representatives and to the head of the State Parks, not just La Pine State Park. You have the same kind of problem down in Tumalo. If they don't get that cleaned up down there you could have a pretty good fire at the State Park down there. So, the Commissioners have been on this for a long time. Mr. King: We are all kind of tense here and I apologize. I did not mean it in that sense. I was looking at your big scheme of things, your whole County thing with Joe's presentation. That's all I meant by a small thing. It is a smaller thing for you; it is huge (unintelligible word) half for us. I am sorry. I know were all kind of ... you know we have some interesting history here, just bear with us if you will. I don't know if there is some people here who want to speak real briefly. Commissioner DeWolf: I am going to take this in order. Mr. King: Oh, ok. We thought it otherwise. We asked earlier and we thought we could do otherwise. Commissioner DeWolf: I am really not trying to offend anybody here. Everybody is going to get their opportunity and we're going to get through this. Is that it for now Jim? Ok. Next up is Mike and I apologize, I can't read the handwriting. Mike Dykzeul: It is Dykzeul. Commissioner Daly: Are you part of Jim's group? Mr. Dykzeul: No, I am not. Commissioner Daly: Ok. Mr. Dykzeul: I am the Director of Forest Protection for the Oregon Forest Industries Council in Salem, Oregon. We represent the majority of the industrial forestland owners in the State on government affairs, taxation, forest policy, and forest protection. I just got the latest view of the draft about 20 minutes ago. I have been in touch with Joe and Rick over the last couple of the weeks. My comments are kind of geared towards the previous draft where I just wanted to point out, from the industrial side; we are a little bit concerned with the vacant lots of five acres and greater. No differentiation between five acres of a home front or Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 14 of 47 Pages a 150,000 -acre industrial forestland. Joe assured me that that was not the intent and we could go ahead and get that fixed. Looking at the latest draft, looks like we are well on the way to that. Commissioner Luke: For the audience these are professional lands like the Weyerhaueser and some of the smaller companies who are actually growing the trees and professionally managing their forest. Most of this stuff is cleaned up anyway. Mr. Dykzeul: This is correct. Commissioner Luke: They certainly don't want a fire on their property, because their goes their income. Mr. Dykzeul: I guess that's the main reason I came over today was to applaud you guys for trying to address this issue. It is huge. It's a threat coming from a next- door neighbor as opposed to coming to an industrial forestland. Fires don't really respect a lot of property lines. So, anything we can do to reduce those is great. Joe touched on, a huge issue as well, unprotected lands. Who pays for it? We as the industrial landowners and private landowners pay the department to protect our lands and in many cases we have to go off district to make sure it is not a wall of fire by the time it reaches their boundary. We eat the cost for that. So, anything we can do to address that is great. Commissioner Luke: I know on the B and B fire, you could tell where it hit some of those managed lands. The fire lay down and did a lot less damage than it did in the areas... Mr. Dykzeul: There are examples all over the country. It's very compelling and I think it tells a huge story that is making this whole thing go a whole lot easier. I just would like to applaud the County's effort in trying to address this issue. I would be glad to offer our assistance in any way to Joe. Joe and I go back a long ways. We worked together, as well as Rick and others. I did have a copy of his draft verbiage with me that I just dropped off with him if you want to touch base on that. At that point, just to say thanks and anything we can do to help, we will be glad to. Commissioner DeWolf Thank you for your effort and coming over. Mike. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 15 of 47 Pages Commissioner Daly: In this draft ordinance... and I realize you represent private timber owners is that right? Mr. Dykzeul: Yes. Commissioner Daly: Most of your folks do a lot of their own cleanup and are not really a problem. It says private lands which are industrial in nature, timber production, for other commercial purposes are exempt. It bothers me a little bit that we've exempted everybody. There are many, many of you that probably do a really good job. Do you have any comments about that? Is there timber properties that would fall into this category that are exempt that should not be? Mr. Dykzeul: First appearance, I think there is some tweaking that we can do to that language. It was just ...very pleased to see that we're addressing it. We're cutting it out a little bit. I think the intent there, and what Rick's verbiage was, is that if you exempted lands that were protected by all the state agencies, the earlier draft listed City, Rural, and Federal agencies but it inadvertently left out State, so all our lands are protected by the State. So if those lands were exempted, as which those areas that are governed by SB360 are and all still managed by the State, it would kind of be a clean break between the County dealing with vacant lots on unprotected lands. I know you guys ... I am just the outsider coming in to point out a few things but I think that has some opportunity. Commissioner Luke: Your landowners pay a fee to the State for that protection. Mr. Dykzeul: Yes, we do. Commissioner Luke: So much per acre? Mr. Dykzeul: It depends on the district. High fire districts pay considerably more than, say, northwest Oregon up in the Astoria area. Those generally pay somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 cents to an acre. Over on this side of the mountain it is closer to $1.20 per acre. One thing also in that 50 foot buffer, and I realize that Crown closure issue. If in some cases you had a high very dense crown of larger trees, potentially by cutting to those standards that were listed earlier, you might be in violation of some forest practices act and reforestation standards. So, that is another one which doesn't really necessarily apply to the industrial lands. Like I say, it is a work in progress and we're here to offer our assistance any way we can. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 16 of 47 Pages Commissioner DeWolf: We appreciate your continued input into this. Next is James Beeler from La Pine. No. Ok, Keith. Commissioner Luke: Also, if your name and address is on here, the next hearing you will be notified, probably by mail. So, if there is anybody who did not sign the list that wants to be notified. They will be in the paper and stuff but please put your name down there that you would like to be notified next meeting. Question was if there is any way to get meeting minutes. Commissioner DeWolf: I believe these will be on our website. The minutes from our meetings are typically put onto our website, if you will check back with us in about a week it takes a little while. No. It will be but maybe not right this second. We typically have three to four meetings per week and those minutes are typed up and made available on our websites. It may take two or three weeks, but we will get them there. Thank you. Keith Schaefer. Keith Schaefer: Yes, my presence is in support of the coalition group. Commissioner DeWolf: Thank you. Linda, is it Tenbrink? Linda. (No response) Ok, Peter Shannon. (No response) JP Brittain. Mark Pilliod: Shannon was here on the Measure 37 claim. Commissioner DeWolf: Well, then maybe this JP. Ok, will skip that one. Ok, Leigh Kuhn. Leigh Kuhn: Good afternoon Commission. My name is Leigh Kuhn and I am a resident of Deschutes County. First of all I wanted to comment since you brought it up that I was in the Aubrey Hall fire. I did loose my house and all my belongings and almost my life. But I also wanted to comment to make a point that where the fire came from, it jumped a 150 -foot to 200 -foot river, went through the vegetation that you are advising people to grow near their structures and crossed about two and a half acres of green lawn to burn the structures. So, I am looking through the draft plan and I am looking through some things that I think the focus could be a little bit different or maybe added to and some of the other things are a little bit less draconian. So, that is basically what I want to address today. Commissioner DeWolf: Can you make some of those recommendations to us in writing that will help us. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 17 of 47 Pages Ms. Kuhn: Yes, I will. I am just bringing them up now so that some other people can hear and get their ideas in to. One of the issues that concerns me, especially lots that are used for wildlife purposes. They are neither industrial forest nor are they typical vacant lots. They are unbuildable pieces of ground that are out there for wildlife purposes. To do the proposed 50 foot mowing is also problematic because, what happens in the mowing situation (this is on some of the lands out of Tumalo and on the east side as well but on the west side too), is you are basically compacting the soil. You are not allowing the native vegetation to continue to flourish so it will die back, eventually. So you will just have, basically, compacted ground which is a huge invitation to weeds. We all know how big a fire problem weeds are. In fact I think that is probably one of the major issues that could be solvable. This is exactly, I believe, the wrong way as far as the mowing aspect back to the 4 inch, 50 -foot perimeter around a six -acre plus piece of property. You also get erosion and a lot of dust moving around and these are all problems. You also fragment areas that are migratory roots or forested areas that are used by particular species, particularly the neo -tropical songbirds. Basically you wipe out the use of the forest on either side when you create a highway in essence. This is the same if you put a road in a road less area, it has the same impact. Also if your lands happen to abut Forest Service land such as in the south in particular or BLM land, I don't see anywhere in the draft that BLM is planning to do this 50 foot swath of mowing around. So, basically, you're not getting the advantage of being up against another 50 -foot swath as far as fire suppression. Again, it is problematical whether or not fire is going to stop at your 50 foot or 100 foot cut back area. In my case, in my experience, that did not happen. So, some of my proposals having to do with first, are that what we seem to be wanting to protect for the most is our structures. I could see the possibility of perhaps having an ordinance where all future permits for new structures have to be built out of totally nonflammable materials. Not just the roof, but siding or decks, or whatever that would be extending out from that structure. In the case of structures that already exist, it might be possible to do something like a rural renewal as opposed to an urban renewal. You could get low interest loans for redoing your house in more a fireproof structure. So instead of just having people pay, essentially tripling their property taxes, to try to conform to what you need to do for the fire suppression, instead you're offering them a chance to upgrade their structure to make it more fire resistant. There are a lot of different ideas and materials out there on the market that can do this. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 18 of 47 Pages Secondly, would be addressing the weed problem more actively. I do have several ideas on this, which I intended to talk to the County about throughout this coming fall season. But I think that that's a focus that is more positive that mowing a swath would be and creating essentially a new weed situation which would be ever more devastating. Thirdly, I do have concerns about people that own the vacant lands with being able to afford doing this. It is all of a sudden (going by the estimates that were in the Bulletin as far as what it would cost somebody to go and clear their land in the manor that the ordinance is suggesting) thousands of dollars that they would just have to come up with virtually every year if things started to grow back.. I just don't think that only rich people should live in the County. I think we need a diverse population of people that this is just ... there is no subsidy; there is no property tax battement or anything to allow this to be paid for. That troubles me. Commissioner Luke: There have been discussions along that line. It wouldn't be property tax abatement but the County has had some discussions about selling our property, most of our lots are in the south County and some of that money being used to help clean up some of the other ones. Part of the assumption, say you buy one of our lots, part of the sale would be within a certain time period you will have that lot in a defensible space. So there have been some discussions along that way how we can help people get through this. Ms. Kuhn: That's good and I would like to see it be part of the program. Somehow figure it out in advance before you start doing it if it is enacted in the form that it is. Thank you. The last thing that I am looking at particularly on the east... The eastern end of the County and the vacant lot areas are areas that are currently being addressed for Sage Grouse habitat protection and having to do something like this would actually work in reverse as far as preserving Sage Grouse habitat. This is a big issue for the ranchers and farmers out there because; if the Sage Grouse habitat is not able to be saved in Deschutes County, then it is possible that some of the leaseholders may be in trouble. This would be an unintended consequence; I am sure, for both the ranchers and the Sage Grouse. These are some of my concerns with the habitat and the wild life protection that's not really being looked at here. I am aware of some of the lots that people have done in areas both forested and with just shrubs and grass lands and they have done something more the mosaic effect rather that a strait swath of compacted mowed ground. I would recommend more education on this. Maybe people could have Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 19 of 47 Pages sessions where people come out and see what they have done and how it has been effective and how they've worked with it. This does not of course completely protect you against fire but it does add substantially to fire suppression. Those are basically my comments. Thank you very much. Commissioner Luke: I did not envision mowers going through and doing that. We're working on a piece up in Freemont Canyon, Joe is, with Forestry students from COCC State and OSU Cascade in Oregon State, looking at different ways of treating the ground. Putting a mower is not probably one of them. I think there are a lot of other ways this could be treated without disturbing the ground that much. Hopefully we can. Ms. Kuhn: It would be interesting, just the draft ordinance used the word mowing to four inches, which of course any native vegetation is not able to regenerate without seed growth. You've got a lot of wild flowers and so forth that you would be basically putting pave to. This is the wording of the draft ordinance. Commissioner DeWolf: So, if you could put that into writing for us and get it submitted that would be very helpful. Ms. Kuhn: Thank You. Commissioner Luke: We had an interesting meeting with the Bend Parks and Rec and they own a piece of ground out on Ward Road. They were talking about what they were going to do with it. They had actually gone in and started clearing a 50 foot swath and reducing the fire material in there. I don't think they were mowing; they were reducing the fire material. The neighbors came and complained to them that they were doing that until they explained to them why they were doing it. Because that is where they rode their horses and took their dogs and stuff. They did not want them reducing the sagebrush. So when they told them that they were doing it for fire, they were a little better off. Ms. Kuhn: That's right but that does bring up a third issue that just reminded me. When you do create these swaths, essentially you are creating an egress and people will use it as such. More people will use it as such which will severely impact private property because they are not going to stop it. You're just going to go oh. Even if your property is posted, you are basically opening your property to more trespassing. Commissioner DeWolf: Thank you. William Kuhn. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 20 of 47 Pages Mr. King: Could I just say a great thing about the wild live leaves. Commissioner DeWolf: You stated you want to talk again at the end and we will allow that but we need to kind of keep this under control. Go ahead sir (to Mr. Kuhn.) William Kuhn: Good afternoon, my name is William Kuhn. I live at 65575 Sizemore Road that is within the Tumalo winter deer range. I would like to really comment on how well that last presentation was made. I have a couple of comments regarding the proposed ordinance. Number one is that you're exempting landowners who currently have wild land fire protection. When a number of the people who saw that became aware that they are being exempted because they have fire protection, they are under contract to have fire protection, they lost interest in coming to this meeting. I think that is a problem because there are people who own property who need to do something with that property to help abate against possible fire who feel that because they have fire protection, they don't have to do it. Commissioner DeWolf: Are you suggesting that we fool them and just stick it in there while they are not here to defend themselves? Mr. Kuhn: I am suggesting that it be considered. Commissioner Daly: I am confused. I did not realize that was in there. Mr. Kuhn: It says in number one on the very first page, the second to the last sentence; exemptions are landowners who currently have wild land fire protection. Commissioner Daly: I am glad you brought that up because I have a question about that too. Mr. Kuhn: As far as I am concerned, if I have a neighbor who is not in a fire distract and who cleans his land up so that it is ... he is doing his best to keep the fire protection. You have another neighbor who has fire protection and does not do anything; I am more scared about him because I know having lived through the Aubrey Hall fire, having looked across the valley at the Delicious fire, the Bull Flat fire, fire protection people cannot protect everybody. If a fire jumps, it is going to jump and it is going to jump onto a piece of property that has not been protected, not been weeded, whatever, far faster that somebody who has protected it. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 21 of 47 Pages Second of all, there are some native plants and trees that actually require fire in order to germinate. Is there somebody speaking for the plants that need the fire? Also, I am concerned about the fact that there should be some type of distinction between wildlife habitats and non -wildlife habitats. Again, I am speaking from the fact that within the Tumalo winter deer range, we have certain ordinances that we have to deal with in helping to protect the wildlife and yet if we are clearing a bunch of land to prevent fire, you're taking away some of the habitat for the wildlife. You also have a conflict of interest in the landscape management ordinances. Some of the landscape management ordinances require you to keep vegetation between the road and you to be that buffer. Please help by addressing those issues. Thirdly, it was about two and a half months ago at 7:30 in the morning; we saw flames literally coming up from what looked like the far side of the structure next to us. It looked like it was a house fire. I quickly called 9-1-1 and I told them that we were, I thought, in the Plainview Fire District. Well, I should have said the Cloverdale Fire District. Unfortunately 9-1-1 interpreted Plainview as being Bend. They sent out fire trucks from Bend to respond out on Sizemore Road. Bend Fire trucks having to go across the old dry dam and then through that little one-way canyon, I believe it was like 45 minutes before they got there. I had a chat with the fellows that responded and they said that they would go back and talk to the fire districts to make sure that they understood the distinction between what they are supposed to be responding to and what Cloverdale is supposed to be responding to. I believe that message got to them but if it did not, please make sure that it gets there. By the way, the fire turned out to be a bar -be -cue that was being put on for breakfast that morning. The fire started apparently exploded on them and there was no danger or anything but it sure did look bad. Commissioner DeWolf: How was breakfast? Mr. Kuhn: I have no idea. Next, we are supposed to have in our cluster development a homeowner's agreement. In that homeowner's agreement which was required by County Ordinance, which we asked in civil court to have it be enforced, the judge came back and said that the other party had to enter into that agreement with us. We have insisted that safety features be in that agreement. They have insisted that those kinds of features have nothing to do with this type of agreement. We're asking you again as County Commissioners to please enter into this feud that is going on and say to them that you the County recognize that fire issues are something that should be in this kind of an agreement. I want to ask you, who is responsible for cleaning that third parcel? Every bit of labor that has Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 22 of 47 Pages been done on that third parcel to clean up weeds, to clean up brush, everything has been done by us. There has been no reciprocity, no compensation, we're doing it all and it is not right, it is not fair, please help us. For the County Legal Counsel to make a statement to a judge about a month ago that our homeowners agreement was the agreement that the County said was acceptable, is wrong, it's ... it was a civil court judge that said it was wrong. We're also concerned that the neighbor... excuse me, the landowner next to us... Back just before we met with you Commissioner Luke, back in August of 2000, it was two months before in June of 2000; this other landowner said to his contractor, one match and that place up on the hill would go up in an instant. Now that is hearsay. I gave it to the Sheriff, the Sheriff had it in his file. But then in October when that contractor came and assaulted us and was arrested, he then made a comment to his attorney, and this is on file with the DA, saying Bill Kuhn's hand written log was very accurate. In other words, it is no longer hearsay. There was a fire threat made against us. All we have been trying to do is protect ourselves. Thank you gentlemen. Commissioner DeWolf: Thank you. Commissioner Daly: I would ask Joe that you comment maybe at the end of here about what his concerns about somebody being exempt here. I can't see that in this ordinance. You know the one I questioned earlier. Commissioner DeWolf: Ok, so we will deal with that at the end. Larry Fulkerson. Larry Fulkerson: Thanks for the opportunity to speak, gentlemen. A little bit about my background. My first job out of high school was fighting fire out of The Dalles. I spent twenty years fighting fire as a helicopter pilot for civilian organizations. I got certified by ODF to do the compliance inspection for SB360 last year. I have had a business doing fire hazard reduction for the last four years. Commissioner Luke: You fly helicopters in over those fires? Mr. Fulkerson: Yes, sir. Commissioner Luke: Wow, you guys have a lot of guts. Mr. Fulkerson: I was careful. Anyway, back to whatever we were talking about here. Senate Bill 360 has one major shortcoming. I liken it to being a ninety-year- old hillbilly. It has one tooth. There are no provisions in SB360 that require me to clean up my property. The only enforcement provision is, if a fire starts on my Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 23 of 47 Pages property, if I do not have a defensible space, and if the Oregon Department of Forestry incurs what they consider to be extraordinary expenses, then I can be assessed up to $100,000.00. Now I don't believe that has happened yet and I don't believe it is going to happen. It may but SB360 has absolutely, as far as I am concerned, no teeth. They cannot require somebody to clean up their property. Now as Deschutes County Commissioners, you have the opportunity of passing an ordinance that will require all of the landowners in Deschutes County to adhere to certain standards. It's a very, very, good idea. Now having some standards for some people who are covered by fire protection, some different standards for people that are covered by ODF and some standards covered by the County is totally illogical. It would set up a mismatch of requirements that would be hard to understand and hard to comply with. You either need to pass an ordinance that includes the whole County or not do anything about it. Now SB360 has made some very, very definite steps. It`s got a lot of people interested in doing fire hazard reduction. It has some very, very good requirements in it. I have some issues with some of the minor requirements and some of the issues about some of your requirements in the draft letter that I will put in letter format and address in the future. The thing that I think is very, very, important is SB 360 cannot make me or anyone else clean up my property. I do a lot of fire hazard reduction work for the people out on the forestland urban interface. I have to tell them that you cannot make your neighbor do what he needs to do. To have your property safe is very, very hard to do if they aren't complying with some standards. Right now SB360 does not require that. That is all I have to say. Commissioner DeWolf: Thank you. Bill Chapman. Bringing Kelly also? Kelly is next on list so that works out really well. Bill Chapman: Can we do this jointly? Commissioner DeWol£ Great. Thanks guys. When we're done with the list we will have anybody else who would like to testify. We will give that opportunity. Mr. Chapman: Thank you. Frank Bracher our President was unable to be here today. The written testimony we submitted included Franks name and we both would be speaking on behalf of Board of Directors. There was an earlier version... Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 24 of 47 Pages Commissioner Luke: You need to identify yourself and who you are representing. Mr. Chapman: My name is Bill Chapman and I am the General Manager of the Sunriver Owner's Association. With me is Kelly Walker, our Director of Environmental Services. Commissioner Luke: And the new member of the Watershed Council and a member of the Project Wildfire Committee. Mr. Chapman: We also had an earlier draft that we addressed in our written testimony. It was the September version and it did have that initial Section 1 which dealt with eligibility requirements. Now, you're looking a five different eligibility options as regard which lands would be subject to the terms of the ordinance. The point we made in our testimony really applies in either case. One thing that we are a little bit concerned about is the educational part of fire safety and fuels reduction. As you know, people gradually get to the point where they sign up for the concept of making property in Deschutes County more fire safe. In Sunriver when we first started our fuels reduction program over a decade ago, we had a lot of opposition to that program. Through time people became aware that a healthy forest and a reduction in the fuels load in that forest was to the benefit of the entire community. One of the problems that we see with the ordinance, as proposed, is that if it were passed, we would have a situation where our members are currently covered under our fuels reduction program, which is approved by Oregon Department of Forestry as an alternate to SB 360's standards. Our fuels reduction standards are similar to 360, but in fact, somewhat more strict. We also have enforcement capability that SB360 does not, in that, all of the owners of Sunriver have contractually agreed to adhere to Associations rules, one of which is our fuel reduction plan. We have annual inspections which are done jointly by the Sunriver Fire Department and Kelly Walker's people. We notify people who have compliance issues, both for noxious weeds and fuels. We have the ability to cite those people if they don't come into compliance voluntarily. Fortunately, we rarely have to do that. If we do cite, we can fine, if we do fine, we can lean property for enforcement of fine. And we can collect. Not only that, our program applies to all property in Sunriver whether it be SROA's common property, the Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 25 of 47 Pages Resort's property, or individual lots. Whether there is a structure or whether the lot is vacant. We in fact, I believe, are meeting all the goals that would be the intent of your ordinance. However, if your ordinance were passed, and property in Sunriver were under the terms of that ordinance, we would then have owners of built properties having to comply with the Sunriver's fuels standards in addition the default standards of SB360. Owners of vacant lots would have to comply with Sunriver fuel reduction standards and the vacant lot standards of the ordinance. We think this would make the whole thrust of one stop shopping, which we have put together so our owners can become compliant with 360 standards and Sunriver standards, that much more difficult. Not only to explain but also then to enforce. Our recommendation is that, depending on which of those five options you choose, we would like to: First of all, if you do exempt properties that are covered by local fire districts, that you included those that are covered by County Service Districts that provide those same services. As you know we are organized under ORS451. We are not a special district like some of the rural fire districts. Commissioner Luke: That is like the governing body exempting ourselves. Do you know if Black Butte has the same type or a similar ordinance that you have. Mr. Chapman: That is correct. And they have a similar issue in that they are not a rural fire department. That was something that we noticed, because the initial draft language exempted only cities, rural fire departments, and federally protected lands. Commissioner Luke: Crosswater? Mr. Chapman: Crosswater is in the La Pine Rural Fire District. So, that was our first concern. Under some of the options you are looking at now our only issue there is that we don't go to the citizens who we have worked hard and diligently with for years to educate and now say, you have to do this under the County standards, you have to this under 360 and you have to do this under the Homeowners Association. I think that is all I had and we are available for questions. Commissioner DeWolf. And then you all can help us fix this so that everybody will be happy, right? Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 26 of 47 Pages Mr. Chapman: I am not so sure about that. You have heard conflicting testimony today. We think the vacant lot issue is a real issue. Whether the best way to do that is to change 360 or whether you change the classification of land so you extend those standards to extreme and high classifications. I do not know the best solution. We would certainly work along with that as long as it meshes so that the general public does not see that they have to comply with multiple ordinances covering the behavior of their fire suppression efforts. Commissioner DeWolf: Great. Thanks. Anything Kelly? Kelly Walker: I was just listening to some of issues brought up today. We have faced many of these issues on a smaller scale in Sunriver. If I can help with the draft in any way, be one of the reviewers, I'd be happy to do that. Commissioner DeWolf: Terrific, thank you. William Armstrong. William Armstrong: My name is William Armstrong and I represent the Ponderosa Pines Property Owners Association in La Pine. I am one of the Board of Directors out there. At our last Board meeting, last Thursday, the other Board of Directors asked me to come and address you at this meeting to show our support in the Upper River Deschutes Coalition and to the other associations here that are asking you to consider classifying all of the lots; the vacant lot issues, the high and the extreme lots too. We were designated as a high-density extreme so those ordinances do apply to us. Our CC&R's like Sunriver's and Black Butte say that no part of any lot will create a fire hazard. We fully intend to support our CC&R's and we are following through very closely with Tom Andrey and also Joe Stutler from the County. We are here to support the added addition for the high density, the extreme and the high areas. Commissioner DeWolf: Ok, thank you very much. That is everyone that I had on the list. Are there others who would still like to testify? Why don't you come up first, since you are so close. Commissioner Luke: We have three chairs up here if you want to testify; why don't you come up and sit in the chairs and we will get you there. When you are done if you will fill out your name on list we would appreciate it. Conrad Ruel: My name is Conrad Ruel. I live at 17219 Bakersfield Road. We are just east of Sunriver. Our neighborhood has a tremendous amount of vacant lots. I Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 27 of 47 Pages think we have about 1200. That's our graphic right there (pointing to a map.) Everything you see in beige is vacant. You know the situation, it is a septic situation. Primarily these are half -acre lots. I am testifying in support of the Upper Deschutes Coalition which I belong to. I am a member of the Three Rivers Fire Prevention Activity Committee, which is (there are no legal standards) just a bunch of volunteers trying to get something done in the community. I am also President of the Special Road District #1 and I am the public member of the SB360 revision on the vacant lots. Commissioner Luke: Your road district is the biggest one in the County. Mr. Ruel: Right. Also, as you know, Representative Gene Whisnant is on that committee as sort of a member at large. We went out and did some research the other day. Commissioner Luke: Does he show up for the meetings? Mr. Ruel: Yes, he is very productive. He takes a lot of notes. The only concern that I have is... were supportive of ODF. They have done a tremendous amount of work in our community. We have had two common areas treated at their expense. They have done that. I am very supportive of the fact that you guys have a County Forester. Joe has been very cooperative. We support that. I know that the type of problems that you are going to have to try and resolve these issues with the vacant lots and how people are going to pay for them is ... I don't envy your position. The problem we have is if we delay and ordinance too long, we have... (We're trying to get some grant money.) These grant people want to know what we're doing with vacant lots. If it takes too long for ODF to figure out what they are going to do, if we can figure out someway for the County to do something meanwhile that would be greatly appreciated. Commissioner Luke: We were told yesterday that ODF is going to try and have their process done by the end of December. Mr. Ruel: That is good news. I heard it was going to take a year but that is certainly an improvement. Commissioner Luke: That was yesterday. Commissioner Daly: Is that a change Dennis from before? Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 28 of 47 Pages Commissioner DeWolf. Up to a year. They are hoping that they would be able to submit it by January. I think that is optimistic. Mr. Ruel: I'll do my part as a committee member to expedite the process... That's about all I have to say, if you have any questions I'll be glad to take them. Commissioner DeWolf: Thank you. If you could fill out the list. Commissioner Luke: Because that list is important so you can be notified of other meetings. Commissioner DeWolf: Who is next, yes ma'am. Patricia Pease: Hello, my name is Patricia Pease. I am a resident of River Forest Acres which is a subdivision near where the Fall River goes into the Deschutes River. I am here to support the Upper Deschutes River Coalition, I am a member. I also want you to know that our neighborhood is high density extreme. We are one of the few in the Coalition that is. We also border right next to La Pine State Park. So, had the wind gone the other way, where I live would have been taken out. I was kind of thankful the wind did go the direction it went. We have talked to the Park about cleaning up their areas and they have always told us it is a budget issues. So, they don't have the money to do so. Commissioner DeWolf: Because they have a Park District without any budget. Ms. Pease: Exactly. Our neighborhood has worked with ODF and has gotten grants to do neighborhood cleanups, to clean up lots, etc, etc. When I read in the paper what the amount was going to be to clean up the properties, it seemed a little extreme to me because I think there are more creative ways to go about funding that. Commissioner DeWolf Any suggestions you have will be much appreciated. Ms. Pease: I would be happy to, seriously. Commissioner DeWolf Put it in writing and give them to us. Ms. Pease: I will because it can be done for less. Commissioner DeWolf: Thank you. Yes, sir. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 29 of 47 Pages Ken Lane: Good afternoon, my name is Ken Lane. I am ranch foreman for Vandervert Ranch. I have been involved in forestry for 35 years. I am a (intelligible word) woodland manager and have been a member of the Oregon Small Woodlands Association for the last 23 years. I also am vice chair of the Upper River Coalition group. Change the tone here a little bit. The citizen's of Deschutes County are building a machine. This machine is called Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Part of that machine is already established, it is already built, assembled, and the other parts are being manufactured at this time. The Upper Deschutes River Natural Resource Coalition has supplied the engine for this machine. Sunriver has built the transmission. Sisters has supplied the (intelligible word) drive. Greater La Pine is going to supply the axles and the drivelines. Bend and Redmond will supply some of the other parts. The wheels for this machine are the United States Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Oregon Department of Forestry, and Deschutes County, industrial and private forestry. The US Forest Service, BLM, private and industrial forestry's tires are inflated to full capacity at this time. We feel that ODF tires are a little deflated and need a little more air in it. Frankly speaking, the County tire is flat. ODF has recharged their SB360 air compressor and there are starting to put air back in their tire. What we are asking is that... Joe Stutler is right not trying to fill the air up in the County tire with a bicycle hand pump and we request that the County purchase an air compressor to assist him. The Coalition has a proto type of machine of what I am talking about. With a rebuilt engine, using the latest technology, it is now firing on all 13 cylinders. I am pleased to give you the specks of that engine which is our new revised Community Wildfire Protection Plan for your review and for your use. We also would like to note that we have fuel for this engine in the way of grants and donations. We request that the County air up their tires so we can get our machine back to work. Let me tell you, once the citizen's finish building this machine from one end of the County to the other, there is not going to be any stopping this machine. Commissioner Luke: I would like to point out ... I know there was humor there but when the Federal Government passed their bills that are putting money into this machine, Deschutes County is well ahead of the curve. If you go to Jefferson or Crook County or most of the counties in this State, because of the Project Impact and the Project Wildfire, we are will ahead of the curve. Joe will tell you that, Department of Forestry will tell you that and the Forest Service will tell you that. It allowed you plans to move forward quicker because a lot of our stuff was Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 30 of 47 Pages already there. I don't want to leave it out that the County has not been doing things because the County has. We have our hands tied by the Federal Government sometimes too. Mr. Lane: I understand that Commissioner. I am not criticizing you and I apologize if um... Commissioner Luke: There is not need for you to do that. I understand the humor was there. But, when we did the signing ceremony down in Sunriver, many of your groups were there. They were there backing that project. This condition was not created overnight and you are not going to solve it overnight. It is going to take the work of a lot of people moving forward. Sometimes it is little steps and sometimes it is big steps. We will try to do everything we can to get there. Commissioner DeWol£ I can follow up my learned Commissioners comments with this. That is, a couple of years ago we had no Forester, we had no plans, we had nothing in this County. With the help of a lot of people we put together a program in this County to address these issues. We hired a County Forester who has our full support and has been working really hard. It is definitely no question much easier for a small group of people to correlate around ideas and get stuff done that it is for a government agency that is subject to a lot of other government agencies. I will absolutely grant you that. I will defend what Deschutes County has done all the way and continues to attempt to do. Holding a hearing like this to try and address these issues the best we can. What we are really looking for are partners who will work with us. I appreciate humor as much as anybody but Joe is working harder than anybody I know. I have a little bit of trouble with disparaging comments even when they are used in humor when the humor is at someone's expense who is working so hard on behalf of the citizens of this County. Commissioner Luke: If I had a thin skin, I would not be in this office. There is no reason for an apology. I just want to put it on record that there is been... (Covered by other speaker.) Mr. Lane: I apologize for putting that in that context. I did not mean it that way. We have been working with the County, working with Joe. I spent 2 years working on 360, still working on it. We are behind you 100%. Commissioner DeWol£ Great! Commissioner Luke: We are behind you guys too. It's going to be done on the ground. It is going to be done by the neighborhoods and it is going to be done by Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 31 of 47 Pages the citizens. Government cannot do it all by themselves. It isn't going to happen. It is going to take your hard work. Mr. Lane: I understand we are not going to solve it overnight. We want to keep working on it and I understand that you have policies and procedures that you have to follow. We are here to assist you in any way we can along with Joe. We have worked very closely with Joe and with ODF, and we will continue to do so. Commissioner Luke: We are going to continue. Some of our lots we have been able ... we don't have an unlimited source of money either. We have actually gone out and got some grants and the Heart of Oregon Corps and private contractors have been clearing our lots down there too. That is important. We want to be a good neighbor in all sections of this County on the property we own because some of our property needs to be cleaned up very badly. We are continuing to work on that. That is one of the reasons we are looking at the sales. The condition of sale that the people have to have the lot cleaned up within a certain period of time. We think that is the quickest way that the County will be able to take care of the lands that we currently own. One of the things I brought up yesterday is if you make these ordinances to onerous, you're going to have people who are on the line of keeping their lot or letting it come back to the County. It is a 2 to 3 year process before the County gets ownership. So, you have a lot that is not being taken care of. We are trying to walk that line too. Mr. Lane: No way do we want ODF to back out of what they are doing. There are too many good results with Tom and Stew and everyone. Senate Bill 360 is working. We just know that we would like them to revise it, if at all possible. That committee convened yesterday, they are working on it, and hopefully they can solve 75 % of the problem that we are talking about today. If we all continue to work together on this, there is no reason we can't come up with a solution. Commissioner Luke: I have one question. The Small Wood Lot Owners Association, I worked with those when I was in legislature. I was on a natural resources committee for six years. We had the lobbyist from the industrial lands ... I know you are not industrial but you are still commercial lands. They are still doing that. We are not looking to exempt ... are we looking to exempt small wood lot owners to, or are we working with them in a different manner. Because they manage their property differently than say, a residential lot. So, I guess that I am asking Joe the question. We need to talk about that. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 32 of 47 Pages Mr. Lane: There again, even though the small woodland owners are very professional and very good stewardships of land, there are bad eggs in that group just as well. I would not expect that small woodland owners would be exempt. Commissioner Luke: Maybe some different regulations or work with them in different manner or... Mr. Lane: There again, I think that some of it still is a lot of education. Ozwood (name?) does a lot of its own education. We have our own lobbyist in Christina and the Coalition is becoming a member of the Small Woodlands so we are going to be involved in there. I have been involved with the Woodlands for a number of years and continue to do so. I would not expect exceptions for small woodland owners. A lot of those are small properties; five, ten, fifteen and twenty acres. They need to be part of the solution not part of the problem. Commissioner DeWol£ Yes, sir. Dean Draven: Hi, I am Dean Draven. I am the chairman of the Fire Protection Committee for Oregon Water Wonderland I. I am fresh out of metaphors. I would just like to point out this....First of all I do agree that SB360 has worked rather well in our community. We are very close to approaching 100% compliance with our structures. Our big problem is with vacant land. We have approximately 357 lots of which half are built. The other half are not. Many of the lots that are not built are not build -able, at least currently. They don't perk, there is a lot of wetland, and a lot of people who bought those properties bought them a long time ago for very little money. They are concerned about the expense of having to maintain their properties. I think that fear is a great motivator and it is also a great confuser at times. The fear of fines has gotten a lot of people to call me and ask, "Well what can I do to bring my land under compliance?" I say of course right now we don't have an ordinance in effect yet but there are things you can do to clean up your property. The fear that is confusing, I think, was reflected in that letter in the Bulletin last week. One woman was saying it was going to cost her $10,500.00 a year to clean up her property. That is simply not true. I had that exact same conversation on a smaller scale with a woman last week, who owns a half -acre property on the river. She was told it would cost $1,400.00 to clean up her property and she would have to do it every year. I pointed out to her that once you do the initial clean up, removing dead, dying, and diseased trees and you clear up some of the undergrowth, the bitterbrush, and it is strictly a maintenance situation. I think what Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 33 of 47 Pages becomes important in drafting an ordinance is adding to it information, real life information that will help people understand that this is doable. We are also assembling, hopefully, grant money to assist the people who can't afford to do this work. It is going to be a lot less than most people are led to believe. Once they clean up their properties, it becomes a rather simple operation to maintain that property. Commissioner DeWolf Maybe you can help us draft some of that. Mr. Draven: Quite possible. Commissioner Luke: What Project Wildfire does is ... and Joe talked about it. We had a work session yesterday so we understood it, hopefully. A lot of this is going to be education. There is a lot of education to do in Project Wildfire. Katie is here, our director or our staff person from Project Wildfire. There is a lot of education that is going to take place. The fire districts are going to help, the neighborhood associations can help, Project Wildfire, and the County. Mr. Draven: I think that it is important that the education go out at the same time that the ordinance does. The reason being, the ordinance is going to get peoples heads up. If they see that there is a fine involved, there's danger, I have to deal with that, they will read every word. If along with that, there is information that will show them that it is doable and can ease their fears of a constant expense, you are going to get more compliance and less people turning their property back over to the County. Commissioner Luke: As we get further into this, because I asked the question yesterday, you mentioned a fine a couple of times. Whenever there is enforcement, we are going to have to look at what department in the County is going to do that enforcement. Typically, enforcement costs more than you are ever going to bring in, in fines. Your hope is you don't have to fine anybody that they will take care of it themselves. Enforcement and the costs of enforcement is a big part of this ordinance. As you're commenting back to us, not today, but as we go through this process, be thinking about that. Help us with some ideas. Mr. Draven: I will tell you something. It is taken with a great degree of respect about the fact of SB360 not having any teeth. I will tell you something, I have quite a few conversations with people who read that brochure and instantly thought they were going to be fined $100,000.00 if they did not clean up their property. I Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 34 of 47 Pages did not do a whole lot to correct that impression. That's why our properties in our community are largely done. People have really complied. Commissioner DeWolf: A $100,000.00 hammer. Mr. Draven: Oh, boy! Commissioner DeWolf: That's good. How many more people do we still have that want to testify? Four more, ok. Mr. Draven: I am done. Commissioner DeWolf: Ok, great. Thank you. Yes, sir. Rich Rotondi: My name is Rich Rotondi and I am not representing any group. I am just talking as an individual lot owner and homeowner in Deschutes County. Just a few comments. First of all, there are some of us that are in subdivisions that are two and a half to three acre pieces of land. If you are clearing to four inches, for two and a half or three acres, you are talking about a lot of expense. If you are going to give only a one year lead in, you are going to have a hard time even finding to people to contract to clear it. So, you have to give some thought to that. I want to address a couple of things that no one has yet. If I understand this correctly, if I own a home on a lot all I have to do is have a 30 -foot fuel break around that home. As long as my driveway is 150 feet, that is basically it. So the rest of my lot, if I have three acres, the rest of my lot could have brushes, sagebrush, rabbit brush that's four feet tall as long as I have a 30 -foot break around my house and I am in compliance. I am a risk... Commissioner Luke: Do we have a heads up or down from the Department of Forestry or Joe? Is he correct? Ok. Mr. Rotondi: So, I am a risk to the people next to me. But, all I have to do to comply is have a 30 -foot break. Now, if I own the next lot over, which is a vacant lot, no house on it, no one is living there, if I read this correctly, I have to clear the entire three acres of lot so I have nothing on there that is more than four inches high. Commissioner Luke: Joe is shaking his head no. He will address that when he comes up. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 35 of 47 Pages Mr. Rotondi: But potentially the guy next door has 90% of his lot untouched, I have got to clean my whole lot and it is a vacant lot. So you need to address that also. Basically, what that comes to is, the inequity of you potentially treating homeowners and lot owners totally differently in the way this is described. So, I think if you're going to require those of us that have a vacant lot to clear that lot then you should require the homeowner to do precisely the same thing on a 100% of the square footage of his lot. If you want to be fair and you want it to fly. Commissioner DeWolf Ok. Mr. Rotondi: That is basically it, other than to say that a vacant lot may have good plants on it like manzanita that are native that adds value to the lot. If you have to cut it down to four inches you are going to have nothing on it other than bare... Commissioner Luke: I think manzanita was imported. (Someone from audience said yes it was.) It was. It is native now, but it was imported. Mr. Rotondi: In the last thirty-five years anyhow. I have been here for thirty. Commissioner DeWolf: Yes, sir. Don Mercer: I am Don Mercer and I live in Fall River Estates. I am President of the Special Road District in Fall River Estates. I am also Incident Commander for the Sheriff's Search and Rescue, we do the fire evacuations. I am a Board member of the Coalition, Jim's group. I just wanted to state very, very briefly our personal experience out there. The work that we have done in Fall River Estates predates the Coalition work. It was done with great cooperation of Oregon Department of Forestry. We have 120 lots, half of them are vacant, and all of them meet or exceed ODF's compliance. We are the first neighborhood in the State of Oregon designated to be a Fire wise Community by ODF. We have also been cited by the Commissioners for the work we have done out there, which we appreciate, we applaud that. We continue to be a showcase neighborhood for other neighborhoods that want to see what can be done, what can be accomplished from a grass roots effort to get started then it goes on its own. We will continue to do that. Just if you want to know more about what we have done, call and ask before you bring people out. We will be more than happy to explain what we have done to help. I do believe that issues of getting neighborhood cooperation and personal cooperation are very complex. As complex as the technical issues that we are addressing here. But, the solutions can be as varied as we have neighborhoods around here. I am positive that there are Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 36 of 47 Pages things that can be done. They will be different and I just welcome and support whatever dialog gets toward an improvement. Commissioner Luke: How did you enlist the cooperation of some of the vacant lot owners who were distant from the area? Mr. Mercer: We created a draft document of the work that we suggested should be done. It was created in cooperation with ODF and the Fire District in the area down there. We sent it out to all of the neighbors. We made personal phone call contacts to all of them and we had volunteers that did the work for a lot of it. That whole part of it is unique to our neighborhood. Commissioner Luke: Did you run into anybody that said absolutely not on my piece of property and keep your hands off. Mr. Mercer: First contact, we had a few but persistence paid off. It was only a three-year process. One hundred and twenty lots, many of which had started before but the bulk of the work was done within a three-year process out there. Commissioner Luke: Congratulations. You guys had some good coverage on that, you deserve that. Commissioner DeWolf. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Jewell Sollenberger: I am Jewell Sollenberger and I am a property owner in Oregon Water Wonderland Unit II. I'm in agreement with the Coalition and I have worked on this for a long time. I have been a property owner since the very early seventies. I was here for the Aubrey Butte fire. I was very close to the Davis fire when it ... Commissioner Luke: You probably qualify for a Measure 37 claim... Ms. Sollenberger: Could be. Commissioner DeWol£ You could put about ten houses on your lot. Ms. Sollenberger: No thank you. I have worked with the Property Owners Association out in Oregon Water Wonderland Unit II for twenty plus years. I am not on the Board at this time. But, in the past years, I have worked on fire prevention out there and I was a part of the committee that put the SB360 together. I did not agree with everything that was on it. One thing I did not agree with and Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 37 of 47 Pages every member of that committee will tell you that I voiced it very loudly, was the vacant lot situation. In Oregon Water Wonderland Unit II we have a lot of lots that belong to you. We have begged you for many years to do something about them lots. We hope that you will do something now. I want to thank the Forest Service for helping clear or start clearing the forty acres within out property that belongs to them. I appreciate it very much. We hope they come back and finish it. We have begged them and you for a long time. We would like to have a park in there. We would like to have something for our property owners and something for out children. As you know, we are in the process of a brand new sewer district. It is going very well and property values out there have jumped tremendously. Commissioner Luke: It will make our property worth some more money, huh? Ms. Sollenberger: Yes, mine too. In thirty years I have seen a lot of changes out there. But the one I want to address to you is please, do something about our vacant lots. I am scared to death of a fire and I have been in them. There is nobody in this room that knows what that fire is going to do until it does it. Dead, dying, and downed debris is just addressing it. We have got vacant property owners, I call the absentees, that have no idea what their property looks like, don't want to know, and don't want anybody to touch that property. We have had several opportunities to do fire wood assessments out there. We have had several of them agree with us and several of them tell us to forget it and not touch their property. All I am asking you is please, do something about this before we have a disaster out there that makes the disasters we have had recently a drop in the bucket. Commissioner Luke: The County recognizes their responsibility on that. As Joe said at the beginning, it is two to four million dollars for us to clear up a lot of our lots. Ms. Sollenberger: It is not just your lots. Commissioner Luke: We understand, that is one of the reasons that we have agreed. Mike Maier and Susan Ross are working on a sale so that we can get as much of that property back into private hands as possible and get it cleaned up. We have worked on some of the lots down there, the Heart of Oregon Corps and some private crews and we will continue to work on them. You talk about people buying ground. That's why they call that nice little hill there Deschutes Junction, Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 38 of 47 Pages Whispering Pines and it is covered with Juniper because the people in California did not come up to look at it, they just sent their check and bought a piece of juniper instead of pine. Ms. Sollenberger: Yes. As you probably are well aware of and which I have heard in working with you in all these years, that if we could have done something about the developer in the 60's and 70's we might not have this problem now. Please be careful about developers in the future. We have the forest, it is what has been given to us as a gift and we need to protect it, and we also need to clean it up. Commissioner Luke: Before Measure 37 all development, most development was taking place in the urban growth boundary but that changed as you saw today. Ms. Sollenberger: Thank you for listening to me and do listen to the Coalition, they have good ideas. Commissioner Luke: We did discuss your sewer district today by the way, for the sand filters, and where people are going to be able to take their sand filter material. Ms. Sollenberger: Oh, they are going to be able to take that out. Commissioner Luke: We are working on that for you. Sisters had the same problem. Our Solid Waste Director had part of his agenda today and we were talking about it. Ms. Sollenberger: It has been a long hard struggle. It was a dream of my husband and I and we have enjoyed working with it and seeing it go through. As soon as they say hookup, we are on the first of the list. Thank you. Commissioner DeWolf. Thanks. Yes, sir. Mike Beason: My name is Mike Beason. I live in the Deschutes Recreation Homesites. I also am building another house in that area and I own a home in Oregon Water Wonderland. On all three properties I can throw a rock and hit another property that scares me to death. One of them belongs to the County. It is right next to my house. The County won't sell it to me because it is on the river. The County does not want sell property that is on the river even though this lot is not buildable. So, it falls to me to clean it up which I resent but I do because it is better than having my house burn down. Commissioner Luke: Have we sent you a card that says thank you yet? Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 39 of 47 Pages Mr. Beason: Yeah, right, my check is in the mail. I am a member of the Coalition... but I really wish the County would rethink that business about river lots because it is not a buildable lot but it is a hazardous lot. Commissioner Luke: The general discussion we have had is that the lots we are going to sell, they will all go on the market whether they are buildable or not. The one's that will sell quickly of course are the buildable ones. But, we will be looking at both pieces of property. Mr. Beason: Including the ones on the river? Commissioner Luke: Yes, sir. Mr. Beason: I belong to the Coalition and I belong to the Coalition because upon my buying my house and being here a year, I discovered I was living in the middle of a gigantic fire hazard. So, I support what they are doing. I am really glad that you people are taking some leadership on this and I really hope something positive happens about the vacant lot issue. Amongst other things, it would be really awful if we shared the fate of what happened to the people in Louisiana who said "we knew this was going to happen, we had all these studies that told us it was going to happen, and we just never got it done". Commissioner DeWol£ Thanks. Yes, sir. Vern Risseeuw: I am Vern Risseeuw. I am with Deschutes River Recreation Homesite #6. The problem that I have is that I have roughly four acres of ground down there. Between the two pieces of ours is a half -acre lot that we have tried to buy and we can't buy it. They haven't touched it, we never see them there. They live in Oregon City so they are not that far away. I don't know what to do other than to try and keep contacting them. In that area where we are at there are just gobs of lots that nobody ever looks at. The biggest share of the people are from California, or way up northeast Oregon, or somewhere. Commissioner Luke: Someplace other than here. Mr. Risseeuw: So, I don't know what to do or what to say but somewhere along the line we have got to get some teeth into this 360 bill or something. Or the County has to get some teeth into getting these lots cleaned up or we are going to burn it down. We're out across the river from the State Park. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 40 of 47 Pages Commissioner Luke: Did you have to evacuate? Mr. Risseeuw: No we did not. We were on the other side. We were on the Silver Fox side so we did not have to worry about that. It was close. They come down to let us know they may call and tell us we have to get out. Commissioner Luke: I was down there on Sunday and was talking to one of the Sheriff's Deputies and he got a call on his radio. There were four young men in a canoe and they only had a half case of beer left. This was ten or eleven o'clock in the morning. The helicopter was trying to dip and they were sitting there ducking. They were not getting out of the way of the helicopter. I could not believe it, the kids were sitting there in the river. Mr. Risseeuw: Somewhere along the line, I don't know how, but whether the County can help us or who can help us to get these people to do something about these vacant lots. Commissioner DeWolf: That is our goal. Thanks very much. Mr. Risseeuw: Like I say, and you can ask Joe or talk to Tom, to look at our property and I guarantee you it is not going to burn. The lot beside us could burn real easy so I just wanted to bring that up. Commissioner DeWolf: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? One more, yes, sir. Dean Richardson: Good afternoon. My name is Dean Richardson and my family has had a couple of acres of property on the Upper Fall River for about forty years now. We cleared our property almost that long ago. Then I got a stewardship authorization from the Forest Service to give them some free labor and clear a few acres next to us too. I am here today not representing a neighborhood association but I am within the boundaries of this Community Wildfire Protection Plan for the Upper Deschutes River. I did some assisting to help draft the original proposal. First of all, I want to thank the County for taking this on. I especially want to thank Joe Studer for all of his efforts. As soon as he heard about this vacant lot issue not going away he just said I am going to get on it. I know that he has been on it ever since then. It is bound to bring up a lot of stuff from various factors. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 41 of 47 Pages I am in agreement with much of what has been testified today. The 360, ODF State Ordinance is about eight years now. I remember when it first came up; talking with some of my neighbors about it because they did not feel compelled at all to do anything to clear their properties. It was just total news to them. Last year, after about seven years, some mailers went out and it got some people's attention. Things did actually happen, especially those people that thought that they might be fined $100,000.00 if they did not. Ignorance, I guess, can be bliss. However, the 360 ordinance as it has been testified today does not really require people to do anything. The people that are least likely to want to do something are the ones that have absentee owners that have vacant lots. I remember, without mentioning the neighborhood, a least one neighborhood where these lots were sold site unseen through television ads in California, so much down and so much a month. I am sure that some of the people have never even seen their lot. Commissioner Luke: Does anybody remember Crooked River Bob? Mr. Risseeuw: So, I think one of the fundamental issues here is that it is not fair for those people who do try to mitigate what would contribute to catastrophic wildfire and be surrounded by other areas that are not. It was also brought up today that it does not seem fair that somebody would only have to clear thirty feet around their home and leave the rest of their property at risk to their neighbors as well. I agree that it does need to be something consistent. We do need to be aware of wildlife habitat. The way I have always explained it to myself anyway, is if we have a catastrophic wildfire, there is not any habitat for anybody or anything. One of the things that kind of caught my attention when I read about the mowing to four inches, that did sound if it was implemented uniformly, that it was a little bit extreme and maybe something could be taken into account for different types of land cover. For instant current bushes, maybe you don't want to take them down but certainly we need to reduce what I think in the words of the Forest Service is called the continuity of fuels. So, if you've got bitterbrush that is shoulder high underneath trees that are not limbed, you have all those ladder fuels. So, we need to do something that breaks up the ... The bitterbrush, I understand, can burn up to fifteen feet high. You've seen it in the fires. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 42 of 47 Pages So, what the Forest Service did in my case, in the stewardship authorization I was given, is I was allowed to clear land immediately adjacent to our property, clear the bitterbrush for instance. It wants to come back pretty fast, by the way. For another couple of hundred feet out they allowed me to take out the dead bitterbrush and to trim it to about one foot high. It doesn't seem to kill it. I don't think that bitterbrush is on the endangered species. Yeah, we do need to have some habitat for the... Commissioner Luke: What amazes me is if you go in the experimental forest from La Pine to Wikiup, they have the experimental forest in there. If you look at the pictures of the old one when fire was allowed to actually work in the forest like it is supposed to, you wonder how all the wagons got here with all the brush. Well, the brush was not there, the fire kept it down. So, wildlife survived very well in a forest that did not have high brush in it. Mr. Risseeuw: There is one area there that they actually go and revisit periodically and burn. They just did a burn, I think, last year or the year before. It burns in kind of mosaic and the manzanita and stuff comes back from that too. Commissioner Luke: As long as the fire is not hot. What has happened is that when the fires get so hot it sterilizes the ground and nothing can grow. Mr. Risseeuw: And then it is fit for nothing but weeds after that. Commissioner DeWol£ Thank you. Mr. Risseeuw: I am totally in favor and here to support the Upper Deschutes Coalition and I am totally in favor of the County doing something that requires not only the vacant lots but also addresses the people that already have residences. The big problem is we have built in all of these areas that are so flammable and so we can't allow nature to proceed, unfortunately. Thank you. Commissioner DeWolf. Thank you. Commissioner Luke: What is kind of sad is when you said the property has been in the family forty years. My first thought is another Measure 37 claim here. We have been doing so many of those lately... Mr. Risseeuw: Judge, does that mean I have some money in the mail? Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 43 of 47 Pages Commissioner DeWol£ Ok, Jim. You said you had one last comment. Mr. King: Just a couple of things in closing. I passed this to you because it is a list of the Coalition people up the river. I did not even have to ask them. We are already doing this with Forest Service. If you have a problem with somebody that lives near me, call me and I will go down and talk to them about the vacant lot. That is the kind of relationship we have with Forest Service. We do it all the time. So, that's the list of our people. I don't know how anyone could sit through this afternoon and not get our first point. We have made this far too confusing. All we are asking, think about it, do we really need an ordinance or do we simply need to extend ODF's vacant lot standard from high density extreme's to high and extreme's. I have got a long list of people who are confused. Sunriver is confused, yada, yada, yada, yada, right on down the list. Do we need what you are proposing to do or can we give ODF a year, give us a year to work this planning ground and experiment with some things. We have $100,000.00 sitting, waiting in the wings. When ODF did not cover vacant lots it blew us away, we could not believe it and we raised some concern about that. Then Joe promised us this ordinance in April and here we are in September. If you even consider delay, on the back side of your deal there you have a description of our $100,000.00 planning grant. We can't implement it. These people are waiting to implement... we want to help these neighborhoods. If you do not give these neighborhoods an ordinance so you can get those vacant lot owners to the table, they have got a snowballs chance in hell of doing a damn thing. We need you to fill that little gap for now. Give us a year to work on this stuff and we will be back a year from now to show our progress, so forth and so on. We need just that little gap filled for now. If we don't we are going to be sitting, I am already talking about how you know... so I am not asking, I am begging, just give us an ordinance, just give us that little gap and let us save ourselves from wildfire. We can do it at the neighborhood level. We need your piece, that little tiny piece. ODF is ready to go. We have coat tailed them for a whole year and we are happy doing that. We are going to stay with that by the way. Your task is not all that complicated. When I was working as a consultant we could have done this in the back of a napkin in an afternoon. It is not that complicated, you just have got this thing way out of perspective. I want to be really clear, that is our position. All you need to do is extend that and then give ODF a year to study their thing, give us a chance to work with our planning grant. Give us a chance, I think it is real dangerous to wait. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 44 of 47 Pages The Park fire came dangerously close. Mother Nature has a plan for us. We do not have too many more summers left. She is about ready to implement her plan anytime now. We are the ones living in a crisis. You guys are sitting here talking, talking, talking, talking, talking; we are the ones in the crisis. You have got to help us. It is not going to be that tough. You don't need an ordinance; you don't need half of what has been talked about. You just need to think seriously about the policy gap you've got. It is just a tiny one. I know the guys at ODF are going to work on their thing; they are going to give you a better ordinance. All you do is link your ordinance to them. When they improve their vacant lot ordinance a year from now, yours goes up automatically. It lets you get in with this twenty foot barrier. It is not real expensive so you don't have people freaking out about the expense. Give us a year with something like that. Wait for ODF to do its vacant lot ordinance and lets be back here a year from now with some solutions. You see that? We have made this far more complicated that we need to. You could help us in a week by thinking seriously about ... that is our position. We have let this thing get out of perspective. Thank you for your time. Commissioner DeWolf Joe, did you want anything you want to add or should we wrap this up. Ok. Commissioner Daly: I just wanted to ask Joe. There is a couple of points I was concerned about. One point that the fellow brought up about the ... I forget what it was now. Mr. Stutler: It was the notion of an exemption of those areas that had currently had fire protection. Commissioner Daly: Oh, were exempt, that's right. Mr. Stutter: The notion of the ordinance, the way the thing was written, probably should have paid closer attention to Tom's concern when we first talked about this. We frankly did a good job explaining it poorly and I am responsible for that. The notion was to address the unprotected lands in Deschutes County. The notion was to take a look at the vacant lots that were privately held in Deschutes County that are currently protected by ODE What we tried to do was exclude the Forest Service, the BLM, and the Federal jurisdiction. What we tried to do was exclude the fire districts in municipalities with the notion of an exemption. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 45 of 47 Pages The reason the State was not mentioned when we wrote that up was because of the vacant lot issue, the gap we have talked about in S13360. We need to clean it up Mike, where it is very clear, and the area we are talking about. The issue of a safety blanket if an exemption and I can't address that. Commissioner Daly: I would like to make one more point too. It occurred to me all the testimony about vacant lots and out of town owners that could give a rip whether they clean up their lot or not. I know in Redmond that they have an ordinance that you get notified that your lot needs cleaning, if you don't do it Redmond comes in and does it and sends you a bill. Of course, that is a lien on the property. We may look at something like that. That would solve some of these folks' issues that they are concerned about. Commissioner Luke: I am not sure you can do that as a County unless you are a charter. Cities can do it because of their charter. Tom might have better information on that than I do but we will need to check on that because there are some restrictions. There are some things cities can do because of their formation of government that counties can't do unless they charter. Commissioner Daly: I think we ought to look at that because that would solve some of their issues they are concerned about. They are mine too, you know. We have a lot of those out of town owners that could care less about our ordinance, really. Commissioner Luke: The thing you don't want to forget about though Mike, is when you're talking about that, a hay field just before a harvest could be considered fire hazard too. Commissioner Daly: We are going to have to write the ordinance so it does not fit a hay field. We can exempt a hay field. Commissioner DeWolf. Ok, anything else. I want to thank everybody for hanging out with us all afternoon and enjoy the rest or your day. Again, anybody who has anything to put in writing, we're more than welcome to have that input. Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 46 of 47 Pages Being no further testimony given, Chair De Wolf adjourned the hearing at 3:55 p.m. DATED this 21" Day of September 2005 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: A , Tom DeWolf, Chair f / ioner it Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner Attachments Exhibit A: Measure 37 Hearing Process (2 pages) Exhibit B: Linda Tenbrink's Documentation (2 pages) Exhibit C: Peter Shannon's Documentation (I page) Exhibit D: Sign in Sheet (2 pages) Public Hearing regarding Vacant Lot and Defensible Space Ordinance and a Measure 37 Claim for Gardner Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page 47 of 47 Pages Board of County Commissioners Measure 37 Hearing Process The Board of County Commissioners is now ready to open the hearing on a Claim brought against the County pursuant to Ballot Measure 37. The hearing before the Board is quasi-judicial, but not a land use decision. This proceeding is the only hearing provided by the County under the County code provisions which implement Ballot Measure 37. The Board's decision will be based upon the material submitted to county staff and furnished to the Board. The County code provides that the claimant and those persons who have previously submitted written material to the County on this matter will be given an opportunity to offer testimony bearing on the claim. This hearing is not open for comments from members of the general public. The decision by the County on this matter will be memorialized in a Final Order. The Final Order will be mailed to all those participating in this proceeding. The Final Order will also be recorded in the Clerk's Office. The criteria for this decision involving a claim under Ballot Measure 37 is contained within Chapter 14.10 of the Code. The applicable criteria are as follows: 1. The Claimant is the owner of the subject property; and 2. The Claimant or a family member has owned the subject property continuously since before adoption or the effective date of a county land use regulation; 3. The County's land use regulation is not exempt from challenge under Ballot Measure 37; and 4. The County's land use regulation has caused a reduction in the value of Claimant's property. If the Board determines that the criteria for compensation payment pursuant to Ballot Measure 37 has been established, and the claim is eligible, it may by written order decide that the county's land use regulation be modified, not applied to the claimant's property, or it may elect to pay compensation based upon the reduction in value attributed to the subject regulation. Pagel of 2 Exhibit_ 4 Page / of 2 The County's decision will not result in the issuance of a building permit, but will only allow the Claimant to apply for a permit without first complying with the challenged land use regulation. A Claimant must also comply with County regulations which were not challenged under Measure 37. Furthermore, the County's decision is not intended as having any effect on land use or other regulations adopted by other government entities, such as the State of Oregon or LCDC. Testimony, arguments and evidence must be directed toward the criteria described above, or other criteria, which the person believes to apply to the decision. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the Board and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue, may preclude judicial review based on that issue. The order of presentation is as follows: 1. The County Administrator's report and recommendation. 2. Claimant's presentation. 3. Witnesses who oppose the Claimant's position. 4. Rebuttal by the Claimant. 5. If new information is presented by the Claimant, then rebuttal by the witness in opposition. Any person that is interested in this matter may challenge the qualification of any Commissioner to participate in the hearing and decision. Such challenge must state facts relied upon by the party to a Commissioner's bias, prejudgment, personal interest, or other facts from which the party has concluded that the Commissioner should not participate as they are not impartial. Such challenge must be made prior to the commencement of the public hearing, and will be incorporated into the record of this hearing. Does anyone wish to challenge any commissioner's ability to hear this matter? If so, please say so now? Hearing no challenges, I will proceed. Pagel of 2 Exhibit I' Page Z of Z Mr. Commissioners: I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the Board and comment today regarding Claim M37 — 05 — 37. 1 have reviewed Order No. 2005 - 090 and the Administrator's recommendation. I would like to present the following remarks and rebuttals regarding this action. • The Administrator has recommended that the Board approve a waiver. There are concessions in the documentation, however, that I believe are being overlooked. Both the recommendation and the Order attest that there is no evidence which demonstrates that the current procedural regulations for land divisions and development applications and approvals have reduced the value of the subject property. It appears that the zoning of the subject property at the time of the claimant's purchase and evidence in the record of feasibility of additional development is unclear - sketchy at best. The claimant has not demonstrated that domestic water and septic for the desired use on the subject property are feasible. The claimant also has not provided the County with an appraisal of the reduction in value or evidence of the reduction in value that complies with DCC 14. 10.040, a standard that is required of other claimants. Given the above shortfalls in information and lack of evidence identified in this claim, why is it being considered by the Board today? Furthermore, despite the missing evidence, namely proof that the subject property would suffer a loss in value were the present zoning to remain in place, the Administrator simply presumes that the loss of the ability to add additional buildable lots would cause a substantial reduction of fair market value. There is no proof that this is so, and making this assumption is not ok. • In addition to the concerns regarding the inadequacy and incompleteness of this claim, I also wish to reiterate the following: o This action demonstrates no consideration for the continuity of property size in the neighborhood. o It appears evident that, by seeking to divide the subject property into half acre lots, the claimants are considering developing a housing tract. Ten Barr Road is miles, yes miles, from the Bend Urban Growth Boundary, with acres and acres of rural property, which is governed by existing land use laws, in between. Not only is placing a subdivision in the midst of lands that are primarily zoned EFU and cannot be developed similarly inappropriate, but the existing roads, power, water and sewage capacity in the area are either absent or grossly insufficient to support this type of housing density, and will not be adequate for quite a while, if ever. This is a RURAL area. o The amount of this claim is inordinate, as is the request to subdivide the subject property into such comparatively small lots. In the 13 years that I have owned my property, which is directly across the street from the subject property, it has been listed for sale 3 times, and each time at such an inflated price that there has been little interest in it. More importantly, in the past 13 years I do not believe the claimants have ever applied for a Conditional Use Permit, which would have allowed construction on the property and very probably would have facilitated a sale, negating the necessity of filing a claim under Measure 37 at all. It is also likely that the claimant would have been successful in obtaining a permit — since in the past 8 years, at least 8 other neighbors on Ten Barr Road owning properties larger and smaller than the subject property have been successful in doing the same. I continue to question the claimant's motive for this action. Exhibit_ --S Pa -e / of 2 _ o I believe that a subdivision of the proposed density immediately adjacent to my property will negatively impact the value and marketability of my property in the future. I also have every reason to anticipate that with increased density there will be an increased likelihood of mischief and/or crime, and the increase in the numbers of loose dogs roaming the neighborhood will directly threaten my livestock operation. I believe that this claim has not met the minimum standards for consideration and approval by the Board, and request that the Commissioners deny this request for waiver of existing land use regulations or compensation under Measure 37. 1 would also request that consideration be given, if possible, to the impact of similar requests on surrounding properties and resources in the future. Thank you. e �indo-. lelf7�rirl k Exhibit ,6 -Page __�Z- of 2 September 21, 2005 Deschutes Count Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 Dear Board Members: As a follow up to my comments contained in the letter to the Board dated June 14, 2005 1 have the following additional recommendations regarding Claim No.: M37-05-37. 1. 1 bought my property prior to the claim being filed in April of this year and if I were aware of the intention to develop in this area I would not have purchased. 2. Should this development be approve to mitigate the impact of this development to the adjacent and surrounding properties I recommend: a. That native trees and vegetation be preserved to the extent possible. b. A green belt be established in the front side and rear of the property with proper screening of the development from adjacent and surrounding properties. c. Increased set backs be implemented to provide further visual impact. d. Increased lot size to at least 5 acres to integrate with the adjacent and surrounding properties. Without these or some sort of conditions placed on the development the adjacent and surrounding properties will be affected adversely and possibly even cause their devaluation and desirability. Thank you. Sincerely, rcg-- Peter C. Shannon Exhibit e _ Page — / of > ME A x Q V b� N I vell d M QO C3 (110 N L � 3► ari � v V Ay 'm 5. e 2�..j C IQ, 141,-::� x Q W, H H t c N �QN T `V ,a C rl oc b ` LL - C M CL 1 IV t um r d � I a