Loading...
2007-1517-Minutes for Meeting July 11,2007 Recorded 9/24/2007COUNTY OFFICIAL P? NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS YJ 2007.1517 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 09/24/2007 02;20;10 PM 2007-1517 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTE OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, JULY 119 2007 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Mark Pilliod and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Nancy Blankenship, Clerk; Shawn Sellers and Hillary Saracen, Commission on Children & Families; Teresa Rozic, Property Management; Sheriff Larry Blanton, Sue Brewster and Jim Ross, Sheriff's Office; Tom Anderson, Kristen Maze, George Read, Will Groves and Catherine Morrow, Community Development; media representative Jeff Mullins of KBND Radio; and approximately twenty other citizens. Chair Daly opened the meeting at 10:00 a. m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None were offered. 2. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2007- 348, a Grant Agreement with the Oregon Secretary of State regarding Reimbursement of the Purchase of an Optical Scan Vote Tabulation System. Nancy Blankenship gave an overview of the item. A reimbursement from this previous purchase of equipment was possible, and some funding in the approximate amount of $52,000 has been authorized. LUKE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 1 of 22 Pages VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2007- 336, an Amendment to an Intergovernmental Agreement with the State of Oregon regarding Processing Ownership Transactions and Trip Permits for Manufactured Structures. Dave Kanner said that the State charges a fee when a manufactured structure changes hands; this amount is split between the State and the County. LUKE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2007- 107, Appointing a Financial Assistance Administrator for Mental Health's 2007-09 Contract with the Oregon Department of Human Services, and Authorizing the County Administrator and Mental Health Director to Approve Certain Amendments to Such Contract. Greg Canfield gave an overview of the item. LUKE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 5. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2007- 372, a Contract for Subgrant with the La Pine Parks and Recreation District regarding the South County "Think Again Parents" Program. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 2 of 22 Pages Shawn Sellers stated that the La Pine Community Action Team was unable to complete its work regarding this contract, so the La Pine Parks and Recreation District has offered to step in. LUKE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2007- 375, an Intergovernmental Agreement with the State of Oregon Youth Authority regarding 2007-09 Juvenile Crime Prevention Basic and Diversion Services. Hillary Saraceno gave an overview of the agreement. There have been some minor changes made. LUKE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2007- 349, a Development Contract for a Neighborhood Park and Collector Roads in the Newberry Neighborhood, La Pine. Teresa Rozic explained that the party wishes to begin development of Quadrant 1-A of the Newberry Neighborhood. The Russells are to survey, extend roads as needed and provide a neighborhood park. The park will be dedicated as public, and the Russells will encumber each lot with irrevocable OCR's for maintenance of the park. The City of La Pine will be required to maintain the streets. Commissioner Luke said he feels there should be a reversionary clause regarding the County-owned property being contributed towards the park. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 3 of 22 Pages LUKE: Move that a reversionary clause be added for the park portion only. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. LUKE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2007- 374, a Temporary License to Enter County-Owned Property for Surveying Purposes. Teresa Rozic explained that this document would allow the Russells to enter the property to handle the surveying and other preparation for the purpose of the transfer. LUKE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2007- 359, a Grant Agreement with Oregon State Parks regarding Law Enforcement Services on State Lands. Sue Brewster said that the State provides two ATV's and funding for this work, which the Sheriff would likely have to do anyway. LUKE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 4 of 22 Pages 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2007- 358, an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Bend regarding the 2007 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program Award. Sue Brewster stated that this is an annual grant, and the funds will be spent on mobile data terminals in patrol cars LUKE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 11. Before the Board was a Public Hearing, Deliberations and Consideration of a Decision regarding an Appeal of a Proposed Zone Change from F-1 to F- 2 for Property Located near Vandevert Road (Applicant: Pine Forest Development, LLC). Will Groves said that this was noticed as a de novo hearing for this issue, and it is not an appeal. Laurie Craghead added that it is a quasi-judicial matter and the preliminary statement needs to be read to the audience, even though its heading says that it is in regard to appeals. Chair Daly then read the opening statement. In regard to ex parte contacts, prior hearing observations, biases, and conflicts of interest, Commissioner Luke said that there have been work sessions with staff on this and it was also part of the Pine Nursery issue with the federal government. Commissioner Baney indicated she had none. Chair Daly stated that he received a letter from Central Oregon Land Watch and Nancy Craven; and dealings with Tom Luersen in the past. There were no challenges from the audience. Will Groves then gave an overview of the item. He said that the Hearings Officer was required to consider lightly developed property and potential traffic impacts. Commissioner Luke asked about a previous decision regarding Caldera Springs. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 5 of 22 Pages Laurie Craghead explained that she feels the Hearings Officer was wrong when she applied her findings to this case. The land itself consists of predominately contiguous parcels. She also erred in that the Forest Land property is feasible for commercial if it were owned by a private party. She agreed with staff on this. Less than 4% of the border is developed since it is considered a buffer. This particular owner may not want to develop a destination resort but the Board needs to determine if the criteria has been met in this regard. Commissioner Luke asked if F-2 zoning was created just so that destination resorts could be built. Mr. Groves replied that F-3 did not comply with state law, so was collapsed in F-2. It was not created just for this purpose; it was designed to capture smaller ownerships that have road access and residential development near them. Ms. Craghead added that F-1 covers unimpacted forest lands, and F-2 covers impacted forest lands. Commissioner Luke asked if all Forest Service land in the area is zoned F-1, no matter how valuable it is. Mr. Groves said that in previous proceedings, all of it was zoned F-1 no matter what was on it. Mr. Groves stated that Caldera had not considered the Vandevert Road/Highway 97 intersection in its traffic study. Staff anticipates the applicant will address this issue. Staff believes a new traffic study including this intersection should be considered, and the Board should hear testimony in this regard. Commissioner Luke said that he sits on an ODOT committee that considers activity in this area. He asked if the traffic circle was considered when the study was done. Mr. Groves stated that a failure at Abbot/South Century Drive was identified, and the traffic circle was required. Commissioner Luke said that the developer volunteered to build the circle, and it was not a condition of approval. ODOT has considered closing Vandevert when the interchange is done, resulting in more people going out at the interchange. Commissioner Baney stated that clearly the Hearings Officer did not take into account a destination resort when the findings were developed. However, what is being considered is not a destination resort. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 6 of 22 Pages Mr. Groves said that a destination resort could be considered, per County Code. Likely uses coming out of a zone change should be evaluated. The Hearings Officer included an analysis of the traffic impacts. Most uses are outright, and the zone change approval does not automatically allow a destination resort. Commissioner Luke noted that the findings show the National Forest Service intends to dispose of property that has lost its national forest characteristics and is difficult to manage. They found this property is not really forest anymore. They concluded that a sale was in the public interest; that the land has lost its character and is no longer representatives of a National Forest. He added that bringing general language to a specific piece of land is very controversial. A lot of property was lumped into specific zones because at the time the Commissioners thought they'd just deal with it later. Nothing was going on in that area, and no one knew in the 1970's what was coming up. Ms. Craghead noted that zone changes still have to comply with the comp plan. Commissioner Luke said that they are just looking at a zone change. If an application for a destination resort comes in, it has to go through its own process. For quite a while the Hearings Officer was responsible for implementing and enforcing the comp plan for the County. Commissioner Baney said that nothing says all the policies and criteria have to be met. Mr. Groves and Ms. Craghead agreed. Chair Daly opened the hearing for the applicant to speak. Nancy Craven of Ball Janik, representing Pine Forest Development, and Steve Runner and Tom Luersen came before the Board. Ms. Craven said that W&H Pacific submitted information, including the Kittleston traffic report, to the Hearings Officer. Ms. Craven feels this is a very solid zone change case, not a destination resort change case. The rules are clear. She is prepared to assist the County in defending the decision if it is positive, and will defend the County if there is an appeal. She added that numerous people testified before the Hearings Officer in support of the change, and this is part of the record. Steven Runner, Vice President of Pine Forest Development, LLC explained the nature of land and the impacts, referring to an oversized map of the property and the area. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 7 of 22 Pages He said the Forest Service felt it had lost its forest nature and asked Congress to sell it into private ownership, as part of the Bend Pine Nursery Conveyance Act. It was heavily evaluated to make a decision as to whether to sell the property or to retain it. It is clearly impacted by its surroundings. (He went on to list the various developments in the immediate vicinity.) Impacts are also recognized by the transportation infrastructure, the Highway 97 interchange, and general improvements to the corridor from Lava Butte to the interchange, the roundabout recently added, plus other traffic improvements. Ms. Craven noted that the Hearings Officer was very thorough in her review of the Forest Service documents and the history of the County's actions regarding Forest Service property zoning. These are clearly impacted lands, and has few of the characteristics of F-1 land. This information was uncontroverted by a forester. The subject property and surrounding properties have had significant investment regarding transportation. The Hearings Officer looked at the broad picture. There will not be forest management on the property. The only thing that still relates to the land being F-1 is its size; in all other ways it is impacted forest land and the zone should be changed to F-2. The Hearings Officer felt that this would not set precedence as some opponents have indicated. The traffic issue is confusing. The Hearings Officer made a decision under County Code that a destination resort on this parcel is not reasonably foreseeable. Also, if you look at F-1 and F-2 uses, there is no difference and no traffic impact with the currently allowed uses. The land is not yet mapped for destination resorts, so no traffic study is needed at this point. There will be subsequent land use proceedings for any future land use application. Through conditions of approval, this decision is very defensible. Commissioner Luke asked if someone could build more houses on F-2 land than F-1 land. Ms. Craven indicated no. Commissioner Luke said that it may be difficult to get this decision done by July 31, and asked if an extension could be granted. Ms. Craven replied that they try to be very cooperative with the County. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 8 of 22 Pages Will Groves noted formally that the record is before the Board in its entirety. Chair Daly asked for testimony from any other proponents. Scott Hartung, representing the Sunriver Homeowners Association, said that written testimony was provided at the first hearing. They are neutral on the subject. There were some concerns on a larger scale regarding traffic, sewer, water and public services such as law enforcement and fire department services. He said they would like to be a participant in this process. They are in the middle of a traffic study now and this could be an important component. They are currently looking at the failure of the Beaver intersection (internal, by the mall). Commissioner Daly pointed out that the Board is only considering the zone change from F-1 to F-2. Vic Russell stated that the industrial group in La Pine was required to do a traffic study, resulting in the project being delayed for a year and a loss of time and money. It is a waste unless there is a specific use proposed. Chair Daly opened the hearing to testimony from opponents. Pam Hardy, a CO Landwatch attorney, stated that Central Oregon Landwatch submitted extensive testimony to the Hearings Officer, including the following. She said that they conceded that given the adjacency, it might be a good place for a destination resort, but this may not be legal. Stretching the Code for this could be problematic, set precedence and could ultimately affect Skyline Forest. This strains the meaning of impacted and unimpacted. It is only impacted by a power line. The tipping point for the Hearings Officer was its vicinity to other resorts. The County set up a dangerous domino effect. This adjacent land should not be developed. If the land is considered impacted, it is difficult to distinguish future parcels as being impacted or not impacted. The only distinction between F-1 and F-2 is the ability to map for destination resorts. Commissioner Luke pointed out that people bought land on the outskirts of Bend on the chance it would come into the UGB. Many lost that gamble. This is a gamble for the developer. This is for a zone change, not for a destination resort. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 9 of 22 Pages Ms. Hardy noted that considering the only conceivable purpose is a destination resort, this should be taken into consideration. Central Oregon Landwatch would like to see this denied and the property reevaluated. The comp plan was written in the 1970's. Deschutes County is in the midst of economic change, and there are other values at play. The comp plan only addresses impacts to commercial timber. One important reason for denial is the pressure to develop Skyline Forest. She would like to see something done ahead of this before it becomes an applicant- driven process. She requested that the record be left open. Perhaps the land could be used for small-scale forestry. Commissioner Baney said that some good points have been raised. The Community Development Department work plan now includes some general fund money to use for examining the comprehensive plan and similar issues. Nunzie Gould said that this is a precedence setting case, putting greater pressure on adjacent F-1 lands, and the reasoning and justification will be heavily scrutinized by the community in the years to come. Bend was written up in Outdoor Magazine as a top place to live; this is a great milestone. It is important for Deschutes County to start a pool of money for its transportation needs, including up-front fees, SDC's and others. Approving increased density is taxing on our road system. Given the incredible demand on Highway 97, demands on access, rights of way and community needs to be thought out regarding the resources taxed by actions like this. No other opponents testified. Ms. Craghead said that a private forest manager gave expert testimony, but opponents brought up a good point about the impact from destination resorts. But the forest expert indicated the property is not viable for private forest use either. Chair Daly opened up the meeting for rebuttal from the proponents. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 10 of 22 Pages Ms. Craven indicated that the issues raised by Central Oregon Landwatch were rejected by the Hearings Officer. Ms. Craven added that this is not a stretch of the Code and is not precedence setting. It is a fact-dependent case, and not a Skyline Forest issue. Also, it is not fair to characterize that Caldera Springs was a tipping point. Although it borders Forest Service land, it is not managed as a forest resource. Evidence regarding small-scale forestry is already in the record, and was not considered by the Hearings Officer to be significant. At this time a discussion occurred as to whether to leave the record open and when a decision might occur. BANEY: Move to close the record at the end of the hearing. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. July 30 was set as the date for the Board's oral decision on this matter. Ms. Craven extended the clock until August 31. Chair Daly closed the hearing. 12. Before the Board was a Public Hearing regarding Document No. 2007-366, an Application for an Outdoor Mass Gathering Permit as Submitted by Four Peaks Presents, LLC. Kristen Maze gave an overview of the item. She said this type of permit is a first for Deschutes County. Public notice was not required but was sent as a courtesy. Three letters of opposition have been received. The proposed permit complies with the requirements of Code. The situation was confusing as the applicant was required to go to several agencies to satisfy conditions of approval, including posting and access, and as a result they did not complete the permit process within ninety days prior to the event. However, the Board can waive this requirement. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 11 of 22 Pages Laurie Craghead stated that this is not a land use decision and there is not a lot of leeway, if they meet the requirements of Code. It is different from a land use decision in that the Board cannot consider much regarding impacts on neighbors and the area as long as they keep the noise down. The traffic issue is separate, and they have to have a plan, with flaggers. The Sheriff's Office has other requirements in regard to safety. There are letters in the file in this regard. Commissioner Baney asked about noise issues and whether a decision can be appealed. Ms. Craghead replied that the outdoor mass gathering ordinance addresses noise issues, and an appeal can go to the Court of Appeals but would have to fit into writ of review requirements. Commissioner Luke added that this is a fairly new ordinance, and aligns Deschutes County with state law. Chair Daly opened testimony for the applicant. Eric Walton of Four Peaks Presents explained that at the beginning of the process there was confusion and a lack of knowledge of the Code. In January he was told a permit was not needed. Finally he spoke with someone at Community Development who had knowledge of the Ordinance, and he got to work on the details. There were many departments and agencies required to sign off. There seems to be no issue with the proposal, as all agencies have approved the permit. In regard to the ninety-day window, in March he got a copy of the Ordinance that said the permit had to be ready thirty days prior to the event. One of the planners then told him sixty days. There seems to be a lot of confusion, as it is unclear even to staff. Ms. Craghead noted that the new version that was passed in 2006 is on line, and has the ninety-day clause. Staff might have been referring to an old version. Commissioner Luke observed that if staff hands something to you, you assume it is the correct version. Mr. Walton said that he did go on line, but didn't know it was called an outdoor mass gathering. It can't be found under "events" or "noise". It seemed to be in the process of being revised, with crossed-out sections and side notes. As of yesterday, it still looks like a work in progress. It is very confusing. There should perhaps be more parameters, such as "concerts", "events", or other key words. Commissioner Baney said that there is a lot of merit to what he stated, and it should be checked out. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 12 of 22 Pages Mr. Walton stated that there is probably a lack of understanding about the event. It is a blue grass festival, very family-friendly, and children are welcome. It is not a heavy metal rock concert and no problems are anticipated. There will be a security team in place, but it will be a different type of crowd than some people think. They will be selling 200 camping tickets, below the threshold of 500. Nine security people will be present overnight. There will be no car camping. It is removed from the parking area and there will be no power. No alcohol is allowed in the camping area. It will be fenced off with security posted. So far fewer than 100 tickets have been sold. Traffic control will be appropriate as required by Code. They'd like to have Sheriff's Officers there if they are available, or other appropriate authorities. He said he attended the Tumalo Community Association meeting the night before and the members seemed supportive, with just some concerns regarding Highway 20. Maybe ODOT will allow traffic control at Bailey Road. They will hire a certified flagger if necessary. He added he is trying to work with Mt. Bachelor regarding the use of a shuttle. There could be other options for transportation. There are some conflicts because the County Fair runs during the same timeframe. This is a very family-friendly event, not a Woodstock type of festival. It will be low-key. Chair Daly then called on others to testify. Will Nash said he is a long-time resident of Tumalo, and sees the festival as a celebration of the area he grew up in, with a positive impact. The beauty of the Tumalo farmlands and the music are emphasized. They will do all they can to alleviate any issues in regard to traffic and noise. Laurie Craghead stated that under 18.16.150(b), the Board can waive if there is good cause. Two hundred is not well below the threshold; that has to be added to the total for the three days, including set up and tear down time, and staff and band members need to be included. Paul Brown had to leave and did not testify. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 13 of 22 Pages Lewis Jones, who lives on Cook Avenue, provided a handout of information obtained off a website. He stated that he never received any notice. He did talk with one of the organizers a few weeks ago, however. Some people were notified and others were not. He is not home all the time and was not aware of the event date. He lives approximately 750 feet from the property. Kristen Maze said that if he is beyond the notice area even by a foot, he would not have received notice. Mr. Lewis said that the voters' registration address could be wrong as well. He said that according to advertisements on the internet, the event planners are anticipating as many as 3,000 attendees, and the event runs from 10:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The music will be amplified and there is no way it won't disturb the residents. He goes to bed with the chickens and gets up with the chickens. And there is no way they can control smokers, which is a concern as the area is very dry and they are continually policing the fire hazard. In regard to traffic, the road is crooked and only two lanes. There are also very serious accidents at the Highway 20 intersection due to too many speeders. The parking area is planted in grass. A bowl for the stage will resonate the noise. He said he is a bluegrass fan, but doesn't call this music bluegrass. He is against the event, and asked why they don't go to the amphitheater or the fairgrounds instead. This is a residential area and traffic is a concern. He added that if people come onto his property, he will call the Sheriff. Diana McClusky said that she previously owned the ranch, and pays taxes on the adjacent property. There is not enough room and she is concerned about fire issues. They are putting in a pond and irrigation, but they are not ready. Her land is well within the 1,000 feet. If her neighbor hadn't mentioned this to her, she would not know about it. If there is a fire, children will be endangered, and it will go onto her land. She said that people should be able to do what they want with their property, but this isn't right. She can't even build a house on her twenty acres, but the neighbors can hold a concert. Teresa Morey said that this issue is new to her. Her property is about 650 feet away, and she would like clarification as to why she and others did not receive notice. A lot of the parcels are large and zoned EFU, and they probably didn't get notice either. She was on vacation and found a notice in the mail. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 14 of 22 Pages At first she thought it was okay, but then learned there could be 3,000 people there. All parcels in the area are zoned EFU. She asked if this supersedes zoning regulations. It may be a wonderful event, but what about getting permits for parking motor homes there. Commissioner Daly stated that the ordinance does address this. Ms. Morey asked about the impacts on the neighbors; what if they don't like the type of music. If the land is used for a horse show or to sell pumpkins, that is related to farm use. The other issue is, this is not a non-profit event. And the road is a dirt road; will they grade it or water it down. Mike Freese, who lives adjacent to property, asked for a clarification on compliance. He said he found five different things that indicate they are out of compliance, and called Ms. Maze. There is the 90-day issue. The Code said they can't promote it before it is approved, but they already have posters out and it is on the internet. He stated he is a builder and knows why laws are necessary. There should have been a notice of a hearing sent out at least ten days earlier. Ms. Craghead said that is not necessary in this case, as it is not a land use issue. Mr. Freese said that he received his notice on Friday. He is not against the organizers, just the principal of how it has been handled. It was hidden to him until just now. He is also concerned about the cinder road and fire hazards, and knows they are trying to cover things. They are out of compliance. Commissioner Baney asked about the four components he mentioned. Mr. Freese said there were three, with one being the notice. Lisa Armstrong said she/he has young children, and is distressed that people are upset. They are aware of fire danger and no open flame will be allowed. Security and the promoters will be watching over things. The property is irrigated and won't be dry. People need to look at this as a positive thing. The results are unknown right now, as it is the first time. They probably won't be on the property again, and the event will likely be small. Her children will be there and are looking forward to it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 15 of 22 Pages Stacy Totland, a promoter, asked to clarify a couple of things. A few months ago Gary Armstrong and Stacy spoke with all of the neighbors possible and got a positive reception. They believe they have complied with the terms of the Ordinance and went through a million hoops. There is some negativity because it is an unknown. With some education and positive vibes, it can be a good thing for the community. They are not looking to do any harm. The crowd is very family-oriented and will comply with the rules. The concerns have been addressed. They will be strict about fire, camping and noise, and will be done by 10:00 p.m. They hope to be able to at least recoup their expenses for the event. Nunzie Gould expressed concern about traffic safety in Tumalo. All of the intersections are failing. It is important that signage not create additional interference with other intersections. It was mentioned there would not be Sheriff's Officers there because of the Fair. The community needs safe transportation. Perhaps the County could work with ODOT to provide control. The safety of citizens is important and it is unclear where traffic control should be located. It needs to be more than just on-site. Commissioner Baney asked about fire control and traffic mitigation. Ms. Craghead stated that the fire control approval could have been through Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #2. There is a provision in Code that it has to adhere to all fire codes. Testimony indicates there will be no open fires, just food vendors and smokers. The conditions to be met provide for fire extinguishers, safety precautions and people trained in first aid, as well as fire control officers. These standards are set by the fire departments. Kristen Maze added that the City of Bend commented on the application. Commissioner Daly asked if they have met all of the conditions of approval. Ms. Maze replied that all of the agencies have approved. Commissioner Baney asked if additional traffic mitigation can be considered. Ms. Craghead said that they can work with the Oregon State Police or ODOT in this regard. Commissioner Luke asked about them advertising prior to approval of the permit. Ms. Craghead stated that although this was not allowed under Code, they were told by a staff person that a permit was not needed. They came in as soon as they knew, and did it within the time frame, given the situation. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 16 of 22 Pages Commissioner Luke stated that they cannot park in the right of way. Will Nash explained that he spoke with the Fire Marshal regarding the high mowing lane, who said as long as there is signage that no properties would be blocked, they could park there. They don't anticipate needing it. He will check with the Road Department. Ms. Maze stated that the property in question is owned by the Armstrong's, and is not the road. They are proposing nine acres of parking on site that is not accessed off the high mowing lane. Ms. Craghead reiterated that there was no requirement for any notice of a hearing. The Board has indicated they want this added to Code later when other changes are considered. It may be overkill, but some kind of permit is needed because it is open to the public. There is no right to refuse just because it is EFU land. Anyone can host an event, whether or not they are for profit. She suggested that they work with the Oregon State Police and ODOT regarding better traffic safety. Staff believes they have met all of the requirements. Commissioner Baney indicated that the Board may not agree with everything, but are limited by statute. The promoters seem to have good intentions, so everyone will see how it goes. No further testimony was given. BANEY: Move approval of the permit, with the conditions discussed as to traffic safety and overnight camping only in certain areas; and that any of the three Commissioners is authorized to sign the permit. LUKE: Second. There are legitimate concerns, but the County's hands are tied by state law. They should minimize the impacts as much as possible. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 17 of 22 Pages 13. Before the Board was a Work Session on Document No. 2007-367, an Application for an Amendment to Title 18 regarding Amateur Radio Facilities. Catherine Morrow said that the applicant for the text amendment has asked in a letter to withdraw their application. However, the Planning Commission took considerable testimony at a previous hearing, and staff feels that there is a gap in the Code in regard to amateur radio facilities, and that it would be a good idea to address the situation. The Commissioners asked that the work session be rescheduled when more time is available to consider the issue; the hearing scheduled for July 23 will be postponed. 14. Before the Board was a Work Session on Ordinance No. 2007-019, a Proposed Flood Plain Zoning Text Amendment. Laurie Craghead indicated the public hearing is scheduled for July 23. A work session is not needed for this item. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. BANEY: Move approval of the consent agenda. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items 15. Signature of Resolution No. 2007-108, Creating a Change Fund for the Deschutes County Fair & Expo Center for Use During the 2007 Annual County Fair 16. Signature of a Letter Appointing Jon Richards to the Beaver Special Road District Board, through December 31, 2009 17. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Bob Dryden from the Beaver Special Road District Board, and Thanking Him for his Service Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 18 of 22 Pages 18. Signature of a Letter Appointing Mike Schmidt to the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Board, through December 31, 2008 19. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Sharon Miller from the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Board, and Thanking Her for her Service 20. Signature of a Letter Appointing Janet Zuelke to the Panoramic Access Special Road District Board, through December 31, 2009 21. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Bill McKinney from the Panoramic Access Special Road District Board 22. Approval of Economic Development Grant Requests. La Pine Community Kitchen - Capital Improvements 23. Approval of Minutes of Board Meetings: Business Meetings: June 27 and July 2 Work Session: June 27 and July 2 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT 24. Before the Board was a Public Hearing, and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2007-104, Adopting and Continuing Fees and Charges for Services of the Sunriver Service District for Fiscal Year 2007-08. Doug Seator explained the item. Chair Daly opened the hearing at this time. Being no response, he closed the hearing. ]LUKE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 19 of 22 Pages CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE BLACK BUTTE RANCH COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 25. Before the Board was a Public Hearing, and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2007-106 Adopting and Continuing Fees and Charges for Services of the Black Butte Ranch County Service District for Fiscal Year 2007-08. Chair Daly opened the public hearing. Being no response, he closed the hearing. LUKE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 26. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District, in the Amount of $35,802.92. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 27. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District, in the Amount of $1,230.77. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. BANEY: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 20 of 22 Pages VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 28. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County, in the Amount of $973,224.93. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 29. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA A. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2007- 109, Transferring Appropriations within the Sheriffs Office Fund. Sheriff Blanton said that this action would eliminate one position; would reclassify various positions; and create some new positions. Deschutes County Search and Rescue is one of the busiest in the west, and has 80 volunteers but only three paid staff. Some services related to their work are mandated. He would like to increase staffing by two. The Automotive Division needs additional staffing, as they are responsible for maintaining over 200 vehicles of various types. The reclassification of Administrative Sergeant in Corrections will help when 25 new Deputies come on board as the jail is expanded. The Administrative Sergeant will become a Lieutenant, with additional responsibilities. LUKE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 21 of 22 Pages Before the Board was a Request for Approval of an Oregon Liquor Control License Application for the Barking Squirrel, Sunriver. LUKE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Being no further items to come before the Board, Chair Daly adjourned the meeting at 1: 55 p.m. DATED this 11th Day of July 2007 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. n Daly, nom;. nai. uL keyice ATTEST: Tammy Ain y, Commi4ioner Recording Secretary Attachments Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Exhibit G: Agenda Sign-in cards Preliminary statement regarding Pine Forest Development Hearings Officer's decision regarding Pine Forest Development Letters from Nancy Craven and Central Oregon Landwatch regarding Pine Forest Development Outdoor Mass Gathering agenda backup Letters and testimony regarding Mass Gathering Application Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 22 of 22 Pages 0-T E S3 4z~ ~-A 0 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orc BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2007 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Citizens who wish to speak should sign up prior to the beginning of the meeting on the sign-up card provided. Please use the microphone and also state your name and address at the time the Board calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing will NOT be included in the record of that hearing. 2. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2007-348, a Grant Agreement with the Oregon Secretary of State regarding Reimbursement of the Purchase of an Optical Scan Vote Tabulation System - Nancy Blankenship, Clerk 3. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2007-336, an Amendment to an Intergovernmental Agreement with the State of Oregon regarding Processing Ownership Transactions and Trip Permits for Manufactured Structures - Dave Lilley or Marty Wynne, Finance 4. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Resolution No. 2007-107, Appointing a Financial Assistance Administrator for Mental Health's 2007-09 Contract with the Oregon Department of Human Services, and Authorizing the County Administrator and Mental Health Director to Approve Certain Amendments to Such Contract - Greg Canfield, Mental Health Department 5. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2007-372, a Contract for Subgrant with the La Pine Parks and Recreation District regarding the South County "Think Again Parents" Program - Shawn Sellers, Commission on Children & Families Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 1 of 8 Pages Exhibit Page _,L of 6. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2007-375, an Intergovernmental Agreement with the State of Oregon Youth Authority regarding 2007-09 Juvenile Crime Prevention Basic and Diversion Services - Hillary Saraceno and/or Debi Harr, Commission on Children & Families 7. Signature of Document No. 2007-349, a Development Contract for a Neighborhood Park and Collector Roads in the Newberry Neighborhood, La Pine - Teresa Rozic, Property Management 8. Signature of Document No. 2007-374, a Temporary License to Enter County- Owned Property for Surveying Purposes - Teresa Rozic, Property Management 9. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2007-359, a Grant Agreement with Oregon State Parks regarding Law Enforcement Services on State Lands - Sue Brewster or Jim Ross, Sheriff's Office 10. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2007-358, an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Bend regarding the 2007 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program Award - Sue Brewster or Jim Ross, Sheriff's Office 11. DELIBERATIONS and Consideration of a Decision regarding an Appeal of a Proposed Zone Change from F-1 to F-2 for Property Located near Vandevert Road (Applicant: Pine Forest Development, LLC) - Will Groves, Community Development Department 12. A PUBLIC HEARING regarding Document No. 2007-366, an Application for an Outdoor Mass Gathering Permit as Submitted by Four Peaks Presents, LLC - Kristen Maze, Community Development Department 13. A WORK SESSION on Document No. 2007-367, an Application for an Amendment to Title 18 regarding Amateur Radio Facilities - Kristen Maze, Community Development Department 14. A WORK SESSION on Ordinance No. 2007-019, a Proposed Flood Plain Zoning Text Amendment - Kristen Maze Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 2 of 8 Pages CONSENT AGENDA 15. Signature of Resolution No. 2007-108, Creating a Change Fund for the Deschutes County Fair & Expo Center for Use During the 2007 Annual County Fair 16. Signature of a Letter Appointing Jon Richards to the Beaver Special Road District Board, through December 31, 2009 17. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Bob Dryden from the Beaver Special Road District Board, and Thanking Him for his Service 18. Signature of a Letter Appointing Mike Schmidt to the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Board, through December 31, 2008 19. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Sharon Miller from the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Board, and Thanking Her for her Service 20. Signature of a Letter Appointing Janet Zuelke to the Panoramic Access Special Road District Board, through December 31, 2009 21. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Bill McKinney from the Panoramic Access Special Road District Board 22. Approval of Economic Development Grant Requests. La Pine Community Kitchen - Capital Improvements 23. Approval of Minutes of Board Meetings: Business Meetings: June 27 and July 2 Work Session: June 27 and July 2 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT 24. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2007-104, Adopting and Continuing Fees and Charges for Services of the Sunriver Service District for Fiscal Year 2007-08 Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 3 of 8 Pages CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE BLACK BUTTE RANCH COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 25. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2007-106 Adopting and Continuing Fees and Charges for Services of the Black Butte Ranch County Service District for Fiscal Year 2007-08 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 26. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 27. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-1-1 County Service District RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 28. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County 29. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 4 of 8 Pages FUTURE MEETINGS: (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572) Tuesday, July 10, 2007 10:30 a.m. Project Wildfire Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 5:00 p.m. Meeting with the Bend City Council, Hollinshead Barn, 1237 NE Jones Road, Bend Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:00 noon Regular Meeting of the Audit Committee Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:00 a.m. Regular Meeting of the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:00 a.m. Meeting with Bend Chamber of Commerce Representative(s) regarding Legislative Policy Monday, July 23, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board Land Use Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday. July 25, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, Julv 26, 2007 7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the Redmond City Council, Redmond Council Chambers 1:30 p.m. Sheriff's Department Update, at Sheriffs Office Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 5 of 8 Pages Monday, July 30, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board Land Use Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, August 1, 2007 Opening Day at the Fair Monday, August 6, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board Land Use Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council) Wednesday, August 8, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, August 15, 2007 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, August 16, 2007 7:00 a.m. Meeting with Bend Chamber of Commerce Representative(s) regarding Legislative Policy Monday, August 20, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Land Use 12:00 noon Regular Meeting with Department Heads 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 6:00 p.m. Meeting with Crooked River Ranch Board of Directors (location to be determined) Tuesday, August 21, 2007 10:00 a.m. Regular Meeting of the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 6 of 8 Pages Wednesday, August 22, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, August 27, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Land Use 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, September 3, 2007 Most County offices will be closed to observe Labor Day. Wednesday, September 5, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, September 6, 2007 10:00 a.m. District Attorney Update 11:00 a.m. Community Development Department Update 1:30 p.m. Road Department Update Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, September 13, 2007 7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the Redmond City Council, Redmond Council Chambers 10:00 a.m. Health Department Update 11:00 a.m. Mental Health Department Update Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 7 of 8 Pages Monday, September 17, 2007 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Tuesday, September 18, 2007 10:00 a.m. Regular Meeting of the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee Wednesday, September 19, 2007 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, September 20, 2007 7:00 a.m. Meeting with Bend Chamber of Commerce - Legislative Policy Council 10:00 a.m. Juvenile Community Justice Department Update 11:00 a.m. Parole & Probation Department Update 12:00 noon Regular Meeting of the Audit Committee Monday, September 24, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Land Use 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:00 a.m. Fair & Expo Department Update 11:00 a.m. Commission on Children & Families' Department Update 1:30 p.m. Sheriff's Department Update, at Sheriffs Office Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 8 of 8 Pages o~G Deschutes County Board of Commissioners { 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orc ADDITION TO THE AGENDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 119 2007 CONSIDERATION of Signature of Resolution No. 2007-109, Transferring Appropriations within the Sheriffs Office Fund IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: -PRv c.- &w j Mailing Address: g"),&Jw ~oN Pis v2 °t-7 '70 1 02 Phone E-mail Address: Date: 7. 1- a~ Subject: Ai,-AK--s ,muse t4ts-rwei~_ IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to ou ty staff person. Name: Mailing Address: , gwt'2, 4~4~ (2-. o $ Phone E-mail Addr ss: LA>k Date: '7I, I o_, Subject: Exhibit Page / of IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: rt gi Mailing Addr ss: 2,?,s F a. Phone E-mail Address: 5ci, f u, ;~y Date: 1 Subject: IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: `f M ilin Address: IT 5 - Phone E-mail Address: Date:a Subject: =;/kuSPC:-i r IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: ex)e q Mailing Address: I Phone E-mail Address: Morn Date:. , Subject:gleai, ~%Zc~ c7mG~ Col - ► IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: M i Mailing Address: r :..A Phone #:,r 41 , -3 E-mail Address: Date: 77- / / - ` ~7 Subject: e%r i~&t NS56gy~,..~ .20,07 "3G6► IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County taff pers t~. Name:" ` t Mailing Address: d Phone,#:{ E-mail Address: - - Date: Subject: IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: ' e, Mailing Address: C,4:4gjL &OkAu4 Phone , 411- ?/Y- xi. E-mail Address: Date: :Subject: &a4g& y0" PRELIMINARY STATEMENT IN APPEALS BEFORE THE BOARD 1. INTRODUCTION A. This is a de novo hearing on a proposed zone change from F-1 to F-2. File number: ZC-06-3 B. In the application, the applicant seeks approval of a zone change from F- 1 to F-2 for a 617-acre parcel located west of Highway 97, north of Vandevert Road, and east of South Century Drive and the Caldera Springs development. II. BURDEN OF PROOF AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA A. The applicant has the burden of proving that they are entitled to the land use approval sought. B. The standards applicable to the application before us are listed on pages 1 and 2 of the Hearings Officer's decision dated September 30, 2005 and provided in the information packets near the door. C. Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the criteria set forth in the decision of the Hearings Officer report, the staff report as well as toward any other criteria in the comprehensive land use plan of the County or land use regulations which any person believes applies to this decision. D. Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners and parties to this proceeding an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. Additionally, failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to the proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the Board to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Page 1 of 3-Chair's Opening Statement for Land Use Hearings File: A-05-12 (AD-05-4 & A-05-3)Date of Hearing: 1/25/05 Exhibit (2- Page of III. HEARINGS PROCEDURE A. Evidence to be reviewed by the Board. The Board's decision on this application will be based upon the record before the Hearings Officer, the Hearings Officer's decision, the Staff Report and the testimony and evidence presented at this hearing. IV. ORDER OF PRESENTATION A. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. 1. The staff will give a report. 2. The applicant will then have an opportunity to offer testimony and evidence. 3. Proponents of the appeal will then be given a chance to testify and present evidence. When all other proponents have testified, opponents to the appeal will then be given a chance to testify and present evidence. 4. After both proponents and opponents have testified, the applicants will be allowed to present rebuttal testimony but may not present new evidence. 5. At the Board's discretion, if the applicants presented new evidence on rebuttal, opponents may be recognized for a rebuttal presentation. 6. At the conclusion of this hearing, the staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments. 7. The Board may limit the time period for presentations. B. Cross-examination of witnesses will not be allowed. A witness who wishes, during that witness' testimony, however, to ask a question of a previous witness may direct the question to the Chair. If a person has already testified but wishes to ask a question of a subsequent witness, that person may also direct the question to the Chair after all other witnesses have testified but prior to the proponent's rebuttal. The Page 2 of 3-Chair's Opening Statement for Land Use Hearings File: A-05-12 (AD-05-4 & A-05-3)Date of Hearing: 1/25/05 Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the witness. C. Continuances 1. The grant of a continuance or record extension shall be at the discretion of the Board. V. PRE-HEARING CONTACTS, BIASES, CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS 1. Do any of the Commissioners have any ex-parte contacts, prior hearing observations; biases; or conflicts of interest to declare? If so, please state the nature and extent of those. 2. Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner based on ex- parte contacts, biases or conflicts of interest? (Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed.) Page 3 of 3-Chair's Opening Statement for Land Use Hearings File: A-05-12 (AD-05-4 & A-05-3)Date of Hearing: 1/25/05 DECISION OF DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBER: ZC-06-3 APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Pine Forest Development, LLC P.O. Box 3589 Sunriver, Oregon 97707 APPLICANT'S ATTORNEYS: Nancy Craven Megan D. Walseth Ball Janik LLP 101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 1100 Portland, Oregon 97204-3219 APPLICANT'S ENGINEERS: W&H Pacific Thomas Walker, P.E. 920 S.W. Emkay Drive, #C-100 Bend, Oregon 97702-1042 OPPONENT'S ATTORNEY: Pam Hardy 1629 N.W. Fresno Avenue Bend, Oregon 97701 Attorney for Opponent Central Oregon Landwatch REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a zone change from F-1 to F-2 for a 617-acre parcel located west of Highway 97, north of Vandevert Road, and east of South Century Drive and the Caldera Springs development. STAFF REVIEWER: William Groves, Associate Planner HEARING DATE: February 27, 2007 RECORD CLOSED: April 11, 2007 1. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 18.136, Amendments * Section 18.136.010, Amendments Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 1 of 24 Exhibit Page C of * Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards B. Title 23 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan 1. Chapter 23.92, Forest Lands * Section 23.92.020, Goal * Section 23.92.030, Policies C. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 660 1. OAR 660-015-0000, Statewide Planning Goals 2. OAR 660-012-0060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments II. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. Location: The subject property does not have an assigned address. It is located west of Highway 97 and the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks, north of Vandevert Road, south of Sunriver, and east of South Century Drive and the Caldera Springs resort. It is further identified as a portion of Tax Lot 100 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 20-11, and as Parcel A of the 950-acre U.S. Forest Service (USFS) "Tract C Land Conveyance." B. Zoning and Plan Designation: The subject property is zoned Forest Use (F-1) and designated Forest on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan map. C. Site Description: The subject property is 617 acres in size, irregular in shape, generally level, and with a moderate to heavy cover of 60- to 80-year-old ponderosa and lodgepole pine trees and native brush and grasses. The property is traversed by a Mid-State Electric Cooperative transmission line. The southern boundary of the property abuts Vandevert Road and a portion of the western property boundary abuts South Century Drive. D. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: To the north is the Sunriver Business Park, an 85- acre development including 120 individually owned commercial uses. Further to the north is the 3,300-acre Sunriver unincorporated community on land zoned Urban Unincorporated Community (UUC) and developed with 4,100 separate ownerships, two golf courses, an airport, marina, clubhouse, and commercial centers with a variety of commercial uses. Abutting the property's entire eastern boundary are the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks located on an elevated road bed. East of the railroad tracks is a large vacant USFS parcel zoned F-1. Further to the east are U.S. Highway 97 and its 230-foot-wide right-of-way, the new South Century Drive/Highway 97 interchange under construction, and tens of thousands of acres of USFS land zoned F- 1. To the south across Vandevert Road are two vacant USFS parcels - Parcels B and C of the USFS "Tract C Land Conveyance" - and comprising 280 acres. Further to the south is the Blue Eagle rural subdivision on 200 acres of land zoned Rural Residential (RR-10) Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 2 of 24 and developed with approximately 100 separate ownerships. To the southwest are South Century Drive and the Vandevert Ranch development including 22 lots on 400 acres. The remaining western boundary of the subject property abuts the Caldera Springs destination resort developed on 390 acres of land zoned F-2 and including 370 individual ownerships. Further to the west are the Crosswater destination resort on 60 acres of land zoned F-2 and developed with 120 separate ownerships, and two rural residential subdivisions (Oregon Water Wonderland and Deschutes River Recreation Homesites) on land zoned RR-10 and developed with several thousand individual lots. E. Procedural History: The applicant submitted the subject zone change application on December 19, 2006 and the county accepted the application as complete on January 19, 2007. Therefore, the 150-day period for issuance of a final local land use decision under ORS 215.427 would have expired on June 18, 2007. A public hearing on the application was scheduled for February 27. 2007. On that date the Hearings Officer conducted a site visit to the subject property and vicinity accompanied by Associate Planner Will Groves. At the public hearing the Hearings Officer disclosed her observations and impressions from the site visit, received testimony and evidence, left the written evidentiary record open through April 4, 2007, and allowed the applicant through April 11, 2007 to submit final argument pursuant to ORS 197.763. Because the applicant agreed to extend the written record from February 27 through April 11, 2007, under Section 22.24.140 of the county's land use procedures ordinance the 150-day period was tolled for 43 days and now expires on July 31, 2007. As of the date of this decision there remain 62 days in the 150-day period. F. Proposal: The applicant requests approval of a zone change from F-1 to F-2 for the subject property. The proposed zone change to F-2 would allow the county to consider the subject property for destination resort mapping and development. G. Public/Private Agency Comments: The Planning Division mailed notice of the applicant's proposal to a number of public and private agencies and received responses from: the Deschutes County Forester, Property Address Coordinator, Assessor, and Senior Transportation Planner; the La Pine Fire Department; and the Oregon Department of Water Resources, Watermaster-District 11. These comments are included in the record. The following agencies did not respond to the notice: the Deschutes County Environmental Health Division and Road Department; the Sunriver Fire Department; the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW); and the USFS. H. Public Notice and Comments: The Planning Division mailed individual written notice of the applicant's proposal and the public hearing to the owners of record of all property located within 750 feet of the subject property. In addition, notice of the public hearing was published in the Bend "Bulletin" newspaper, and the subject property was posted with a notice of proposed land use action sign. As of the date the record in this matter closed, the county had received 20 letters from the public in response to these notices. In addition, 10 members of the public testified at the public hearing. 1. Lot of Record: The staff report states the county recognizes the subject property as a Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 3 of 24 legal lot of record having been created by a USFS deed dated November 14, 2006. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: A. Preliminary Issues: FINDINGS: Several opponents objected to the applicant's proposed zone change on the basis of anticipated effects from destination resort development of the subject property, such as impacts on natural resources such as wildlife habitat, groundwater, and architectural resources, impacts on surrounding residential development, and impacts on public services such as fire protection. However, no destination resort development proposal is before the Hearings Officer in these proceedings. In addition, as discussed in the findings below, I have concluded it is not necessary or appropriate for me to consider potential destination resort development on the subject property in determining whether the proposed zone change satisfies the county's zone change approval criteria. Therefore I will not consider these objections. B. Historical Background: FINDINGS: The record indicates that in 2000 the U.S. Congress enacted the 2000 Bend Pine Nursery Land Conveyance Act (Public Law 106-526) which authorized the Deschutes National Forest to exchange or transfer into private ownership lands identified as no longer suitable for USFS management. The record indicates the Act identified 7 parcels for potential transfer to private ownership, including a 950-acre parcel of federal forest land called the "Tract C Land Conveyance." That tract included three parcels: Parcel A, the subject property; and Parcels B and C located south of the subject property across Vandevert Road. The Deschutes National Forest Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District conducted an environmental assessment of Tract C. Based on that assessment, USFS Regional Forester Linda Goodman issued a "Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact" (hereafter "decision") authorizing Tract C to be transferred from the USFS into private ownership. As discussed above, the applicant purchased Parcel A from the USFS in November of 2006. As of the date of this decision Parcels B and C remain in federal ownership. Copies of the environmental assessment and decision for Tract C are included in this record as attachments to the applicant's burden of proof. The decision states in pertinent part: "The primary purpose for conveying lands out of federal ownership is to dispose of these isolated tracts of National Forest System Lands that have lost their National Forest character and are difficult to manage. Sale of the lands would have a second purpose, which is to use the proceeds to help fund new Forest Service administrative facilities, as provided in the 2000 Bend Pine Nursery Land Conveyance Act (Public Law 106-526). Exchange of the lands would have a third purpose, which is to acquire private lands that would contribute significant resource values to the National Forest System, or otherwise be in the public interest to acquire. " The decision identifies the alternatives to conveyance of Tract C considered by Ms. Goodman, and includes the following findings in support of her decision that Tract C should be transferred into private ownership: Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 4 of 24 ."I have concluded that the conveyance of these federal lands is in the public interest, and that conveyance of the parcels outweighs benefits of keeping them in federal ownership. The parcels are isolated National Forest properties, nearly surrounded by private land. It is difficult and not cost effective to manage these lands as part of the National Forest System given their rural residential setting, configuration, size, and existing or increasing encroachments and unauthorized uses. These parcels are identified as being available for disposal under the Bend Pine Nursery Land Conveyance Act signed into law November 22, 2000. This decision implements the Act, allowing lands to be used for purposes potentially better suited to the location. The properties have lost their character and are no longer representative of a National Forest, even though people in the local neighborhood may feel that they still have local character as wooded or forested areas. The trees provide pleasant aesthetics to the local residents, but the area can no longer be effectively managed for broader National Forest goals. The properties have become heavily influenced by their rural residential setting. Unauthorized uses, including dumping of garbage, creation of new roads and trails, and illegal firewood and tree removal, have all contributed to the loss of National Forest character. It may not be apparent to the casual visitor that these are National Forest lands. Future land uses will be under the jurisdiction of county and state regulations and zoning requirements, and I am confident that future approved uses would be balanced and responsive to local community needs, protect local resources and scenic values, and incorporate site specific concerns of nearby residents and the local public. Social issues such as school needs, transportation, and water and sewer services, would be considered and addressed in the land use application process for any developments proposed in the future. I believe that under private ownership, the properties would be utilized in a way that is more responsive to the needs and economy of the local area. " The record indicates the applicant is a wholly-owned entity of Sunriver Limited Partnership which owns portions of the Sunriver community located north of the subject property as well as the Caldera Springs destination resort abutting the subject property on the west. The applicant purchased the subject property and requested a zone change F-1 to F-2 to make possible the mapping and development of the property for a destination resort. Because the property now is in private ownership it is subject to the provisions of the Deschutes County Code, discussed in detail in the findings below. C. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 18.136, Amendments a. Section 18.136.010, Amendments DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 5 of 24 procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22. FINDINGS: The applicant has requested approval of a zone change from F-1 to F-2 for the subject property. The record includes a zone change application filed by the applicant/property owner on a county form and accompanied by the required application fee. This zone change application has been processed pursuant to Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code. b. Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards The applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant are: FINDINGS: At the outset, opponent Central Oregon Landwatch (hereafter "Landwatch") argues the first sentence of this section establishes an independent approval criterion - i.e., that the "public interest is best served by rezoning" the subject property. The Hearings Officer disagrees. I find this sentence is introductory in nature and is modified by the second sentence which identifies the applicable zone change approval criteria as those "factors to be demonstrated" by the applicant in Paragraphs (A) through (D) of this section. In other words, the applicant must demonstrate the proposed zone change will best serve the public interest by demonstrating compliance with these four factors. A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is consistent with the plan's introductory statement and goals. FINDINGS: The meaning of zoning ordinance "plan conformance" approval criteria such as this one has been the subject of considerable discussion in recent LUBA decisions. Comprehensive plan statements, goals and policies typically are not intended to, and do not, constitute mandatory approval criteria for quasi-judicial land use permit applications. Save Our Skyline v. City of Bend, 48 Or LUBA 192 (2004). There, LUBA held: "As intervenor correctly points out, local and statutory requirements that land use decisions be consistent with the comprehensive plan do not mean that all parts of the comprehensive plan necessarily are approval standards. [Citations omitted.] Local governments and this Board have frequently considered the text and context of cited parts of the comprehensive plan and concluded that the alleged comprehensive plan standard was not an applicable approval standard. [Citations omitted.] Even if the comprehensive plan includes provisions that can operate as approval standards, those standards are not necessarily relevant to all quasi-judicial land use permit applications. [Citation omitted.] Moreover, even if a plan provision is a relevant standard that must be considered, the plan Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 6 of 24 provision might not constitute a separate mandatory approval criterion, in the sense that it must be separately satisfied, along with any other mandatory approval criteria, before the application can be approved. Instead, that plan provision, even if it constitutes a relevant standard, may represent a required consideration that must be balanced with other relevant considerations. [Citations omitted.] " LUBA went on to hold in Save Our Skyline that it is appropriate to "consider first whether the comprehensive plan itself expressly assigns a particular role to some or all of the plan's goals and policies." Section 23.08.020 of the county's comprehensive plan provides as follows: The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan for Deschutes County is not to provide a site-specific identification of the appropriate land uses which may take place on a particular piece of land but rather it is to consider the significant factors which affect or are affected by development in the County and provide a general guide to the various decisions which must be made to promote the greatest efficiency and equity possible, while managing the continuing growth and change of the area. Part of that process is identification of an appropriate land use plan, which is then interpreted to make decisions about specific sites (most often in zoning and subdivision administration) but the plan must also consider the sociological, economic and environmental consequences of various actions and provide Euidelines and policies for activities which may have effects beyond physical changes of the land. (Emphasis added.) The Hearings Officer finds the above-underscored language strongly suggests the county's plan statements, goals and policies are not intended to establish approval standards for quasi-judicial land use permit applications. In Bothman v. City of Eugene, 51 Or LUBA 426 (2006), LUBA found it appropriate also to review the language of specific plan policies to determine whether and to what extent they may in fact establish decisional standards. The policies at issue in that case included those ranging from aspirational statements to planning directives to the city to policies with language providing "guidance for decision-making" with respect to specific rezoning proposals. In Bothman LUBA concluded the planning commission erred in not considering in a zone change proceeding a plan policy requiring the city to "[r]ecognize the existing general office and commercial uses located * * * [in the geographic area including the subject property] and discourage future rezonings of these properties." LUBA held that: * * even where a plan provision might not constitute an independently applicable mandatory approval criterion, it may nonetheless represent a relevant and necessary consideration that must be reviewed and balanced with other relevant considerations. pursuant to ordinance provisions that require consistency with applicable plan provisions. "(Emphasis added.) The county's comprehensive plan includes a large number of goals and policies. The applicant's burden of proof addresses goals for rural development, economy, transportation, public facilities, Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 7 of 24 recreation, energy, natural hazards, destination resorts, open spaces, fish and wildlife, and forest lands. The Hearings Officer finds these goals are aspirational in nature and therefore are not intended to create decision standards for the proposed zone change. Staff and the parties also address specific plan policies concerning forest lands that include mandatory language, now codified in Section 23.92.030 and set forth below. These policies were adopted in 1992 through Ordinance 92-024 in order to comply with Goal 4 administrative rules enacted in 1990 by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). At the time Ordinance 92-024 was adopted, the county had three separate forest zones F-1, F-2 and F-3. The findings in support of Ordinance 92-024, included in this record, state the county found its former F-3 Zone did not comply with the new administrative rules, and it was therefore necessary to reconfigure its forest zones into the two existing zones - F-1 and F-2. The Deschutes County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners (board) undertook a county-wide legislative process to identify and zone all public forest land F-1, and to zone all private forest lands as either F-1 or F-2 based on whether such lands were "unimpacted" or "impacted" considering certain characteristics set forth in the plan policies. The findings in support of Ordinance 92-024 and Ordinance 92-026, which amended the zoning ordinance and map to conform with the new forest land plan policies, state that in rezoning all private forest lands the board did not give additional consideration to soil capability, and conducted site- specific evaluations of 26 individual forest tracts identified by staff and/or the property owners as requiring individual consideration because they had characteristics of both "unimpacted" and "impacted" forest land. Of these 26 tracts, 14 were zoned F-1 and 12 were zoned F-2. Section 23.92.030 codifies the forest land policies adopted in 1992 and provides as follows: 1. Deschutes County shall designate forest lands on the comprehensive map consistent with Goal 4 and OAR 660, Division 6. 2. Deschutes County shall zone forest lands for uses allowed pursuant to OAR 660, Division 6. * * * 3. In order to conserve and maintain unimpacted forest land base for forest use the County shall identify and zone as F-1 those lands which have the followinp- characteristics: a. Consist predominantly of ownerships. not developed by residences or. non- forest uses. b. Consist predominantly of contiguous ownerships of 160 acres or larger in size. C. Consist predominantly of ownerships contiguous to other lands utilized for commercial forest or commercial farm uses. d. Accessed by arterial roads or roads intended primarily for forest management. Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 8 of 24 e. Primarily under forest management. 4. In order to conserve and maintain impacted forest lands for forest use the County shall identify and zone as F-2 those lands which have the following characteristics: a. Consist predominantly of ownerships developed for residential or other non- forest uses; b. Consist predominantly of contiguous ownerships of less than 160 acres in size; C. Consist predominantly of ownerships generally contiguous to tracts containing less than 160 acres and residences, or adjacent to acknowledged exception areas; d. Provided with a level of public facilities and services, including roads, intended primarily for direct services to rural residences. (Emphasis added.) The Hearings Officer finds the above-underscored language constitutes at the very least a directive to the county to make forest land zoning decisions based on consideration of the "unimpacted" and "impacted" forest land characteristics. The remaining question is whether these characteristics also were intended to constitute actual decision-making standards applicable to quasi-judicial zone change applications, or rather were intended only to establish "relevant and necessary consideration[s] that must be reviewed and balanced with other relevant considerations" similar to the policy at issue in Bothman. The Hearings Officer finds the policies in Section 23.92.030 fall into the "consideration" category for the following reasons. Although the policies in Paragraphs (3) and (4) are couched in mandatory terms, the county did not incorporate them into the zoning ordinance text for the F-1 and F-2 Zones. And the language in Policies (3) and (4) has the distinct flavor of big-picture considerations - i.e., intended to guide the board's legislative zoning decisions. For example, the policies direct the county to identify and zone "those lands * * * which * * * consist predominantly of ownerships enerally contiguous" with certain characteristics. Nevertheless, as was the case with the policy at issue in Bothman, I find the mandatory language in these policies requires that the county at a minimum consider the characteristics in Policies (3) and (4) in making quasi- judicial forest land zoning decisions. Therefore, I find I must consider these policies in determining whether the proposed zone change from F-1 to F-2 "conforms with" the comprehensive plan, and is "consistent with the plan's introductory statement and goals" as required by Section 18.136.020(A). Turning to consideration of the policies, a threshold question is whether all of the characteristics of "unimpacted" or "impacted" forest land must be satisfied in order for a parcel to qualify for the F-1 or F-2 Zone, respectively. The policies do not expressly state such a requirement, and the characteristics in each policy are not listed in the conjunctive. Moreover, use of the terms "predominantly" and "generally" in some of the characteristics implies the exercise of considerable discretion in applying them. These terms are not defined in Title 23. Webster's New World Dictionary defines "predominantly" as "most frequent, noticeable, etc.; prevailing; Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 9 of 24 preponderant," and defines "generally" is "in most instances; usually; as a rule; * * * in a general way or sense; without reference to details or individual cases." The Hearings Officer finds these definitions are instructive in that they do not have a strict or mechanical connotation but rather suggest room for discretion. In addition, the findings in support of Ordinance 92-024 show that the board exercised considerable discretion in applying these characteristics in its 1992 legislative zoning decisions for the 26 forest land tracts, specifically addressed in the findings as follows: "A number of forest tracts received additional scrutiny in the process either because they were brought to the attention of the Planning Commission and staff by the property owners or because they were identified by staff as requiring discretion in the application of the criteria. The Planning Commission requested additional information in order to zone these properties. For this reason staff prepared summary data sheets for each such property, with recommended zoning. Except for those forest tracts identified below, recommended zone classifications were not contested. " The referenced data sheets show that some of these 26 tracts had characteristics of both "impacted" or ."unimpacted" forest land. For example, the board zoned . F-2 a 317-acre undeveloped parcel that shared a common boundary with the Black Butte Ranch residential resort (Tax Lot 1900 on Map 14-9-21), and a 601-acre undeveloped parcel surrounded by significant parcelization and residential development (Tax Lot 701 on Map 14-10-13).1 For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that to qualify as "unimpacted" or "impacted" forest land under Policies (3) and (4) in Section 23.92.030 a parcel need not satisfy all the characteristics of these categories. Rather, I may use discretion in considering the characteristics as they apply to the subject property to determine its appropriate zone. The first four characteristics of "unimpacted" and "impacted" forest land are essentially opposites of one another. For this reason staff and the parties have argued, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that the subject property should be evaluated with reference to both sets of characteristics. a. Consist predominantly of ownerships not developed/developed for residential or other non-forest uses. As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, the subject property is undeveloped except for an electric transmission line. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the property consists entirely of "ownerships not developed for residential or other non-forest uses," weighing in favor of characterizing the subject property as "unimpacted" land. b. Consist predominantly of contiguous ownerships of 160 acres or larger in size/less 1 Staff argues the board's decision to zone these parcels F-2 represents a misapplication of the forest land policies and resulted from political pressure. While there may be some support in this record for this political claim, the Hearings Officer finds these decisions also can be viewed as examples of the board exercising the very sort of discretion contemplated by the language of Policies (3) and (4). Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 10 of 24 than 160 acres in size. The subject property consists 671 acres. in single ownership. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the property consists of "contiguous ownerships of 160 acres or larger in size," also weighing in favor of characterizing the subject property as "unimpacted." C. Consist predominantly of ownerships generally contiguous to tracts containing less than 160 acres and residences, or adjacent to acknowledged exception areas. Consist predominantly of ownerships contiguous to other lands utilized for commercial forest or commercial farm uses. Staff and the parties disagree on the meaning of the terms "predominantly" and "generally contiguous" for purposes of Policy (4)(c). None of these terms is defined in the comprehensive plan. Therefore the Hearings Officer finds it is appropriate to look to other sources to define these terms. The ordinary definition of "predominant" is "most frequent, noticeable, etc.; prevailing; preponderant." Webster's New World Dictionary. As discussed above, the ordinary definition of "generally" includes "in a general way or sense; without reference to details or individual cases." Section 18.04.030 of the zoning ordinance defines "contiguous land" as "parcels of land under the same ownership which abut, irrespective of roadways." The parties appear to agree that in determining whether surrounding parcels are "contiguous" intervening roads should be disregarded. Staff argues "generally contiguous" in the context of this policy should be determined using a mathematical approach, calculating how much of the subject property's approximately 5.6-mile perimeter each contiguous parcel abuts. Staff and Landwatch also argue residences in the adjacent Caldera Springs destination resort shouldn't be considered "generally contiguous" because they are separated from the subject property by large open space tracts designed to buffer the resort from impacts of forest uses on the subject property. The applicant responds, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that neither of these strict approaches is consistent with the term "generally contiguous," or with the manner in which the board applied this term when it made site-specific zoning decisions during its 1992 legislative process. Rather, I find that to properly consider these characteristics as contemplated by the comprehensive plan I must look at the character of the contiguous tracts "generally" - i.e., without undue emphasis on any one tract. In addition, the applicant notes, and I agree, that the 150-foot-wide open space tracts on the east side of the Caldera Springs resort were not established specifically to create a buffer from forest uses on the subject property but were imposed under Section 18.113.060 of the zoning ordinance as part of the general requirements for all destination resorts.2 Therefore, I find there is no reason to interpret the term "generally contiguous" to exclude consideration of residences within Caldera Springs. The record indicates the subject property is contiguous to the following lands with the following 2 Section 18.113.060(G)(2)(iii) establishes a 150-foot setback from a destination resort's exterior property lines for "above-grade development other than that listed in" Paragraphs (i) and (ii), which address commercial and multi-family residential development. Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 11 of 24 characteristics. 1. East: Across the BNSF railroad tracks is a very large undeveloped USFS parcel zoned F- 1. The record indicates this parcel is managed as part of the Deschutes National Forest. This parcel is contiguous to the subject property's entire eastern. However, because of its location adjacent to Highway 97, approximately half of the portion of the USFS parcel abutting the subject property lies within the Highway 97 scenic management corridor. 2. South: Across Vandevert Road are two contiguous undeveloped USFS parcels comprising 280 acres and zoned F-1. As discussed in the findings above, these parcels are part of the "Tract C Land Conveyance" and will be transferred into private ownership. These parcels are contiguous to the subject property's entire southern boundary. 3. Southwest: Across South Century Drive is the Vandevert Ranch, a 22-lot rural residential development on a 400-acre parcel zoned RR-10. This development is contiguous to approximately one-fifth of the subject property's western boundary. 4. West: Abutting the subject property is the Caldera Springs destination resort, a 390-acre parcel zoned F-2 and including 370 individually-owned lots, a golf course, clubhouse, and recreation and entertainment amenities. This resort is contiguous to approximately four-fifths of the subject property's western boundary. The record indicates approximately 50 of the individual lots are located 150 feet from the subject property's western boundary. 4. North: Abutting the subject property is the 85-acre Sunriver Business Park which is part of the Sunriver community zoned UUC and is developed with 120 separately-owned commercial uses. This development is contiguous to the subject property's entire northern boundary. With the exception of the Sunriver Business Park, which is part of an acknowledged exception area, all contiguous tracts are zoned forest and larger than 160 acres. The remaining question is whether the "predominant" contiguity to the subject property consists of "tracts containing less than 160 acres and residences, or adjacent to acknowledged exception areas," or of "other lands utilized for commercial forest * * * uses." Staff and Landwatch argue that because the large. F-1 zoned USFS. parcels. are contiguous to approximately half of the subject property's 5.6-mile perimeter the subject property should be considered "unimpacted." Landwatch argues these federal parcels are "utilized for commercial forest use." The applicant responds that since approximately half of the subject property's perimeter abuts commercial development and extensive residential development that extends from Caldera Springs west and northwest to include the Crosswater resort, numerous rural residential subdivisions and Sunriver, the subject property should be considered "impacted." The applicant also argues that even though the USFS parcels abut a significant portion of the subject property, they cannot reasonably be considered as "utilized for commercial forest use" because the primary use of the USFS parcel to the east is as part of the Highway 97 scenic management corridor, and because the parcels to the south have been deemed unsuitable for commercial forest use management by Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 12 of 24 the USFS in large part because of their proximity to rural residential and resort development, and soon will be transferred into private ownership. Landwatch responds that just because parcels may be unsuitable for commercial forest management by the USFS, they nevertheless may be suitable for commercial forest use by private owners engaged in smaller-scale forest operations such as production of smaller diameter timber for local sawmills or fuel for biomass plants such as one being considered for development in the La Pine area. The Hearings Officer finds the subject property's predominant contiguity is a close question. That is because the property is located at the center of a transition area between the Deschutes National Forest that extends miles to the east of Highway 97 and vast expanses of rural residential and resort development that extend to the west, north and south. The USFS decision on the "Tract C Land Conveyance" identifies much of its forest land west of Highway 97 - including the subject property as no longer suitable for commercial forest use because of its physical isolation from the rest of the Deschutes National Forest due to the highway and the railroad tracks, and the impacts resulting from its proximity to the extensive residential development in the area. The record indicates the USFS is managing its remaining National Forest lands in this area west of Highway 97 for both scenic corridor management and for general forest purposes including timber production. For these reasons, I find the subject property is not predominantly "contiguous to other lands utilized for commercial forest * * * uses" which would weigh in favor of F-1 zoning. Rather, I find the subject property reasonably can be considered "impacted" forest land because it consists predominantly of ownerships "generally contiguous to tracts containing less than 160 acres and residences, or * * * acknowledged exception areas," weighing in favor of F-2 zoning. Although the contiguous Caldera Springs resort and Vandevert Ranch are developed on parcels larger than 160 acres, the record indicates the residences are sited on individual lots much smaller than 160 acres. d. Accessed by arterial roads or roads intended primarily for forest management. Provided with a level of public facilities and services, including roads, intended primarily for direct services to rural residences. The subject property abuts two designated rural collector roads South Century Drive on the southwest and Vandevert Road on the south. Table 1 of Section 23.60.010 of the comprehensive plan describes the functional classification of "rural collector roads" as follows: • Spaced at intervals to collect traffic from local roads and provide all developed areas a reasonable distance from a collector road; and • Provides services to the remaining smaller communities; and • Links locally important traffic generators with rural destinations. The Hearings Office finds these roads are neither "arterial roads" nor "roads intended primarily for forest management" as contemplated for "unimpacted" forest lands. Although the plan's description of rural collector roads does not state they are "primarily for direct services to rural residences," the record indicates both South Century Drive and Vandevert Road provide direct Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 13 of 24 service to surrounding rural residential areas such as Caldera Springs, Crosswater, Sunriver, Vandevert Ranch, the Blue Eagle Subdivision, and the numerous rural residential subdivisions to the west and southwest. In addition, as discussed in detail in the findings below, I have found public facilities and services appropriate for rural residential development already are provided or are available in the area surrounding the subject property. For these reasons, I find the subject property is "impacted" forest land in light of the status of adjacent roads and the existence and availability of public facilities and services. e. Primarily under forest management. This factor is identified as a characteristic of "unimpacted" forest land. Staff and the parties apparently assume the lack of forest management, although not listed as an "impacted" forest land characteristic, nevertheless should be considered in evaluating the proposed zone change. Assuming for purposes of discussion that lack of forest management is a relevant characteristic of "impacted" land, the threshold question is what is meant by this phrase. As with other plan policies none of these terms is defined in the plan. Section 18.04.030 of the zoning ordinance includes the following definitions: "Forest operation" means any commercial activity relating to the growing and harvesting of forest and tree species. "Forest practice" means any operation conducted on or pertaining to commercial forestlands, including but not limited to: A. Reforestation of forestland; B. Road construction and maintenance; C. Harvesting of forest tree species; D. Application of chemicals; and E. Disposal of slash. "Forest uses" include production of trees and the processing of forest products; open space; buffers from noise and visual separation of conflicting uses; watershed protection and wildlife and fisheries habitat; soil protection from wind and water; maintenance of clean air and water; outdoor recreational activity and related support services and wilderness values compatible with these uses; and grazing for livestock. The ordinary definition of the term "management" is "the act, art, or manner of managing, or handling, controlling, directing, etc.; being managed." The ordinary definition of the term "primarily" is "principally." Webster's New World Dictionary. Based on these definitions, the Hearings Officer finds the term "primarily under forest management" means the property is managed principally for one or more of the forest operations, practices and uses described in Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 14 of 24 Title 18. The applicant's burden of proof states the subject property is not being managed for any forest uses, and the applicant does not intend, and lacks the expertise, to manage the subject property for such uses. The Hearings Officer finds this evidence alone supports a finding that the subject property is not primarily under forest management.3 However, as discussed in the findings above, Landwatch argues that the mere transfer of ownership of the subject property from the USFS to the applicant should not control whether or not the property is under forest management because it once was managed for forest uses by the USFS, and again could be managed for forest uses including production of small-diameter logs for local sawmills and fuel for biomass plants. The difficulty with this argument is that the phrase "primarily under forest management" connotes the property's present status. Both staff and Landwatch argue that allowing ownership transfer to negate forest management status would set a dangerous precedent for future removal of lands from the Deschutes National Forest and the county's commercial forest land base. While the Hearings Officer understands this concern, I find it is not justified under the circumstances presented here. The USFS decision for the "Tract C Land Conveyance" makes clear the subject property was identified for transfer to private ownership because it was deemed no longer suitable for forest management as part of the National Forest system due to its physical isolation from other National Forest lands and because of its proximity to extensive rural residential development and potential conflicts there from. The record indicates these factors in fact have led to a lack of forest management of the property. The applicant submitted two letters from Tim English, a private forest manager, addressing forest management on the. subject property. The first letter is undated and attached to the applicant's burden of proof. This letter states that in Mr. English's opinion no forest management has occurred on the subject property for many years because the property "is isolated from other lands in commercial forest use and because forest management activities are constrained by traffic and land use conflicts." The letter states the only management activity that has occurred on the subject property over the last 10 to 15 years is thinning approximately 100 acres in the early 1990's, and that as a result "fuel loading and ladder fuels are rampant," creating a significant fire risk and showing that the property "is not being managed at all, let alone being enhanced to promote timber value." In his March 12t1' letter, Mr. English stated the lack of management activity on the subject property suggests the USFS had decided to "abandon" management of the property because it likely would be transferred to private ownership due to management constraints. Mr. English also stated the subject property cannot be considered commercial timberland because it is permanently impacted by surrounding non-forest uses. Based on Mr. English's opinion and the USFS decision on the "Tract C Land Conveyance," the Hearings Officer finds the same constraints that led the USFS to conclude the subject property was not suitable for forest management are likely also to deter such management by a private landowner - even one involved in forest management. 3 The Hearings Officer notes that in approving the adjacent Caldera Springs destination resort, Hearings Officer Anne Corcoran Briggs found the subject property "is not actively employed for intensive forest practices, and it is unlikely that active logging will resume." CU-05-7, April 28, 2005, page 46. A copy of this decision is included in this record as Appendix 7 to the applicant's burden of proof. Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 15 of 24 Staff and Landwatch further argue that "forest management" typically does includes intervals during which little or no on-the-ground activity is occurring, and therefore the lack of active management of the subject property for over a decade does not alter its character as under forest management. The Hearings Officer disagrees. As discussed above, I find the phrase "primarily under forest management" means the property currently is being managed for forest uses. The uncontroverted evidence is that no such management is occurring. Staff also argues that because the subject property includes productive forest soils it should be considered suitable for forest management. Again, the question is not whether the subject property is suitable for forest management, but whether it is currently "under forest management." And in any case none of the "unimpacted" and "impacted" forest land characteristics includes consideration of soil productivity.4 As can be seen from the foregoing findings, the subject property has characteristics of both "unimpacted" and "impacted" forest land. Its large size, lack of non-forest development, and proximity to F-1 zoned land within the Deschutes National Forest are typical of "unimpacted" forest land. However, its proximity to extensive residential and other non-forest development and rural collector roads serving the surrounding rural residential developments, coupled with its physical isolation from commercial forest land, and its lack of forest management and suitability therefor due to its location, are characteristics of "impacted" forest land. Considering all of the characteristics in forest land Policies (3) and (4), the Hearings Officer finds that on balance the subject property better fits the characteristics of "impacted" land. I find what tips the balance toward "impacted" land is the extent to which the area surrounding the subject property has been committed to and developed with non-forest uses and public facilities and services including collector roads designed and constructed to serve such development. I further find this determination is consistent with the county's goal of conserving forest land for forest uses. It is clear from this record that rezoning the subject property to F-2 will not remove commercial timberland from the county's F-1 Zone forest land base, nor will it prevent the adjacent USFS land zoned F-1 from being managed for forest uses. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed zone change from F- 1 to F-2 conforms to and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone change classification. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the tern "zone change classification" in this paragraph refers to the new zone proposed by the applicant - i.e., the F-2 Zone. Section 18.40.010 provides: The purpose of the Forest Use Zone is to conserve forest lands. v The findings supporting Ordinances 92-024 and 92-026 indicate the board did not include further consideration of soil capability it when it amended the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance in 1992 because it determined adequate soil data was not available for that county-wide legislative process. And as the applicant correctly notes, the record indicates the county had made its initial forest zone determinations in part on the basis of soil capability. Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 16 of 24 This purpose statement is identical to that of the F-1 Zone. The applicant's proposed zone change would facilitate future development of the subject property with uses permitted outright and conditionally in the F-2 Zone. Virtually all of those uses are identical to the uses permitted outright and conditionally in the F-1 Zone. The only differences are more strict criteria in the F-1 Zone for the siting of single-family dwellings, and authorization of destination resorts in the F-2 Zone. The applicant has requested the proposed zone change specifically to allow the county to consider future mapping and development of the subject property with a destination resort. For that reason, Landwatch argues the Hearings Officer should consider future destination resort development of the subject property in determining whether the proposed zone change is consistent with the intent of the F-2 Zone. In response, staff and the applicant argue that the Hearings Officer need not consider potential destination resort development under this approval criterion because such development would require both a lengthy and complex legislative process to map the subject property for such development, and an equally-complex, multi-step quasi-judicial process to obtain conceptual and final destination resort master plan approval.5 For these reasons, staff asserts it is not reasonably foreseeable that the subject property would be developed with a destination resort, and therefore such potential development is not relevant to this proposed zone change. The Hearings Officer finds staff's and the applicant's argument is persuasive. In the absence of any provisions in the plan or zoning ordinance requiring me to consider the possible worst case scenario for future development of the subject property under the proposed new zone, I find I may decline to do so even though the applicant has indicated its intent to pursue such development - where, as here, there are significant hurdles that must be surmounted to develop the subject property with a destination resort and the proposed zone change to F-2 will not itself authorize such development. I find this conclusion is consistent with Mason v. City of Corvallis, 49 Or LUBA 199 (2005) cited by both the applicant and Landwatch. There, LUBA held that in reviewing a proposed zone change under the city's land use regulations, the city did not err in declining to assume the parcel would be developed with the most intensive uses in part because the applicant did not propose such uses, but also in part because of the use limitations and review standards applicable to development of uses in that zone.6 And in any case, the county's zoning ordinance has been acknowledged as consistent with the Goal 4 and its administrative rules, including authorizing destination resorts and other non-forest uses as conditional uses in the F-2 Zone. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed zone change from F-1 to F-2 will not, in and of itself, have any effect on the conservation of forest lands. And I find that even if it were appropriate for me to consider potential destination resort development of the 5 See Gould v. Deschutes County (2007) (LUBA No. 2006-100). 6 Nevertheless, as discussed in the findings below concerning the proposal's compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule, the Hearings Officer has held I must consider the most traffic-intensive use of the subject property under the proposed F-2 zoning. These non-forest uses include landfills, public and private parks and campgrounds, private fishing accommodations, cemeteries, utility installations, and home occupations. Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 17 of 24 subject property under this approval criterion, such development by definition would be consistent with the purpose of the F-2 Zone since it is allowed as a conditional use in the zone. Therefore, I find the proposed zone change satisfies this approval criterion. C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare considering the following factors: FINDINGS: Staff and Landwatch appear to argue this sentence establishes an independent approval criterion - i.e., that the zone change "will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare." The Hearings Officer disagrees. As is the case with the language in Section 18.136.020, discussed in the findings above, I find this sentence is introductory in nature and is modified by the phrase "considering the following factors" - i.e., the specific approval criteria in Paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section. In other words, the applicant must demonstrate the proposed zone change will best serve the public interest by demonstrating compliance with these two factors. 1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds approval of the proposed zone change from F-1 to F-2 will not in and of itself have any impact on the availability and efficiency of providing necessary public facilities and services. As discussed above, the zone change would facilitate development of the subject property with uses permitted outright and conditionally in the F-2 Zone, the vast majority of which are identical to uses permitted in the F-1 Zone. The principal exception is destination resort development. Landwatch argues that because the applicant's purpose in requesting the proposed zone change is to facilitate destination resort development on the subject property, the Hearings Officer must determine whether public facilities and services will be available and can be efficiently provided to such a development on the subject property. As discussed above, both staff and the applicant argue that because of the significant hurdles the applicant must surmount before such mapping and development can occur, it is not reasonably foreseeable that the subject property will be developed with a destination resort, and therefore it is neither necessary nor appropriate for me to consider potential impacts on facilities and services from such development as part of this zone change application. I concur. With the exception of compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), discussed in detail in the findings below, I find it is not necessary for me to consider the destination resort development of the subject property in determining whether public facilities and services will be available and can be provided efficiently. With respect to available public facilities and services, as discussed above the subject property abuts and has access from two rural collector roads - Vandevert Road on the south and South Century Drive on the southwest. The record includes memoranda dated February 20 and March 14, 2007 from one of the applicant's engineers, James Frost, describing the public facilities and services provided to the subject property and/or to surrounding lands. The February 20th memorandum states the subject property is located within the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District and is within the territory served through a mutual aid agreement with the Sunriver Fire Department. The memorandum also states the subject property is within the service areas of Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 18 of 24 Mid-State Electric Cooperative, Qwest and Chambers Cable. Both memoranda state that the destination resorts and rural residential subdivisions in the surrounding area have water and sewer service, either through community water and sewer systems or through individual on-site wells and septic systems. The March 14th memorandum outlines various possible methods for providing water and sewer service to a destination developed on the subject property. Based on this evidence, the Hearings Officer finds the proposed zone change from F-1 to F-2 will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare considering the availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities for the uses permitted outright or conditionally in the F-2 Zone. Therefore, I find the applicant's proposed zone change will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare considering the availability and efficiency of providing necessary public facilities and services. 2., The impacts on the surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS: The applicant's proposed zone change from F-1 to F-2 will not itself have any impact on surrounding land uses. It will facilitate development of the subject property with uses permitted outright and conditionally in the F-2 Zone, which with the exception of destination resorts are identical to the uses permitted in the current F-1 Zone. The Hearings Officer finds this approval criterion's reference to "the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan" leaves considerable doubt as to what goals and policies are intended to apply. As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, I have held the numerous plan goals identified in the applicant's burden of proof are aspirational in nature and therefore do not establish decision standards for this quasi-judicial zone change application. I also have found the proposed zone change is consistent with the forest land policies in Section 23.92.030. Landwatch argues that because the applicant has requested this zone change to allow the county to consider future destination resort mapping and development of the subject property, the Hearings Officer must consider the impact of such development on surrounding land uses to determine whether the proposed zone change is consistent with comprehensive plan goals and policies. Apparently based on this argument, the applicant and Landwatch have addressed whether destination resort. development of the subject property would be consistent with the plan's destination resort policies. The applicant argues such development would be consistent because it would encourage efficient clustering of rural residential development, development of recreation opportunities, retention of open space, and diversification of the economy, particularly where timber management is not economically feasible. The applicant also argues that opening the subject property to economic uses other than forest management would allow it to contribute to the county's economy while minimizing conflicts between surrounding resort and residential uses while reducing the heavy truck traffic associated with active forest management and allowing for proper management of wildfire risk. As discussed in the findings above, staff argues, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that because of the significant barriers to destination resort mapping and development of the subject property it is far from clear that the subject property will be developed with a destination resort, and Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 19 of 24 therefore it is not necessary or appropriate for me to determine whether such development will be consistent with the plan's destination resort plan policies. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed zone change will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare considering the impacts on surrounding land use. D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned, or a mistake was made in the zoning of the property in question. FINDINGS: . 1. Mistake. The record indicates the subject property has been zoned F-1 since the county adopted its first zoning ordinance in the early 1970's. The property retained its F-1 zoning during the board's 1992 legislative amendment process because it was under USFS ownership and management. Therefore the Hearings Officer finds there was no mistake in the original zoning of the subject property. 2. Change in Circumstances. The applicant argues the proposed zone change is justified by changes in circumstance consisting of the significant rural residential and resort development on surrounding lands, and the USFS decision to transfer the subject property out of federal ownership and into private ownership. The Hearings Officer has found the mere change in the property's ownership does not itself justify the proposed zone change from F-1 to F-2. However, I find the reason for that ownership change is relevant. Many of the rural residential subdivisions located south of Sunriver and west of Highway 97 were already platted at the time the county adopted its first zoning ordinance and map. However, there is no question these subdivisions have achieved their current density since the early 1970's. The same is true of the Sunriver community which was developed in the late 1960's but reached buildout only in the last decade. In addition, the Crosswater and Caldera Springs destination resorts and the Vandevert Ranch development were approved long after the subject property was zoned F-1. The result of all of these developments clearly can be seen in the aerial photograph that forms the basis of the diagram included in the record as Appendix 1 to the applicant's burden of proof and as Hearing Exhibit B - i.e., extensive residential and resort development, much of it at urban and suburban density, and located on three sides of the subject property. This surrounding development is largely what prompted the USFS to identify the subject property for transfer to private ownership. The "Tract C Land Conveyance" decision included in the record sets forth the following reasons for the transfer of the subject property and Parcels B and C: a. It is difficult and not cost effective to manage these lands as part of the National Forest System given their rural residential setting, configuration, size, and existing or increasing encroachments and unauthorized uses. Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 20 of 24 b. The properties have lost their character and are no longer representative of a National Forest, even though people in the local neighborhood may feel that they still have local character as wooded or forested areas. C. The trees on the property provide pleasant aesthetics to the local residents, but the area can no longer be effectively managed for broader National Forest goals. d. The properties have become heavily influenced by their rural residential setting. Unauthorized uses, including dumping of garbage, creation of new roads and trails, and illegal firewood and tree removal, have all contributed to the loss of National Forest character. It may not be apparent to the casual visitor that these are National Forest lands. As discussed extensively in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found these factors render the subject property "impacted" forest land suitable for F-2 zoning. I find these same factors constitute changes in circumstance sufficient to justify the proposed zone change from F- 1 to F-2, therefore satisfying this approval criterion. B. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 660 1. Division 12, Transportation Planning a. . OAR 660-012-0060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments (1) Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulations would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, the local government shall put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule to assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors on an adopted plan); (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or (c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation system plan: (A) Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of travel or access Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 21 of 24 that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (B) Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility below the minimum acceptable performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the TPR applies to the applicant's proposed zone change because it involves an amendment to the county's zoning ordinance and map. I find the proposed zone change, in and of itself, will have no impact on affected transportation facilities. However, the applicant has requested approval of a zone change from F-1 to F-2 specifically to allow the county to consider mapping and development of the subject property as a destination resort. And as discussed in the findings above, staff has argued that because of the difficulty in obtaining destination resort mapping and approval such development is not reasonably foreseeable and therefore need not be considered in evaluating the proposed zone change under the applicable approval criteria. I have concurred with.staff's argument for purposes of the county's zone change approval criteria. The applicant argues that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) interprets and implements the TPR to require an analysis of the "reasonable worst case" allowed use in determining whether a proposed zone change will "significantly affect a transportation facility." For this reason, the applicant argues that it is not necessary or appropriate to consider potential destination resort development of the subject property since it is not "allowed" without significant additional land use review. In previous zone change decisions, the Hearings Officer has interpreted and applied the TPR to require me to consider the impact of likely potential development under the proposed new zone. In most of those cases, the zone change applicant - like the applicant here had identified the desired type and level of development, providing a basis for calculating and analyzing potential traffic impacts from such development. Because of the significant hurdles the applicant must surmount to develop the subject property with a destination resort, it would be difficult for me to find such development would be likely. Nevertheless, because the applicant has identified the proposed ultimate use of the subject property, to be consistent with my previous analyses, I find it is necessary and appropriate for me to consider potential destination resort development in applying the TPR to the proposed zone change. The applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis (hereafter "traffic study") dated December 2004 and prepared by Kittelson & Associates in support of the Caldera Springs destination resort developed on the adjacent property to the west on land zoned F-2. The traffic study specifically Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 22 of 24 analyzed impacts on affected transportation facilities from the Caldera Springs development. It assumed two scenarios for projected traffic volumes in the surrounding area: (1) without development of the USFS lands identified for transfer to private ownership including the subject property; and (2) with development of these lands following the anticipated "land swap" that would "enable resort development." The traffic study concluded that with completion of the South Century Drive/Highway 97 interchange and improvements to South Century Drive and its intersections with Abbot Drive in Sunriver and with Spring River Road and Venture Drive to the north of the subject property, all affected intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service with the addition of traffic generated by Caldera Springs to existing and projected traffic from surrounding developments including destination resort development on the subject property. For the foregoing reasons, and based on the Caldera Springs traffic study, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed zone change from F-1 to F-2 will not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. I find the Caldera Springs traffic study demonstrates that with the identified mitigation measures the addition of traffic from "resort development" of the subject property as well as Parcels B and C will not change the functional classification of or standards applicable to existing or planned transportation facilities, will not allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility, will not reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility below the minimum acceptable performance standards identified in the county's Transportation System Plan (TSP) or comprehensive plan, and will not worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. Therefore, I find the applicant's proposed zone change from F-I to F-2 satisfies the TPR. 2. Division 15, State-Wide Planning Goals and Guidelines a. OAR 660-015-000, State-Wide Planning Goals and Guidelines No. 1 Through No. 14 b. OAR 660-015-005, State-Wide Planning Goal and Guideline No. 15 C. OAR 660-015-010, State-Wide Planning Goals and Guidelines No. 16 Through 19 FINDINGS: Staff and, the parties address the proposed zone change's compliance with the statewide planning goals and guidelines. However, in previous zone change decisions the Hearings Officer has not addressed the statewide goals and guidelines because they are implemented through the county's acknowledged comprehensive plan, and the proposed zone change must be found to be consistent with the plan.8 Therefore, I find the goals and guidelines do not apply to this zone change application. ' E.g., Hap Taylor (ZC-04-5); Yurdin (ZC-04-1). Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 23 of 24 IV. DECISION: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer hereby APPROVES the applicant's proposed zone change from F-1 to F-2 for the subject property, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to the hearing before the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners to consider approval of the proposed zone change, the applicant/owner shall submit to the Planning Division a metes and bounds description of, and surveyed acreage calculation for, the property subject to the zone change. Dated this day of May, 2007. Mailed this day of May, 2007. Karen H. Green, Hearings Officer Pine Forest ZC-06-3 Page 24 of 24 MEMORANDUM Bonnie Baker From: Craven, Nancy [NCraven@balljanik.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:56 AM To: Board Subject: #575450 v1 - PF - Short BOC memo MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Nancy Craven DATE: June 28, 2007 Page 1 of 3 MATTER: ZC-06-3 / Pine Forest Development, LLC (Sunriver) RE: Support for Hearings Officer's Decision Hearings Officer Karen Green correctly decided that Parcel A is "impacted" forest land and approved the zone change from F-1 to F-2. The Board should adopt the Hearings Officer's decision. The issue is whether Parcel A is "impacted" F-2 land or "unimpacted" F-1 land. The characteristics that led the Hearings Officer to find that Parcel A is "impacted" F-2 land were: • Extensive residential development of surrounding land. • Area roads providing direct service to Caldera Springs, Crosswater, Sunriver, Vandevert Ranch, and the Blue Eagle subdivision. The Hearings Officer acknowledged that the parcel is surrounded by an extensive network of public services and facilities constructed to serve rural residential development. • Clear USFS decision that Parcel A is not suitable for forest management because of isolation from forest land (by the railroad tracks and Highway 97) and proximity to residential development. The Environmental Assessment said: "The primary purpose for conveying lands out of federal ownership is to dispose of these isolated tracts of National Forest System Lands that have lost their national Forest character and are difficult to manage. The parcels are isolated National Forest properties, nearly surrounded by private land. It is difficult and not cost effective to manage these lands as part of the National Forest System given their rural residential setting, configuration, size, and existing or increasing encroachments and unauthorized uses. These parcels are identified as being available for disposal under the Bend Pine Nursery Land Conveyance Act signed into law November 22, 2000. This decision implements the Act, allowing lands to be used for purposes potentially better suited to the location. The properties have lost their character and are no longer representative of a National Forest, even though people in the local neighborhood may feel that they still have local character as wooded or forested areas. The trees provide pleasant aesthetics to the local residents, but the area can no longer be effectively managed for broader National Forest goals. The properties have become heavily influenced by their rural residential setting. Unauthorized uses, including dumping of garbage, creation of new roads and trails, and illegal firewood and tree removal, have all contributed to the loss of National Forest character. It may not be apparent to the casual visitor that these are National Forest lands." Exhibit C 7/10/2007 Page of / MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 3 • Evidence that those same factors would deter private forest management. • The Hearings Officer found that the property was zoned F-1 in 1992 because it was under USFS ownership, but that two significant changes in circumstances had occurred: (1) significant increases in rural residential and resort development in the area; and (2) the USFS decision to transfer the parcel to private ownership because impacts of surrounding development, including dumping and other unauthorized uses, made management as a forest parcel too difficult. For all of those reasons, the Hearings Officer found that Parcel A is impacted land appropriate for the F-2 zone. Destination resort development was not relevant to the zone change decision. Destination resorts are a conditional use in the F-2 zone only on mapped property, and Parcel A is not mapped. The possibility of destination resort development is an issue for another day. The Hearings Officer found that developing a destination resort on the subject property would require so many future approvals-including a legislative remapping and conditional use approval-that a destination resort need not legally be considered a "reasonably foreseeable" outcome of the zone change. Because F-1 and F-2 zones are so nearly identical, the Hearings Officer found that the zone change, in and of itself, would have minimal practical effect. In short, a zone change proceeding, before any mapping decision or development proposal has been made, is not the time to evaluate a destination resort7/10/2007 MEMORANDUM Project Background Page 3 of 3 • In 2000, Congress enacted the Bend Pine Nursery Land Conveyance Act, co-sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden and Sen. Gordon Smith. ■ Congress identified isolated parcels of national forest land-including the subject parcel-and authorized USFS to sell them. • In 2004, USFS completed an Environmental Assessment of this property, subject to public notice and comment. ■ Disposal of the subject parcel was appropriate because it was "nearly surrounded by private land" and "difficult and not cost effective to manage given [its] rural residential setting, configuration, size, and existing or increasing encroachments and unauthorized uses." • In 2005, Sunriver applied for Caldera Springs, a 390-acre destination resort directly west of the subject parcel. ■ The County approved the resort and development is underway. • In 2006, Sunriver formed Pine Forest Development, LLC, to bid for the subject parcel in a public auction. Pine Forest closed on the property in late 2006 and then filed a zone change application. Parcels B and C have not yet been sold, but are still designated for sale. 7/10/2007 PAMELA HARDY Attorney at Law 1629 NW Fresno Ave. Bend, OR 97701 (541) 550-7968 July 11, 2007 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97701 Re: Land Use App ZC-06-3 (Pine Forest F1 to F2 Zone Change) PUBLIC COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH For the record: My name is Pam Hardy, and I am an attorney for Central Oregon LandWatch, and I am speaking to you today on their behalf. First, I'd like to note that Central Oregon LandWatch submitted extensive public comments on the legal nuances, and possible interpretations of the code when this question was before the Hearings Officer. I won't go into most of those details here. I'll only address what I believe are the two most important considerations for making a policy decision. First I'd like to paraphrase something I heard in the work session "this isn't about Skyline Forest, but it's *about* Skyline Forest." In other words, Central Oregon LandWatch will concede that this i~ one of the better locations in the County for a Destination Resort 'Len the fact that it's near other Resorts, it's probably not a wildlife corridor, and it's not along the river. However... that doesn't necessarily make it legal according to the existing code. 0-%4 44W 'a rob l + 1044- +6A cod l 40 041 Q my t 0.pP Our main concern here is that this approval represents 1 , ~f ~,t td - a tortured stretch of the plain meaning of the language in the Comprehensive Plan, and Could sc 617 acres of undeveloped land is not `impacted" - the convenient ignoring of evident facts. A Destination Resort is foreseeable if this -one change is approved. Central Oregon LandWatch is concerned about adherence to the intent of the law, and the bad precedent that could be set for future zone changes if a stretch of meaning like this is allowed. 1 'r There are two things that Central Oregon LandWatch is primarily concerned about here: The first is the precedent set by straining of the plain meaning of the words "impacted" and "unimpacted" Page 2 of 5 July 10, 2007 It is a stretch of the plain meaning of the code to suggest that a 617 acre parcel without a single trace of development besides a power line is "impacted". If this is impacted, then what is unimpacted? The Hearings Officer said that the tipping point was that it was adjacent to so many existing Destination Resorts. However, if this is really the caseiit highlights some deficiencies in our code since at present Destination Resort codes are supposed to ensure that Resorts have buffers that eliminate impact on surrounding resource lands. If the adjacency to a Destination Resort can tip the balance between impacted and not impacted on almost an entire section of completely undeveloped forest land then Deschutes County is set up for a dangerous domino effect. Either you should find that adjacency to a Destination Resort is by definition unable to impact forest land for these purposes, -OR- aFirircty5 You should admit that the buffers required by the Destination Resort code are insufficient, and commit to revising them.. If this parcel is to be considered "impacted" it will be difficult to distinguish future parcels that are not impacted. The second primary concern of Central Oregon LandWatch is the assertion that: a Destination Resort is not a foreseeable consequence of an applicant driven zone change from F1 to F2. If there is no substantive difference between the F1 and F2 zones besides the possibility of Destination Resort mapping, then what is the point of making the request? Further, a few of the facts of this particular application make the point even more poignant: 1. The applicant acknowledged in their original application that the purpose of the request is to eventually pursue re-mapping 2. The applicant is a highly successful developer of Destination Resorts, and 3. There are several highly successful Destination Resorts in the immediate vicinity. The problem with the assertion that a Destination Resort is not foreseeable is Page 3 of 5 ply 10, 2007 that it artificially limits the real conversation we should be having here. As acknowledged by the applicant in their initial application, this zone change is for the purpose of eventually creating a Destination Resort. The debate here should be about whether a Destination Resort on this site is appropriate. The,legal gymnastic required to get around that elephant on the table are too much. They strain credibility. The County should acknowledge that a Destination Resort is foreseeable, and require findings, and make a decision based on that most likely outcome. v UAV,•1- V.)U lNw- S In the Alternative COLW would like to make% constructive suggestion: First, deny this application as too much of a stretch of the zoning criteria in the code. Second, simultaneously commit to a re-evaluation of both the forest zoning criteria, and the Destination Resort mapping process. just as importantly perhap . Deschutes County in the midst of a substantial change in economy. The current code primarily only requires consideration of impacts to commercial timber operations. The code should also require consideration of other values that now make Central Oregon a highly valuable real estate market. These might include orderly development that supports Central Oregon culture, impacts on scenic vistas, the sense of wild open space, the abundance of wildlife, and recreational fishing opportunities. If this is - as I conceded it might be - a particularly good place for a Destination Resort, then it should easily be approved under any new guidelines, and would not necessarily lengthen the amount of time before this particular applicant could build. Since the County has to adopt a new mapping process anyway. The County should embrace the opportunity to set its own standards before the process becomes highly applicant driven Page 4 of 5 ily 10, 2007 This is a good time to commit to a re-evaluation for three key reasons: 2. This exercise has made all the relevant parties highly familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the code. This would be an ideal time to convene a series of meetings to discuss how to write a realistic code that addresses the current needs of Deschutes County. 3. It is highly likely that pressure will soon begin to build to develop the Skyline Forest. It would be a more efficient use of resources, and would probably not take any additional time to simply update all the relevant code provisions simultaneously. But the most important reason to update the code is that this should be a principled debate about whether this is a good location for a Destination Resort. acco~d~,.cl +a BLS tw~•• at" Instead we are trying to find a way to distort an old code designed to preserve forest land for commercial forest purposes, and make it say that 617 acres of undeveloped land is impacted, and Page 5 of 5 July 10, 2007 that a Destination Resort is not a foreseeable result of this zone change. These are highly technical legal fictions at best. I would like to recommend to the Board that you 1. Deny this application out of respect for the intent of the existing law 2. Commit to creating a new law that allows principled consideration of the concerns that really face Deschutes County today. [Thank You] With that I would like to thank the Board for taking the time to consider public comments in this case. I'll remain available to answer any questions. Jr "r PAMELA HARDY Attorney at Law 1629 NW Fresno Ave. Bend, OR 97701 (541) 550-7968 July 11, 2007 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97701. Re: Land Use App ZC-06-3 (Pine Forest F1 4 F2 Zone Change) Dear Commissioners, I am writing today to urge you to consider the long-term policy implications of this decision for future zone change requests in areas like the Skyline Forest. Central Oregon LandWatch has two substantive concerns with the Hearings Officer's decision that it believes could have long term impact on areas such as the Skyline Forest: 1. It is an unjustified stretch of the plain meaning of the Comprehensive Plan language to call these 617 acres of high quality forest land "impacted."' 2. It is simply unrealistic to assert that a Destination Resort is unforeseeable on this parcel. 1 According to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan "unimpacted" lands shall be zoned F-1, and "impacted" lands shall be zoned F-2. DCC 23.92.030. The plan distinguishes the two categorizations as follows: Unimpacted Forest Lands: Impacted Forest Lands: a. Consist predominantly of ownerships not developed by a. Consist predominantly of ownerships developed for residences or non-forest uses; residential or non-forest uses; b. Consist predominantly of contiguous ownerships of b. Consist predominantly of contiguous ownerships of 160 acres or larger in size; less than 160 acres in size; c. Consist predominantly of ownerships contiguous to c. Consist predominantly of ownerships contiguous to other lands utilized for commercial forest or commercial other lands utilized for commercial forest or farm uses; commercial farm uses; d. Accessed by arterial roads or roads intended primarily for forest management; d. Accessed by arterial roads or roads intended primarily for forest management. e. Primarily under forest management. Page 2 of 4 July 10, 2007 1. THESE 617 ACRES ARE UNIMPACTED. If a 617 acre piece of forested land with top quality soils2, and not a single trace of development besides a power line can legitimately be said to be "impacted," then what exactly constitutes unimpacted? The Hearings Officer said that what "tipped the balance" toward this land being "impacted" was the fact that it was in the vicinity of existing Destination Resorts. However, Destination Resort development guidelines are specifically written to include buffers that will prevent impacts on neighboring resource lands. It is an unjustified stretch of the plain meaning of the distinction between F1 and F2 lands outlined in the Comprehensive Plan to suggest that this land is "impacted." Further, this application brings up an excellent opportunity for the Board to clarify an important ambiguity in the Deschutes County Code. Element (e) of the description of "unimpacted" lands says that F1 lands are characterized by being, among other things, "primarily under forest management." The Hearings Officer interpreted this as "the property's present status." HO Decision, page 15 (emphasis in original). In other words, the question about whether a parcel is under forest management could be entirely dependant on the current statements about the intent of the purchaser. If the Board affirms this interpretation it could be devastating to the forest lands. Developers could purchase F1 lands, and announce that they don't intend to manage them for the purpose for which they were zoned, and thus weight the balance in favor of a zone change. This conclusion of law, especially in combination with the other conclusions about mere adjacency to Destination Resorts tipping the balance, could create a domino effect on F1 lands throughout the County. Instead of adopting a prospective interpretation in which the subjective intent of the current owner determines whether the land is under forest management, the County should adopt a retrospective, and objective, view of past management to determine if the parcel is "primarily under forest management." In the alternative, the County should seriously. consider amending its code to say primarily "suitable" for forest management. More on this below in the "Proposal section. 2. A DESTINATION RESORT IS FORESEEABLE If a Destination Resort is "unforeseeable" despite the facts that: a) the applicant admitted its intent to apply for Resort mapping in its original application, b) this particular applicant has a long and successful history of building Destination Resorts, 2 See attached NRCS soil map, downloaded from the Deschutes County LAVA system, and associated soil type descriptions. Page 3 of 4 fly 10, 2007 c) the parcel is in close proximity to several other highly successful Destination Resorts, d) the only real distinction between the F1 and F2 zones is the possibility of destination resort mapping, and e) the current requirements for having F2 lands mapped for a Destination Resort are little more than a checklist, then what exactly is foreseeable? It strains credibility to suggest that under these circumstances that a future Destination Resort is unforeseeable. What would be the point of applying for a zone change for which there is no substantive difference between the two zones except the possible establishment of a Destination Resort? The County should determine that a Destination Resort is foreseeable, and make the appropriate findings for this zone change. 3. A PROPOSAL The County should deny the current application as a too much of a stretch of the plain meaning of the code, and it should simultaneously commit to embarking on a procedure to update the Forest Zoning criteria in the Comprehensive Plan, and the criteria by which Destination Resort mapping decisions will be made. As demonstrated by the debates about the present decision, there are some weaknesses in the code which under a highly technical interpretation could lead to unrealistic conclusions such as 617 acres of entirely undeveloped land is "impacted" or that it is unforeseeable that a request for a zone change from F1 to F2 will lead to a Destination Resort when that is the only substantive difference between the two zones. Similarly the Hearings Officer found that several of the requirements for approval of a zone change are not approval standards and hence are effectively meaningless. See for example findings under 18.136(l)(b)(A) and 18.136(l)(b)(C). Either these should be interpreted to have meaning, or they should be re-written so that they have meaning. This is a particularly good time to do an update for three reasons: Deschutes County in the midst of a substantial change in economy. The currently code primarily only requires consideration of impacts to commercial timber operations. The code should also require consideration of impacts on the other values that now make Central Oregon a highly valuable real estate market. These might include impacts on scenic vistas, open space, wildlife, and recreational fishing opportunities. 2. This exercise has made all the relevant parties highly familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the code. This would be an ideal time to convene a series of meetings to discuss how to write a realistic code that addresses the current needs of Deschutes County. Page 4 of 4 July 10, 2007 3. It is highly likely that pressure will soon begin to build to develop the Skyline Forest. The County should embrace the opportunity to set its own standards before the process becomes highly applicant driven. If it were ultimately determined that this is an appropriate site for a Destination Resort, this proposal would not necessarily lengthen the amount of time before this particular applicant could build on their property. Before building may commence, the County must adopt and complete a Destination Resort mapping process. It would be a more efficient use of resources, and would probably not take any additional time to simply update all the relevant code provisions simultaneously. The applicant should not object to this proposal because, despite their statements to the contrary in their application, they have more recently been suggesting in the media that there are no current plans for the development of the parcel. Hence, denial of this application, and simultaneous commitment to a comprehensive re-write of the Forest Zone standards should help the County avoid the pressure to make a decision that strains credibility and get ahead of the game, and drive the plan re-write instead of having it driven by other interests. CONCLUSION It strains credibility to suggest that 617 acres of forested land on prime soil is "impacted" and that, given the circumstances, a Destination Resort is not foreseeable. Instead of making such a strained decision the County should deny the present application, and simultaneously commit to a re- evaluation of both the Forest Zones, and the Destination Resort mapping process. The time is ripe for this for this because of the upcoming pressure to develop Skyline Forest, and because all the relevant parties are currently very familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the code. A final note: Central Oregon LandWatch commented extensively on the legal nuances of this decision when it was before the Hearings Officer, and incorporates, by reference, those comments here. Although we believe there are several other substantial legal considerations in those comments we will not belabor any more points here. They have all been addressed sufficiently elsewhere, and the two points made above are the most critical. Thank You for your consideration of these comments. Please keep me on your mailing list of interested parties in this case. B Regar Pam Hardy Attorney at Law For Central Oregon LandWatch CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH 1539 NW VICKSBURG AVE BEND, OR 97701 PHONE: (541) 317-1993 FAX: (541) 383-3470 WWW CENT RA LOR EG O NLAN DWATCH 0RG Protecting Central Oregon's natural environment and working for sustainable communities. Date: July 10, 2007 To: Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: ZC-06-03 Written Testimony Dear Commissioners: I am submitting this written testimony in regards to the zone change application ZC-06-03. In this application, 617 acres owned by Pine Forest LLC in Sunriver is being considered for a rezone from F1 to F2 in order to facilitate destination resort development. Central Oregon LandWatch and its members are opposed to this zone change for several principled reasons. This proposal and the subsequent recommendation of approval by the Hearings Officer have highlighted several critical shortcomings in existing forest policy. If the Hearings Officer's interpretations of these policies are allowed to stand, they will help facilitate the conversion of productive forest lands throughout the county. We request that you reconsider the Hearings Officer's policy recommendations as we've outlined below and reject the zone change application and that you strongly consider amending these policies so that the intent of the law is not so easily skirted in the future. Of particular importance to this debate is the potential impact of this decision on the 33,000-acre Skyline Forest, an area of the county which the Commissioners and State Legislators have worked hard to protect and which the community is strongly in favor of preserving as a working forest. Other forest and non-forest resource lands may be put in harms way as a result of this decision as well. Specifically, we'd like to raise three points of policy upon which the Hearings Officer's recommendation of approval turned: 1. The ease with which forest land can be considered impacted due to nearby developments despite the fact that nearby developments may have been approved with criteria designed to prevent impacts on forest land. Destination resorts are approved with buffers designed to mitigate impacts on adjacent resource lands including forests. As we've seen with the Hearings Officer's recommendation on this zone change, those buffers can easily be interpreted to be irrelevant or ineffective. Most simply, we believe that when a resort is approved next to forests or other resource lands, sufficient buffers should be required so that when that timber land is considered for development, impact from the neighboring development cannot easily be considered to "degrade" the resource quality of the timber land thereby facilitating the future conversion of that resource to other uses. Deschutes County should aim to ensure that buffers associated with developments are effective and that they are respected in subsequent decision-making processes. Ideally, we believe that Deschutes County should take a policy stance that respects the buffers that are already in place around resorts and other urban-style or recreationally-oriented developments. At the very least Deschutes County should ensure that policy is put in place so that buffers required for new developments will be respected at such times as when the development of adjacent resource- oriented lands is considered and where the impacts of nearby developments may be argued. Any time there is an urban-resource land interface, whether that resource land is valued for timber, agriculture, wildlife, or other characteristics, there is potential for real impact. There is also potential or arguing that nearby urban land has degraded the quality of that resource land to the degree that the resource is now of marginal value and that this should weigh in favor of the development of that land. In some cases, inadequate buffers may actually result in matginalization of resource land. In other cases, perfectly adequate buffers may be easily argued to be irrelevant or inadequate. Either way, this often creates a "domino effect" that enables the development of more and more land once valued for its non-urban characteristics. Existing county policy does a poor job of protecting timber resources from resort development as evidenced by the Hearings Officer's recommendation in this case. Furthermore, the Hearings Officer's recommendation has implications for non-forest resource lands and may facilitate their conversion as well. We ask that you reconsider the Hearings Officer's stance regarding the impact of neighboring developments on the 617 acres in question and respect the buffers that were put in place in addition to initiating and/or supporting policy changes that ensure that this doesn't happen in the future. We feel it is unacceptable to argue on the front end that impacts are sufficiently mitigated and then on the back-end turn around and find that exactly the contrary. If existing policy can easily allow that to happen, then it needs to be fixed. 2. The ease with which the inherent and potential value of productive timberlands may be disregarded in decision- making processes driven by a desire to develop those lands. In this case, the owners of the 617-acre parcel in question have expressed a lack of interest/ability to manage that land for forest uses. As interpreted by the Hearings Officer, this alone is sufficient to meet the county's standard of "not primarily under forest management". This means that regardless of a forest's potential productivity or past use, it's quite easy for a developer to purchase commercial timber lands, declare a lack of interest in managing that land for forest uses, and use this to their advantage in developing that land. Through conversations with planning staff, we believe that this language was most likely created to help the county inventory the state of its forest lands at a time when the zoning of all forest land was being re-evaluated. It's reasonable to assume that at the time - the early 1990's - the actual use of the land was largely if not entirely synonymous with the historic management practices of the forest lands given the lack of developer-owned timber land. Although such a "quick-and-dirty" definition may have been appropriate at the time, it now serves little more than providing developers a means of preventing real resource value from standing in the way of development. Clearly that's not the intent of this law. CENTRAL OREGON L A N D W A T C H 1539 NW VICKSBURG AVE. BEND, OR 97701 PHONE (541 ) 317-1993 FAX (541) 383-3470 As concerns this zone change, it is true that some level of physical isolation from other forest tracts and nearby development played some role in the US Forest Service's decision to liquidate this parcel as did the Forest Service's infrequent management practices. It's also clear that the Forest Service needed the money and that politics and developability/profitability played a role in its decision-making. Furthermore, it's clear that this is land with high quality soils and the ability to produce high levels of quality timber. These sorts of considerations ought to factor into decisions regarding the potential conversion of this land. However, the standard of "primarily under forest management" as interpreted by the Hearings Officer allows a developer's lack-of-interest in managing the land for forest uses to trump both its history and its potential. We would suggest that you consider changing "primarily under forest management" to something more like "suitable for forest management" and do it while the issues raised in this zone change application are still fresh and before any similar changes are brought before you on lands elsewhere in the county. 3. Concern that the impacts of destination resorts will not be considered in conjunction with this Zone change despite the fact that this process is purely about destination resorts. The only difference between How F1 and F2 forest land can be developed is that resorts can be sited on F2 land but not on Fl. However, for a resort to be sited on the 617 acres in question, the county commissioners would still need to commit to a remapping process and subsequently approve this land for resort siting. For this reason, it's been stated, the impacts of resorts should not be considered within the context of this zone change despite the fact that there can be no other purpose for the zone change than paving the way to build a resort on this property and despite the fact that the owners have expressed their intent to build a resort on this land. It does seem appropriate that the impacts of resorts be considered within the context of remapping rather than during the zone change given the way the policies have been laid out. However, because there is no requirement at present to consider impacts during remapping, and given the many potential negative impacts associated with destination resorts, this zone change raises many concerns. As for a solution, we understand that the county will likely initiate a resort remapping process this fall and at roughly the same time will likely initiate a process to update the comprehensive plan. Through conversations with planning staff we understand that the county anticipates pressure from developers and seeks to avoid having to initiate a process on someone else's terms. By initiating a process on its own, the county has an opportunity to more easily craft a process that takes stock of both the benefits and impacts of resorts, to lay out prohibitions on resort siting, and to create both real approval criteria and a means of requiring resorts to mitigate their own negative impacts. We would encourage the county to undertake such a process. Specifically, and in light of being faced with a zone change process aimed squarely at developing a resort within which we can't talk about resorts, we would encourage the county to consider the possibility of rezoning all forest land to a single zone and concurrently establishing criteria for a remapping process that addresses concerns over the conversion of resource land as well as a CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH 1539 NW VICKSBURG AVE. BEND, OR 97701 PHONE (541) 317-1993 FAX (541) 383-3470 number of other resort impacts. We would encourage the county to initiate this process soon before other resort-oriented land use and zone change applications are filed. In summary, if the Board of County Commissioners is not inclined to adopt reasonable policy interpretations of existing rules a) regarding buffering impacts of resorts on forest lands and b) regarding considerations of resource value and timber management potential in rendering a decision on ZC-06-03, we would urge it to amend the language of the law and ensure that meaningful standards are put in place before additional applications are filed. And if it is unwilling to allow the consideration of the impacts of destination resorts as part of a zone change application which is wholly about destination resorts, we would hope the Board feels it appropriate to support a set of revised remapping policies so that these concerns are addressed during that process. With so much forest and other resource land at stake, including the privately-held Skyline Forest, we would hope the Board acknowledges the issues this zone change has raised, that it determines this 617 acres to be "unitVacted" as we believe it to be, and that it works to address the inadequacies in existing policy going forward. Thank you as always for you time and consideration. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Yours Truly, Erik Kancler Executive Director CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH 1539 NW VICKSBURG AVE. BEND, OR 97701 PHONE (541) 317-1993 FA (541) 383-3470 ~~TEs e 2A < Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Business Meeting of July 11 2007 Use "tab" to move between fields, and use as much space as necessary within each field. Do not leave any fields incom lete. Agenda requests & backup must be submitted to the Board Secretary no later than noon of the Wednesday prior to the meeting to be included on the agenda. DATE: July 11, 2006 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Kristen Maze, Community Development Department TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: A public hearing on an application for an Outdoor Mass Gathering permit submitted by 4 Peaks Presents, LLC. PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? YES BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Board of County Commissioners will conduct a work session on a proposal by 4 Peaks Presents, LLC, for an Outdoor Mass Gathering to hold a three day Bluegrass Music Festival on a 19.5 acre parcel in the Bend/Tumalo Reservoir Road area, at the Rockin "A" Ranch. The music festival would include camping, parking, food and drink for an estimated 1500 to 2999 people. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: NONE. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: N/A ATTENDANCE: Kristen Maze, CDD DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: Kristen Maze Exhibit_ F Page of }1-E' Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ STAFF REPORT. TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commission FROM: Kristen Maze, Assistant Planner DATE: July 2, 2007 SUBJECT: Work session for an Outdoor Mass Gathering, OMG-07-01 Purpose The Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners will hold a work session prior to a public hearing to consider a proposal by 4 Peaks Presents for an Outdoor Mass Gathering application to hold a three day Bluegrass Music Festival on a 19.5 acre parcel in the Bend/Tumalo Reservoir Road area. Applicant Proposal The applicant, 4 Peaks Presents, LLC, is proposing to hold the festival at the Rockin "A" Ranch located in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone (EFU) within the Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone. This application is not a land use application; therefore it is not subject the EFU zoning regulations. The proposal is to provide camping, parking, food and music for an estimated 1500 to 2700 people. Set up for the event will begin Thursday August2, 2007 and end on August 5, 2007 with break down and clean up finishing up by August 6, 2007. The property is delineated by white rail fencing around the perimeter. It currently contains a main house, and a guest house with attached horse stables/barn. The property fronts on Tumalo Reservoir Road to the east. Adjacent to the north is a residence that is separated by High Mowing Lane. To the west of the property are large properties with irrigated pastures and residences. South of the site contains residential parcels located among Juniper and Sagebrush vegetation. The subject property is located on property identified on Assessors Map #17-11-1 as tax lot 200, and is owned by Gary and Lisa Armstrong (Attachment 1). The proposed music festival site contains approximately 9 acres of parking along the relatively eastern portion of the property with the remaining property devoted to the band performance area, vendor and sanitation area, Quality Services Perfonned with Pride together with approximately 24,000 square feet of tent camping. The west portion of the property has a swale which dips towards Tumalo Reservoir Road. The applicants are not proposing any permanent structures included in this application. A 20 foot fire lane is proposed along the eastern property line as well as a 20 foot fire lane that encompasses the two proposed parking pasture areas (Pasture 1 and 2). (Attachment 2) Findings The County code provides approval criteria for an Outdoor Mass Gathering permit. The proposed application complies with all the permit requirements and approval criteria outlined in DCC 8.16 below (Attachment 3). 8.16.160 Insurance Deschutes County Risk Management has reviewed and requires the following: 1. Fourteen days prior to the event 4 Peaks Presents shall obtain and provide the Community Development Director a Special Events Insurance policy that provides general liability of $1,000,000 per occurrence naming the County as an additional insured. The policy shall provide payment of claims within the 180 day period after the scheduled termination of the event. 8.16.170 Sanitary Facilities Environmental Health reviewed and approved the proposed application provided the following requirements are met; 1. The applicant shall provide 1 toilet per every 100 attendees. The applicant has contracted with Advance Systems Portable Restrooms to provide the required facilities. 2. Hand washing facilities shall be provided including 5 sinks with running water and soap. 3. Water shall be provided via bottled water and potable well water with a faucet manifold attached. Backstage water will be provided via a holding tank with faucets approved by Environmental Health. 4. Waste collection and removal shall be provided by Bend Garbage. 5. Food service shall be provided by licensed vendors and restaurateurs. Each food vendor shall apply to the County for a temporary restaurant license at least 2 days prior to the event. 6. All vendor tents shall comply with the standards set forth by the City of Bend Fire Department. 8.16.190 Fire Protection Standards The City of Bend Fire Department reviewed the application and set the following conditions of approval: 1. City of Bend Fire Department shall conduct a final site inspection prior to event. 2. The applicant shall provide 20 foot wide emergency access roads to parking, tent, vendor, public areas and buildings. The emergency access roads shall remain open at all times. 3. Access points to the property and various parking and vendor areas are required for approval. 4. All tents, canopies and temporary structures shall show proof of compliance with all fire code requirements prior to approval. 5. All food preparation, wok and frying operations shall be in compliance with the fire code. 6. All vendors that cook or have open flames shall have a 2A 10B:C fire extinguisher. 7. All vendors that cook with deep fat frying operations hall have a class K type fire extinguisher. 2 8. All propane tanks or other compressed gas shall be secured from tipping over to prevent damage and rupture. 9. Applicant shall provide a safety officer responsible for enforcing all safety requirements. 10. The proposed event shall comply with all medical facilities requirements under the County Code and all Fire Codes. 8.16.190 Medical Service The Bend Fire Department requires that the applicant shall provide one ambulance and a first aid station staffed by two adults trained in first aid techniques for the duration of the event. 8.16.200 Public Safety The Oregon Liquor Control Commission and the Deschutes County Sheriff have review and approved the proposed security for the music festival. Security for the event will be provided by Roy Nowell. Mr. Nowell's company currently provides security for the Domino Room and the Midtown Ballroom in Bend. 8.16.210 Parking Facilities The proposed site plan shows approximately 9 acres of parking including overflow parking area. Deschutes County Sheriff Department has reviewed and approved the applicant's site plan for parking with no revisions. 8.16.220 Permit-Posting Upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners, Deschutes County will provide the applicant with permits and conditions of approval to be posted in a conspicuous spot on the property during the course of the event. 8.16.230 Inspection of Premises The applicant and/or property owner will provide access to the premises for inspection purposes by law enforcement, public health and fire control officers based on the terms and conditions of the permit. If deficiencies are identified following an inspection the inspector may return as often as need until the deficiencies are cured. If the deficiencies are not cured and cannot be cured then the County Sheriff may terminate the Outdoor Mass Gathering. 8.16.240 Restricted Hours of Operation The event shall not be conducted within 1000 feet of any residence between the hours of 12:01 am and 9:00 am, and shall not be conducted in all areas between the hours of 2:00 am and 9:00 am. The proposed camping will take place at the southeast corner of the parcel away from existing residence. 1. The applicant proposes that the concert and vendors shall operate between the hours of 10:00 am and 10:00 pm. 2. Camping hours will be ongoing for the duration of the event from August 3 at 12:00 p.m. to August 5 at 11:00 a.m. 8.16.250 and 260 Organizers Responsible for Preserving Order and Enforcement 1. The burden of preserving order to the proposed event shall be with 4 Peaks Presents, LLC. 2. The applicant shall keep a reasonable count of persons and vehicles entering the event. 3. The number of attendees shall not exceed the estimated attendance by 10 percent. The total number of attendees including musicians, vendors, staff , and security shall not exceed 2950. 3 4. All debris will be removed within 72 hours after the event termination. All temporary structures shall be removed within 3 weeks of event termination. 5. Security will be in place at all times. The number of security personnel will vary depending on crowd size. The maximum on duty shall be 19, with a minimum of 9. 6. Certified traffic flaggers will be posted on Tumalo Reservoir Road at all times during the event. 8.16.270 Intoxicating Liquor Prohibited No person shall be permitted to bring alcohol onto the premises. 1. 4 Peaks Presents proposes to sell beer and wine on the premises. They have applied for a Temporary Sales License from the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. 18.16.280 Narcotic and Dangerous Drugs Prohibited No narcotic or dangerous drug use will be permitted at the premises. Review Criteria Deschutes County follows the criteria listed in DCC Titles 8 for reviewing an Outdoor Mass Gathering application. 4 Peaks Presents bears the burden for justifying that the Outdoor Mass Gathering for the bluegrass music festival is consistent with DCC Title 8, and State law. Conclusion Following the work session a Public Hearing has been scheduled for July 11, 2007. Attachments: 1. Assessors Map 2. Site Plan 3. DCC 8.16.150 - 8.16.340 4. Application Form 4 1 0 0 n 13 7 1 ~ 090 LI LI OR 33S ~ A" 090 ZI LI dYM 335 Y x ■ ~j` 11.1:1 • ns s.. 6a _p R a k t'liol I' I ~~p wns~lr, In. ,r. f ~u' w'ul \s. Is Ir•rft o-, - - - - - - a RS a a _ 3 F b I .n l a s ss. ~ ~ iy. Y~ v+ , rIn ~ I cR^ I♦ ~ f, A - 1 I WV = O I /Y~ I 91/ $ R_ \SN~ P c not K 1.0, tf •119 (7 t _ - 219.1 n: Y Y n'uu n t `staff 92'(nl Um _ _ W ~ I M c tl1 'r 4 yin ri 19 ~ ° _ - , i n'sn W K ' [1 r11I u'n9 ' . t 9c~ipsti ~Y u-t-+u+t1u = su p ~ n n xol n inl ON 1 ` • / 1 LIJ v o I I 1 21 ♦ t / 1 a CV Y Sir, 11,901, _ WKI 11'91(1 S ~ W 52 co n'f1 9' 8 955 ~ n'a5 8 I'rol _ 69'912 Y - - ~ 1 rE i Y I 1 s of / 4 4E o8 + oo l c n i St111C5T."I {'TI N C{1,t Rl..'9ll(m{" - 1 T i W ` , Ir»r f ♦ . . i . Y oat 22 v - - • • • ■ i omt wo - n•xn C 7G■ • s w: r r Z0 11 11 dYM 335 i~ _ i$1 ~ f COLIN ~ i l a ~ cry .N .P w„I I 5 0 ~ 1. ■ . It. -1 F ji . 1 ~ 1 ,I o I s<- ~tl ljtQ I~ ~rn I 1 A~uaa~ Pte(-~~cj rF ~J~e~-fin' ~(P~tb:1~ -ra ,En,~c~o-r Re~n~t~ : AID spectators, attendees, organizers, performers, and participants on any given day. "Board" means the Board of County Commissioners. "County Administrator" means the Deschutes County Administrator or his/her designee(s). "County Engineer" means the Deschutes County Engineer or his/her designee(s). "Department" means the Community Development Department. "Director" means the Deschutes County Community Development Director, or his or her duly authorized deputies and representatives. "Event" means any Assembly of Persons, including a Parade, for any duration that is held primarily on or is using Public Property or Public Right of Way and: 1. for which the actual number is or reasonably anticipated to be 500 or fewer but more than 50; 2. for which the actual number is or reasonably anticipated to be less than 50 where pre- registration is required or a fee to participate is charged; or 3. whenever any property is used in such a way that traffic safety or serious inconvenience to the public in connection with the use of a public right of way owned by or under the jurisdiction of the Deschutes County occurs or, in the opinion of the County Road Dept., is likely to occur. "Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering" means and includes an Assembly of Persons, including but not limited to Spectators, which is held primarily in open spaces and/or one or more temporary structures, but not in any permanent structure, for which the actual number is or is reasonably anticipated to be 3000 or more persons or more than 500 persons for a period that continues or can reasonably anticipated to be for more than 240 hours, including set-up, placement, storage and removal or similar action of any equipment, Chapter 8.16 materials, structures, vehicles, supplies and so forth within any continuous three-month period. "Hearings Body" means the following: 1. for Events, the County Administrator; 2. for Outdoor Mass Gatherings, the Board; 3. for Extended Outdoor Mass Gatherings, the County Planning Commission; 4. for appeals of a decision of the County Administrator, the Board; and 5. for appeals of a decision of the County Planning Commission, the Board. "Organizer" includes any person who conducts, stages or sponsors an Event, Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering, and the owner, lessee or possessor of the real property upon which the Event, Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering is to take place. "Outdoor Mass Gathering" means and includes an assembly of persons, including but not limited to spectators, whose actual number is or is reasonably anticipated to be less than 3000 persons but more than 500 persons for a period that continues or can reasonably be expected to continue for more than 4 but less than 240 hours, including set-up, placement, storage and removal or similar action of any equipment, materials, structures, vehicles, supplies and so forth, within any continuous three-month period and which is held primarily in open spaces and/or one or more temporary structures, but not in any permanent structure. "Parade" means a procession of persons using the public right of way and consisting of 15 or more persons or five or more vehicles but does not include funeral processions or bicycle rides of 15 or fewer riders within a mile of each other over the same roadway so long as the actual number of participants and spectators is or is reasonably anticipated to be less than an Outdoor Mass Gathering or an Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering. "Permanent structure" includes a stadium, an arena, an auditorium, a coliseum, a fairground, or other similar established places for assemblies. 2 (2/2007) D. All motor vehicles in the procession shall be operated with their lights turned on E. No person shall unreasonably interfere with a funeral procession. F. No person shall operate a vehicle that is not part of the procession between the vehicles of a funeral procession. G. Violation of any provision of DCC 8.16.110 is a Class B violation. 8.16.150. Outdoor Mass Gathering and Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering Exclusions A. The requirements in this chapter for Outdoor Mass Gatherings and Extended Outdoor Mass Gatherings shall not apply to any regularly scheduled religious service, regularly organized and supervised school district activity or program that takes place on school property, any activities at the Deschutes County Fairgrounds, or to any activity of a municipal corporation or government agency. B. The Board may waive the perm' requirements for certain limited Outdoor Mass Gatherings and Extended Outdoor Mass Gatherings upon a showing by the Organizer of ooh dd cause, when no significant public health, safety or welfare issues are involved and when the Board determines that no County law enforcement or other County services are necessary. C. The Board may waive part or all of the permit fee for an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering upon a showing by the Organizer of good cause to reduce or waive the fee (Ord. 2006-020 §3, 2006; Ord. 2005-003 §1, 2005; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 86.071 § 2, 1986; Ord. CG3 (9/16/70) § 5, 1970) 8.16.160. Outdoor Mass Gathering and Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering Permit Required. A. No Organizer shall hold, conduct, advertise or otherwise promote an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering or allow an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Chapter 8.16 Gathering to be held on real property the Organizer owns, leases or possesses outside the limits of any city unless the Organizer obtains a permit to hold such an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering. B. No permit for an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering shall be issued unless the landowner of the property that is the site of the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering also signs the application. C. All Outdoor Mass Gatherings as defined in this Chapter are exempt from the requirements of Deschutes County Code Titles 17 through 23, except where noted. D. One permit shall be required for each Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering. E. A permit issued under this section does not entitle the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering Organizer to construct any permanent physical alterations to or on the real property which is the site of the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering. F. The Organizer of a proposed Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering shall file an application with the Department more than 90 days prior to the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering. G. The application shall include the following: 1. Name and address of the Organizer. 2. Legal description of the location of the proposed Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering. 3. A map of the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering desired route, including assembling and disbanding points. 4. The date or dates of the proposed Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering. 5. The proposed starting and ending time(s) of the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering. 6. The estimated number of persons, vehicles and animals that will be attending, participating in or viewing the 7 (2/2007) Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering. 7. Nature of the proposed Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering. 8. A sketch, and other detailed information showing the type, number and location of all toilets, washing facilities, water supply, food preparation, food service facilities and solid waste collection locations. 9. The name and phone number of the contact person who shall be easily identified and who shall remain at the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering site at all times. 10. A sketch, and other detailed information showing the type, number and location of all toilets, washing facilities, water supply, food preparation, food service facilities and solid waste collection locations. 11. Approval by the appropriate Fire District Officer or State Fire Marshall in accordance with DCC 8.16.10. 12. A medical services plan demonstrating compliance with DCC 8.16.10. 13. A public safety plan in accordance with DCC 8.16.120. 14. A parking plan demonstrating compliance with DCC 8.16.10. 15. A copy of the proposed participant entry form for the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering, including a release agreement releasing Deschutes County, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers from liability for any or all injuries. 16. A signed indemnity agreement on a form provided by the County. 17. Such other appropriate information as the Director or Board may require in order to insure compliance with the provisions of this chapter, as well as rules of the Oregon Department of Human Services. H. Any application for an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering lacking any requirement of DCC 8.16.160(G) shall, unless waived by the Board, be deemed incomplete and the permit shall be denied Chapter 8.16 except that, if additional information requested pursuant to DCC 8.16.030(H)(17) is not supplied within two weeks of the Board's request, the application shall be deemed incomplete and the permit shall be denied. 1. The application for an Outdoor Mass Gathering and Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering shall be accompanied by the appropriate fee pursuant to the County fee schedule. J. Incomplete applications shall be denied and the application fee, less County costs, shall be returned to the permit applicant. K. The Director shall furnish a copy of the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering permit to the Sheriff and to any other jurisdiction in which the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering takes place. (Ord. 2006-020 §3, 2006; Ord. 2005-003 §1, 2005; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 86.071 § 2, 1986; Ord. CG3 (9/16/70) § 5, 1970) 8.16.170. Outdoor Mass Gathering and Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering Hearing Required. A. No application for an Outdoor Mass Gathering permit shall be approved without review by the Board following a public hearing. B. No application for an Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering permit shall be approved without review by the Planning Commission following a public hearing in accordance with ORS 433.763 et seq. C. Public hearings shall be set at the discretion of the Director but, in no case, earlier than 10 days from the date of application. (Ord. 2006-020 §3, 2006; Ord. 2005-003 §1, 2005; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 86.071 § 2, 1986; Ord. CG3 (9/16/70) § 5, 1970) 8.16.180. Outdoor Mass Gathering and Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering Departmental and Agency Notice. A. For an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering, the Director shall 8 (2/2007) send notice of the application to the following officers at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing: County Risk Manager, County Sheriff, County Environmental Health, and the chief of the fire district in which the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering is proposed. B. The Director shall publish notice of the hearing for an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering permit at least 10 calendar days before the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the County. (Ord. 2006-020 §3, 2006; Ord. 2005-003 §1, 2005; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 86.071 § 1, 1986; Ord. CG3 (9/16/70) § 3 (part), 1970) 8. A. B C D 16.190. Outdoor Mass Gathering and Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering General Approval . Criteria An Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering permit shall be approved upon demonstration by the Organizer of compliance with or the ability to comply the provisions of this chapter, as well as all health and safety rules governing all Outdoor Mass Gatherings, Extended or otherwise, adopted by the Oregon Department of Human Services. Each public official receiving notice of the application for an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering permit who wishes to comment on the application shall submit such comment in writing to the Hearings Body no later than the date and time for the hearing. The comment from any public official regarding an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering permit may include recommendations related to the official functions of the officer as to granting the permit and any recommended conditions that should be imposed. The Hearings Body shall consider the imposition of any suggested conditions submitted by public officials who received notice of the proposed Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering. E. The Hearings Body may consider and impose any reasonable condition on a permit for an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering recommended that is submitted at or prior to the public hearing by a member of the public or public official. (Ord. 2006-020 §3, 2006; Ord. 2005-003 §1, 2005; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 86.071 § 2, 1986; Ord. CG3 (9/16/70) § 5, 1970) 8.16.200. Outdoor Mass Gathering and Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering Appeals. A. When the County Planning Commission is the Hearings Body, any person who participated in the hearing before the Planning Commission shall be deemed a party and may appeal the decision to the Board in accordance with DCC Chapter 22.32. B. All Outdoor Mass Gathering and Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering decisions of the Board under DCC 8.16 shall be reviewable by the Circuit Court of the State for the County only by writ of review under the provisions of ORS 34.010 to 34.100. (Ord. 2006-020 §3, 2006; Ord. 2005-003 §1, 2005; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 86.071 § 2, 1986; Ord. CG3 (9/16/70) § 5, 1970 8.16.210. Outdoor Mass Gathering and Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering Insurance. A. After consultation with the County Risk Manager, if the Board determines that the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering creates a potential for injury to persons or property, the Board may require organizers to obtain a commercial general liability insurance policy in an amount commensurate with the risk, but not exceeding $1 million per occurrence. B. The insurance policy may not be cancelable and shall provide coverage against liability for death, injury, or disability of any human or for damage to property arising out of the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering. Chapter 8.16 9 (2/2007) C. The insurance policy must be an "occurrence" policy, or its equivalent, that provides for payment of claims made during the 180-day period after the scheduled termination of the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering. D. The Organizer shall furnish the Director with an insurance certificate and a copy of the insurance policy naming the County as an additional insured under the policy. E. The permits for an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering shall be voided by the Director if the Organizer does not file proof of the non-cancelable insurance required by this section with the Director at least fourteen days before the first day of the . (Ord. 2006-020 §3, 2006; Ord. 2005-003 § 1, 2005; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 86.071 § 2, 1986; Ord. CG3 (9/16/70) § 5, 1970) 8.16.220. Outdoor Mass Gathering and Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering Sanitary Facilities. A. The County Environmental Health Division shall have the responsibility for approving all sanitation and related facilities required by the Hearings Body for an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering permit to ensure that reasonable minimum standards have been or will be met by the Organizer, in accordance with the procedures outlined in DCC 8.16. B. County Environmental Health Division approval is based upon, but not limited to, the following minimum guideline requirements: 1. Toilets. A contractual agreement, with a reliable firm, shall accompany any application with provisions for providing chemical toilets and the sanitary maintenance of these toilets, on a continual basis, if necessary, based upon the ratio of. (a) one toilet for each 100 persons of each sex; and (b) one urinal for each 100 male persons. Such facilities shall be conveniently located and indicated on the sketch plan. 2. Hand washing Facilities. In the absence of running water and normal hand washing facilities, prepackaged sanitary wet towels, provided in adequate numbers and conveniently located, may be substituted. 3. Water. An adequate supply of bacteriologically safe drinking water shall be provided in a convenient location with adequate sanitary dispensing equipment (paper cups, fountains, etc.). 4. Waste Collection and Removal. A contractual agreement with the areas franchised collector providing for an adequate number of containers, routine collection, including litter, and removal to an authorized disposal site shall accompany the application. 5. Food Service Facilities. Food service facilities shall comply with the State Board of Health regulations that pertain to the operation of temporary restaurants should such operation not exceed 30 days. C. Such approval of an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering permit by the County Environmental Health Division shall indicate the number, type, and location, when appropriate, of the various facilitiesand shall include a description of the specific type of food preparation and food service facilities to be provided. (Ord. 2006-020 §3, 2006; Ord. 2005-003 §1, 2005; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 86.071 § 2, 1986; Ord. CG3 (9/16/70) § 5, 1970) 8.16.230. Outdoor Mass Gathering and Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering Fire Protection Standards. A. Unless waived by the the Hearings Body pursuant to DCC 8.16.030(H), no Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering permit shall be granted under DCC 8.16 unless the Organizer has shown that the appropriate Fire Protection District Officer has approved the type, size, number and location of fire protection devices and equipment available at, in or near any location, including outdoor sites, buildings, tents, stadium or enclosure, wherein or whereupon more than 10 persons may be Chapter 8.16 10 (2/2007) expected to congregate at any time during the course of an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering for which a permit is required under DCC 8.16. B. If the site for which the permit is applied for is located outside a fire protection district, the Organizer must show approval from the office of the State Fire Marshal. (Ord. 2006-020 §3, 2006; Ord. 2005-003 § 1, 2005; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 86.071 § 2, 1986; Ord. CG3 (9/16/70) § 5, 1970) 8.16.240. Outdoor Mass Gathering and Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering Medical Service. A. The County Environmental Health Division shall have responsibility for approving plans as to medical service required for the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering. B. Each Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering shall have as a minimum one ambulance and a first aid station staffed by two adult individuals trained in first aid techniques. (Ord. 2006-020 §3, 2006; Ord. 2005-003 § 1, 2005; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 86.071 § 2, 1986; Ord. CG3 (9/16/70) § 5, 1970) 8.16 A. .250. Outdoor Mass Gathering and Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering Public Safety. If required by the Hearings Body pursuant, the Organizer must submit plans for public safety at the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering for approval demonstrating the following: 1. Adequate traffic control and crowd protection policing must have been contracted for or otherwise provided by the Organizer. a. There shall be provided one traffic control person for each 250 persons expected or reasonably expected to be ~inattendance at any time during the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering. b. Further, there shall be provided one crowd control person for each 100 persons, expected or reasonably expected to be in attendance at any time during the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering. 2. The Organizer shall submit the names and necessary background information, on forms provided by the Sheriff, for all traffic-control and crowd-control personnel to be utilized during the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering for investigation by the Sheriff as to fitness. All such personnel must meet the following minimum standards in order to be approved as suitable by the Sheriff: a. Be at least 18 years of age; b. Be in good physical health; c. Never have been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; d. Have training or experience acceptable to the County to conduct traffic and or crowd-control duties. B. All of the traffic control and crowd control personnel must wear an appropriate identifying uniform and all traffic control uniforms must be accordance with the current edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. C. The required number of crowd-control personnel must be on duty during the entire Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering unless a relief schedule has been planned and approved. A relief schedule will be approved by the Sheriff only when sufficient crowd-control strength on duty has been maintained to meet the minimum strength standards set forth in this chapter. D. It shall be the duty of the crowd control personnel to report any violations of the law to the Sheriff, his deputies or representatives and to take whatever action as can be reasonably expected of them to enforce the law. (Ord. 2006-020 §3, 2006; Ord. 2005-003 §1, 2005; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 86.071 § 2, 1986; Ord. CG3 (9/16/70) § 5, 1970) Chapter 8.16 11 (2/2007) 8.16.260. Outdoor Mass Gathering and Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering Parking Facilities. A. If required by the Hearings Body, prior to or on the date of application for an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering, the Organizer shall provide a scale drawing showing adequate parking facilities have been made available within or adjacent to the location for which the permit is requested. B. Such parking facilities shall provide parking space for one vehicle for every four persons expected or reasonably to be expected to attend such. C. Adequate ingress and egress shall be provided from such parking area to facilitate the movement of any vehicle at any time to or from the parking area of the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering. D. Should buses be used to transport the public to the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering, it shall be shown that public parking or parking is available at any site from which buses are scheduled to pick up persons to transport them to the . (Ord. 2006-020 §3, 2006; Ord. 2005-003 § 1, 2005; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 86.071 § 2, 1986; Ord. CG3 (9/16/70) § 5, 1970) 8.16.270. Outdoor Mass Gathering and Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering Permit Posting. A. The Organizer of an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering shall have a copy of the permit available for inspection upon request. B. No permit for an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering shall be transferable or assignable without the consent of the County Administrator. C. Any permit for an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering shall be kept posted in a conspicuous place upon the premises of such assembly. D. No permit for an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering shall be transferable or assignable without the consent of the Board. E. Except as authorized elsewhere in this chapter, no rebate or refund of money paid for a permit shall be made. (Ord. 2006-020 §3, 2006; Ord. 2005-003 § 1, 2005; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 86.071 § 2, 1986; Ord. CG3 (9/16/70) § 5, 1970) 8.16.280. Inspection of Outdoor Mass Gathering and Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering Premises. A. No Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering permit shall be granted unless the Organizer shall, in writing upon the application, for such permit consent to allow law enforcement, public health and fire control officers to come upon the premises for which the permit has been granted for the purpose of inspection and enforcement of the terms and conditions of the permit and DCC 8.16, and any other applicable laws or ordinances. B. If any inspections reveal deficiencies in compliance with State or local law, the inspectors may return as often as needed until the deficiencies are cured. If the deficiencies are not cured or cannot be cured, the Board, County Administrator, County Engineer or the Sheriff may suspend or terminate the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering. C. All the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering facilities shall be in place a sufficient time, but not less than two hours, before the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering for which an application is submitted and approved, and shall be subject to inspection by the County, provided, however, that such inspection shall not relieve the Organizer of responsibility for proper placement of all facilities. (Ord. 2006-020 §3, 2006; Ord. 2005-003 § 1, 2005; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 86.071 § 2, 1986; Ord. CG3 (9/16/70) § 5, 1970) 8.16.290. Outdoor Mass Gathering and Extended Outdoor Mass Chapter 8.16 12 (2/2007) Gathering Restricted Hours of Operation. A. No Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering shall be conducted, including set-up, placement, storage, staging, removal or similar action of any equipment, materials, structures, vehicles, supplies and so forth, in the unincorporated areas of the County within 1,000 feet of any residence between the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 9:00 a.m and in all other areas between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. B. If written consents for the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering from neighboring property owners and residents are submitted with the application, the Hearings Body may modify these hours in the permit. C. The use of amplification for the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering shall be regulated so that it will not interfere with the normal use of any school, church, residence or other permanent place of human habitation unless prior written consent is obtained from all affected persons. A sound level in excess of 70 decibels prior to 10:00 p.m. and in excess of 50 decibels after 10:00 p.m. (as measured upon the A scale of a standard sound level meter on affected property) shall constitute interference. (Ord. 2006-020 §3, 2006; Ord. 2005-003 §1, 2005; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 86.071 § 2, 1986; Ord. CG3 (9/16/70) § 5, 1970) 8.16.300. Outdoor Mass Gathering and Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering Enforcement. A. The Organizer shall provide a contact person who shall be easily identified and who shall remain at the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering site at all times. B. If any Organizer of an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering violates any provisions of this chapter, the Board, County Administrator, County Engineer, or Sheriff may immediately suspend, revoke or terminate any permit for an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering and may seek any legal remedy available. C. The Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering Organizer shall keep a reasonable count of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering. D. If at any time during the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering held under a valid permit, the number of persons or vehicles attending the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering exceeds by 10 percent or more the number of persons or vehicles estimated in the permit application, the Sheriff, or any of his deputies, has the authority to require the Organizer to limit further admissions until a sufficient number of individuals or vehicles have left the site to bring the actual attendance down to the number estimated by the Organizer. E. For any Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering held under a valid permit, the County Sheriff has the authority to order the crowd to disperse and leave the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering site if the Organizer cannot maintain order and compliance with all applicable State and local laws or refuses to maintain order and compliance with State and local laws or refuses or is unable to adhere to the terms and conditions of the permit. F. In addition to State law provisions in ORS Chapter 433, including ORS 433.990(7), the County Counsel, or District Attorney for Deschutes County may maintain an action in any court of general jurisdiction to restrain, or enjoin any violation of ORS 433.745. Cases filed in Deschutes County under this section or under ORS 433.770 shall be given preference on the docket to all other civil cases except those given equal preference by statute. G. If persons remain on the site after the scheduled end of the permitted Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering, fail to remove all debris or residue within 72 Chapter 8.16 13 (2/2007) hours after termination of or fails to remove all temporary structures within three weeks after the termination of the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering, the County code enforcement officers may issue citations to the Organizer, the landowner, all persons remaining at the site, and to all persons who have left debris behind. H. The Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering Organizer shall be wholly responsible for payment of any fines imposed under this Chapter or ORS 433. 1. In addition to any other remedies provided, if the Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering site is not restored to its previous condition, or better, the County may arrange for clean up of the site, and then file an action for damages against the Organizer and the landowner or successor landowner. (Ord. 2006-020 §3, 2006; Ord. 2005-003 §1, 2005; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 86.071 § 2, 1986; Ord. CG3 (9/16/70) § 5, 1970) 8.16.310. Outdoor Mass Gathering and Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering Intoxicating Liquor Prohibition. A. No Organizer, landowner nor any person having charge or control thereof at any time when an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering is being conducted shall permit any person to bring into such Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering or upon the premises thereof, any intoxicating liquor, nor permit intoxicating liquor to be consumed on the premises, and no person during such time shall take or carry onto such premises or drink thereon intoxicating liquor. B. In accordance with ORS 670.220 (5) (a), this provision shall not apply to the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor from a facility located on the premises of an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering when licensed by the State. (Ord. 2006-020 §3, 2006; Ord. 2005-003 fl, 2005; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 86.071 § 2, 1986; Ord. CG3 (9/16/70) § 5, 1970) 8.16.320. Narcotic and Dangerous Drugs Prohibited at Outdoor Mass Gatherings or Extended Mass Gatherings. No firm, person, society, association or corporation conducting an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering, nor any person having charge or control thereof at any time when an Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering is being conducted shall permit any person to bring into such Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering, or upon the premises thereof. any narcotic or dangerous drug, nor permit narcotic or dangerous drugs to be used on the premises. (Ord. 2006-020 §3, 2006) 8.16.330. Compliance Required for Outdoor Mass Gathering and Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering. Compliance with the terms and conditions of DCC 8.16 shall constitute minimum health, sanitation and safety provisions; and failure to comply with the terms and conditions of DCC 8.16 or state laws shall constitute a public nuisance and shall be subject to all criminal, civil, and equitable remedies as such. (Ord. 2006-020 §3, 2006) 8.16.340. Outdoor Mass Gathering or Extended Mass Gathering Violation. For Outdoor Mass Gatherings or Extended Mass Gatherings, violation of this Chapter is at minimum a Class A violation and is punishable upon conviction by a fine of not more than $10,000. (Ord. 2006-020 §3, 2006; Ord. 2005-003 §1, 2005; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 86.071 § 2, 1986; Ord. CG3 (9/16/70) § 5, 1970) Chapter 8.16 14 (2/2007) 114 DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, OR 97M Phone: (541) 388-6575 FAX: (541) 385-1764 http:/twWW.co.deschutes.or.uskdd MASS GATHERING APPLICATION PLEASE PRINT FEE: $ ADDRESS: Pb t3a x ~2 ~Z_ CITY: 60 STATE: a Q ZIP CODE: 'I77d L PHONE: 0010 SITE OF GATHERING (PROPERTY DESCRIPTION): T 17 R /1 S d TAX LOT, DESCRIPTION OF GATHERING (i.e. MUSIC, ART, ETC.): YC,B S td 4t'21 /xl4t S1I- V I ADDRESS: 19y'19 I lt,414,4 R69WY'vrr' 94 o-d I~dO CITY: 1364 STATE: ! as ZIP CODE: q7761 ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE: DATE(S) OF GATHERING: AA&a y -06-7 3- /Z 077 4cl_ -J ~091V1 G.+3»+,"~NG, CONTACT PERSON AVAILABLE ON-SITE DURING GATHERING: NAME: LX LC. klA6, 1V PHONE NUMBER: S VI - S9 P - .t-5-7o AGENCY APPROVALS: Please have the following agencies/departments review your proposal before submitting your application. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISIO indicates approval of sanitary facilities in accordance with 8.16.170) -1 A~p FI E P OTECTION DI TR T OR STATE FIRE MARSHAL (indicates approval of fire jolection de ces on-site, in accor with 18 ) _'r COUNTY HEALTH DEPAR NT (indicates approval of medical service, in accordarift with 8.16.190) DESCHUTES COUNTY SHERIFF (indicates approval of a public safety plan and parking plan in accordance with 8.16.200 and 8.16.210, respectively) n ON A SEPARATE SHEET, PLEASE PROVIDE A PLOT PLAN SHOWING THE TYP , NUMBER AND LOCATION OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: a. Toilets b. Washing facilities 1 C. Water supply d. Food preparation and/or food servic" n r rS e. Solid waste collection f , APPLICANT: DATE: 1116 (Original signature) 2_6 0 OUTDOOR MASS GATHERING PERMIT DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BEND (541) 388-6575 LOCATION: 19449 TUMALO RESERVOIR ROAD OWNER: GARY AND LISA ARMSTRONG TYPE, DATES & TIME OF EVENT: BLUEGRASS MUSIC FESTIVAL AUGUST 3, 2007/12:00 P.m.- AUGUST 5. 2007/10:00a.m OPERATOR: 4 PEAKS PRESENTS PHONE 541 598-5570 1. PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF EVENT OR GATHERING HAS NOT STARTED ON THE APPROVED DATE. 2. THE APPROVED PERMIT SHALL BE RETAINED ON-SITE UNTIL THE EVENT OR GATHERING IS COMPLETE. 3. BY ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PERMIT, OWNER OPERATOR CONSENT TO ALLOW LAW ENFORCEMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH AND FIRE CONTROL OFFICERS TO COME ON THE PREMISES FOR WHICH THE PERMIT HAD BEEN GRANTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT AND DCC 8.16, AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS OR ORDINANCES. FILE NUMBER (OMG-07-1) The Board of County Commissioners approves the 4 Peaks Presents' application for an Outdoor Mass Gathering permit based upon the attached findings incorporated by reference herein and subject to the following conditions. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Fourteen days prior to the event 4 Peaks Presents shall obtain and provide the Community Development Director for approval a Special Events Insurance policy that provides general liability of $1,000,000 per occurrence naming the County as an additional insured. The policy shall provide payment of claims within the 180 day period after the scheduled termination of the event. 2. The applicant shall provide 1 toilet per every 100 attendees. The applicant has contracted with Advance Systems Portable Restrooms to provide the required facilities. 3. Hand washing facilities shall be provided including 5 sinks with running water and soap. 4. Drinking Water shall be provided via bottled water and potable well water with a faucet manifold attached. Backstage water will be provided via a holding tank with faucets approved by Environmental Health. 5. The total amount of water for drinking and hand washing shall be at a rate of twelve (12) gallons per person per day. 6. Waste collection and removal shall be provided by Bend Garbage. 7. Food service shall be provided by licensed vendors and restaurateurs. Each food vendor shall apply to the County at least 2 days prior to the event. 8. All vendor tents shall comply with the standards set forth by the City of Bend Fire Department. 9. The applicant shall provide 20 foot wide emergency access roads to parking, tent, vendor, public areas and buildings. The emergency access roads shall remain open at all times. 4 Peaks Presents OMG Permit (July 11, 2007) 4 10. Access points to the property and various parking and vendor areas are required for approval. 11. All tents, canopies and temporary structures shall show proof of compliance with all fire code requirements prior to approval. 12. All food preparation, wok and frying operations shall be in compliance with the fire code. 13. All vendors that cook or have open flames shall have a 2A 10B:C fire extinguisher. 14. All vendors that cook with deep fat frying operations hall have a class K type fire extinguisher. 15. All propane tanks or other compressed gas shall be secured from tipping over to prevent damage and rupture. 16. Applicant shall provide a safety officer responsible for enforcing all safety requirements. 17. The proposed event shall comply with all medical facilities requirements under the County Code and all Fire Codes. 18. Applicant shall provide one ambulance and a first aid station staffed by two adults trained in first aid techniques for the duration of the event. 19. Security for the event will be provided by Roy Nowell. 20. Applicant shall adhere to the proposed site plan that shows approximately 9 acres of parking including overflow parking area. 21. Applicant shall post this permit in a conspicuous spot on the property during the course of the event. 22. The applicant and/or property owner will provide access to the premises for inspection purposes by law enforcement, public health and fire control officers based on the terms and conditions of the permit. If deficiencies are identified following an inspection the inspector may return as often as need until the deficiencies are cured. If the deficiencies are not cured and cannot be cured then the County Sheriff may terminate the Outdoor Mass Gathering. 23. The event shall not be conducted within 1000 feet of any residence between the hours of 12:01 am and 9:00 am, and shall not be conducted in all areas between the hours of 2:00 am and 9:00 am. 24. The burden of preserving order to the proposed event shall be with 4 Peaks Presents, LLC. 25. The applicant shall keep a reasonable count of persons and vehicles entering the event. 26. The number of attendees shall not exceed the estimated attendance by 10 percent. The total number of attendees including musicians, vendors, staff and security shall not exceed 2950 during the course of the event. 27. Attendance at the event may not exceed 2950 for all days and times combined unless Owner/Operator apply and receive approval for an Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering permit. 28. All debris will be removed within 72 hours after the event termination. All temporary structures shall be removed within 3 weeks of event termination. 29. Security will be in place at all times. The number of security personnel will vary depending on crowd size - maximum on duty 19, minimum is 9. 30. Certified traffic flaggers will be posted on Tumalo Reservoir Road at all times during the event. 31. No person shall be permitted to bring alcohol onto the premises. 32. No narcotic or dangerous drug use will be permitted at the premises. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION Micheal M. Daly, Chair Signature authorized by the Board of County Commissioners 2 4 Peaks Presents OMG Permit (July 11, 2007) DATE July 10, 2007 Deschutes County Commissioners Deschutes County Courthouse 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701-1960 RE: Proposed three-day Blue Grass Festival on Tumalo Reservoir Road July 11, 2007 Public Hearing Dear Commissioners I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed three-day music festival on Tumalo Reservoir Road and for your consideration at the hearing on July 11, 2007. My wife and I along with seven other families live across the street from the location of the proposed event. The entrance to our residential neighborhood (Coyote Run Lane) is located almost immediately behind the stage where music will be performed. The transportation system in the area is not suited to handle an event of this size. I am worried because Tumalo Reservoir Road cannot handle 3,000 people who may arrive in 1,500 or more vehicles. I am worried that I won't be able to utilize Tumalo Reservoir Road for three days during this event. Also, most of the traffic will use the US 20 and Bailey Road intersection. That intersection is very difficult during normal times. Adding this amount of traffic is going to be very dangerous for people trying to either cross Highway 20 or for left-turns onto Bailey Road. The narrow winding grade on Bailey Road could also be a serious problem especially for people who have had too much to drink. I hope that parking will not be permitted on Bailey and Tumalo Reservoir Roads as this will make the traffic and fire situations worse. I am also concerned about fire danger. The residential properties across the street from the proposed event are not irrigated. The properties consist of sage brush and juniper, and are very susceptible to fire, and the first week in August is hot and dry. Having such a large event on this two-lane road may create problems for firemen to promptly access properties on Bailey and Tumalo Reservoir Roads and for residents and concert goers to evacuate if there is a need to do so. Finally, I must wonder why this location is proposed and considered, when there are numerous concert or event locations with better transportation systems and where the impact to the neighborhood would be much less. A three thousand person event is a large event and should only be held in a location that is planned and constructed for such an event. Exhibit Page of I_ Also, the County Ordinance requires that there be 1 crowd control person for each 100 expected to be in attendance. The application suggests that there will be a maximum of 19 security persons. In addition, the County ordinance requires one traffic control person for each 250 expected to attend. The application only states that there will be certified traffic flaggers present. All of these people will be needed to make sure that there is no parking on the County roads. Finally, I am not aware of any outreach to neighbors by the applicants to explain how they plan to conduct their event and manage the impacts. I must wonder whether they really care about the impact that the event has on the neighborhood. Thank you for considering my concerns. I would ask that you deny the application for the above reasons. Very truly yours Peter M. Schannauer 64458 Coyote Run Lane Bend, OR 97701 Friday, July 06, 2007 Community Development Department c/o Ms. Kristen Maze, Asst Planner 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97701-1925 Re: File # OMG-07-1 Dear Board Members, I am writing this letter in response to the Notice of Public Hearing letter received recently regarding the proposed permit for the 3-day blues festival at 19449 Tumalo Reservoir Rd. As a nearby resident who will be affected by the noise, congestion, and inevitable poor behavior by certain percentage of concertgoers - happens every time I've been to a concert - I find this application an unaccepble use of residential/farmland in the Tumalo area. Essentially we have a neighbor that is attempting to run a large scale business, albeit a temporary one, in a venue that is neither suitable nor appropriate. Furthermore, by offering overnight tent camping over 3 days, you are inviting a multiple of noise, pollution and behavior problems. Why can't this neighbor arrange a short term lease arrangement with one of the established concert sites that Bend possesses? I'm simply asking you for some common sense in evaluating this permit application. Would you want this type of activity in your neighborhood? C'mon, this landowner is proving to be insensitive to his neighbors and lacking in common courtesty. Turn it down. Sincerely, Mike Dague 64446 Coyote Run Lane Bend, OR 97701 541-388-0903 JUL - 9 2007 p, ~t-tTES U -Y CD 0e p July 6, 2007 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 117 N.W. Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97701-1925 Re: Notice of Public Hearing File Number; OMG-07-1 I am a neighbor to the location indicated in the request for an Outdoor Mass Gathering Permit, for Rockin "A" Ranch, at 19449 Tumalo Reservoir Road, Bend, OR 97701. I'm sorry that I will not be able to attend the hearing, so I am writing to express my views. I am opposed to the request for a three day Blues Music Festival. The location is not zoned for an activity such as this proposed three day festival. I feel the noise, parking, and other related problems from a crowd estimated at 1500 - 2950 people over a three day period, will have a negative impact on my property. I also object to a crowd of this size "camping out" in tents adjacent to my property. I feel a safety and security threat with an event as proposed in this request. I am NOT opposed to an "all-day" hoe-down, party, concert, etc., that extends into the "wee" hours of the night, but I think a three day event is inappropriate and unacceptable in this location. Regards, _vte~~ F Norman L. Pfaff 64420 Coyote Run Lane Bend, OR 97701 541-389-3196 JUI - 2007 1 JamBase 8/4/2007 1 4 Peaks Music Festival I Bend, OR I Shows Page 1 of 2 JamBase Tickets lamBase Rhapsody Festival Guide 7.1A ~GASE GO y ~UVEMUSIC Home Shows:: Articles MyJamBase Forums:: Contests BAND: VENUE: 4 Peaks Music CITY: Bend OR FROM: TO: SHOW NEARBY CITIES ❑ Clear Login or Join "Opp 8/412007 Saturday 4 Peaks Music Festival Bend, OR EVENT INFO VENUE INFO FORUM ARTISTS New Monsoon 41, (WWW) . ALO 4- (WWW) . Blue Turtle Seduction (www) . Poor Man's Whiskey (www) • Rainmaker!- (WWW) . Rainmaker (WWW) . Jackstraw. (WWW) . Moon Mountain Ramblers (WWW) EVENTINFO In its inaugural year, the 4 Peaks Music Festival will take place in the shadow of the Cascade Mountains just outside the wonderful city of Bend, Oregon. The festival takes its name from the breathtaking views afforded from venue. While there are many majestic peaks to behold in Central Oregon, the 4 most prominent are the Three Sisters(North, Middle and South), and mighty Mt. Bachelor. This day of music will be held in the picturesque farming community of Tumalo, located 6 miles outside of Bend. The property is privately owned and is being graciously opened to you for your festival going pleasures on Saturday, August 4th, 2007. Acts will include New Monsoon, ALO(Animal Liberation Orchestra), Poor Man's Whiskey, Jackstraw, Rainmaker and the Moon Mountain Ramblers. Additionally, shows will be presented in downtown Bend on August 2nd and 3rd. Several local venues will host additional acts to round out this truly unique festival experience. Check back often to see what shows have been added. Door Time: 10:00am Show Time: 11:30am-10pm 4`,it±r C Calendar SA4E VENUE INFO 4 Peaks Music Festival [Official _V.enu.e.Website] The Rockin' A Ranch 19449 Tumalo Reservoir Rd Bend, OR 97701 info@4peaksmus±c.com Phone: 541-382-8064 Capacity: 3000 Map to Venue: Goggle Yahoo! MY JAMBASE SHOW CALENDAR 40 people have added this event to their MyJamBase Personal Show Calendar. Save_ _event. to MyJamBase Calendar JamBase ( 8/4/2007 1 4 Peaks Music Festival I Bend, OR I Shows Ages: All Ages More Info: http://www.4peaksmusic.com 3amBase Event Alert Email! TICKET INFO Ticket Info: $35 Buy Tickets Enter to Win Tickets! Have/Need Extra Tickets? Visit the JamBase Ticket Board! EVENT FORUM No Messages Yet. Go ahead, Start a New Thread Page 2 of 2 TELL A FRIEND ABOUT THIS EVENT! SUBMIT A CORRECTION OR UPDATE:: COt js(C Search Web JamBase.Com GOSEE UVE MUSIC ABOUT US RSS BLOC MOBILE ADVERTISING & PROMOTIONS PRIVACY POLICY JOBS CONTACT US IE TOOLBAR:: © 2007 JAMBASE, INC.: FIREFOX SEARCH 1,M..•//:o.ti.l.oon nnm/ePOrnh aCT7P~7P11tT1 7=SZ'Ifl 6/25/2007 4 Peaks Music Festival ( jam band, indie rock, activism - KyndMusic/RightAction Page 1 of 3 0 home about km News Features Reviews Listen &_.Look Columns & Blogs Say H.iOur BudsParanoid? Login May 31st, 2007 4 Peaks Music Festival By Greg Lake http;Uwww.4peaksm us_ ic.comJ 4 Peaks Music Festival Bend, OR August 3-4, 2007 Line-up Friday August 3rd, Rockin A Ranch, Bend, OR Doors at Noon (tickets for this event are available only with the purchase of a two day festival pass.) Hot Buttered Rum Blue Turtle Seduction Poor Man's Whiskey Sneakin' Out Saturday August 4th, Rockin A Ranch Bend, OR New Monsoon ALO (Animal Liberation Orchestra) Blue Turtle Seduction Poor Man's Whiskey Rainmaker Jackstraw Moon Mtn Ramblers Kids under 10 are FREEH Venue Address 19449 Tumalo Reservoir Rd. Bend, OR 40th_Anniversarr_of the Summer of Love Dead on the Creek » You can follow any responses to this entry through the R5S 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackhack from your own site. Leave a Reply Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Website Tour Dates: Blue Turtle Seduction Pagel of 3 ME K' Date Location City Time .....VENUE..... THE FILLMORE AUDITORIUM.... Supporting "NEW 2007-01-27 SAT MONSOON" HISTORIC SHOW!!! 1805 Geary SAN FRANCISCO,CA Doors: 8:00 p.m. Blvd. @ Fillmore St. S.F.,Ca 94115 # 415-346- 6000 www.thefillmore.com VENUE VALHALLA BOAT HOUSE 2007-06-19 www.valhalia-tallac.com, "Click" onto EARLY SHOW!!! TUESDAY CONCERTS for all info. BTS Loves this Music SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA. Doors: 7:00 Hit Series, the Venue and having Lake Tahoe as your back drop > Ahhhhhh... VENUE TIOGA MART 2007-06-21 FREEEEEE Early Show, Outdoor Show!!! Hit Time: 6:00 p.m. THURSDAY Located at the Tioga Pass Entrance to LEE VINING, CA. Early Show Yosemite Valley on the Eastern Side of the Park. VENUE TRUCKEE AMPHITHEATER SOL-STICE 2007-06-23 FESTIVAL BENEFIT for FOSTER CARE via TRUCKEE CA Hit Time: 4:00 p.m. - SATURDAY TAO EDUCATION. A Non-Profit Outdoor , 10:00 p Educational Program. www.taoeducation.org. Truckee Regional Park 10500 BROCKWAY St. VENUE..... 19 BROADWAY Located at 2007-06-27 19 Broadway in Fairfax, next to Giant Fairfax WEDNESDAY Movie Theater. Support: TRES MOJO Local FAIRFAX, CA. Doors: 8:00 p.m. Artists!!! Tix Avail: www.ticketweb.com 20 Minutes from Golden Gate Bridge VENUE..... MOE'S ALLEY Support: 2007-06-29 FRIDAY HOLIDAY & the ADVENTURE POP SANTA CRUZ CA. Doors: 8:00 p.m. COLLECTIVE!!! 1535 Commercial Way #831- , 479-1854. www.moesalley.com VENUE THE INDEPENDENT BTS Supporting, the Brass King's of NEW 2007-06-30 ORLEAN's "THE DIRTY DOZEN BRASS " SAN FRANCISCO CA Doors: 8:00 p.m. SATURDAY www.independentsf.com . 628 BAND , . BTS 9:00 p.m. Divisadero @ Grove www.ticketweb.com #866- 468-3399 VENUE TBA Our Favorite Down 2007-07-01 SUNDAY Home Venue... It is "The Road To High Sierra TBA BTS Hit Time: 8:00 M.F." Best Damn Chowder, mmm, mmm.... p.m. EARLY Fritz's Grandmom's recipe... 2007-07-02 VENUE SHANACHiE PUB Mendo Doors: 7:00 m. MONDAY Monday Nite Sweat Fest Early Show!!! 50 S. WILLITS, CA. EARLY SHOW!! Main St. zip: 95490. #707-459-9194 VENUE MAZZOTTI'S PRE 4TH OF 2007-07-03 JULY SOIREE!!! Passion Presents " B.T.S. " ARCATA CA. Doors: 8:00 p.m. TUESDAY on Arcata Square at 773 8th St. #707-822- , 1900 Summer ThrowDown VENUE ARCATA SQUARE Annual 2007-07-04 4th of July Celebration 2nd Year in a row ARCATA CA. 11:00 a.m. til Dark WEDNESDAY Headlining this Free Outdoor ThrowDown , 9-ish p.m. www.passionpresents.com for more info VENUE HIGH SIERRA MUSIC HALL. 2007-07-05 SUPPORTING: YONDER MTN STRING QUINCY CA. Thurs: 11:45 p.m./ THURSDAY BAND. 18TH ANNUAL , Sat: 12:45 www.highsierramusic.com 2007-07-06 FRIDAY VENUE HIGH SIERRA MUSIC QUINCY, CA. ar Dates: Blue Turtle Seduction Page 2 of 3 FESTIVAL 2007-07-07 VENUE HIGH SIERRA MUSIC QUINCY, CA. SATURDAY FESTIVAL VENUE VALHALLA BOAT HOUSE 2007-07-17 www.valhalia-tallac.com, "Click" onto EARLY SHOW!!! TUESDAY CONCERTS for all info. BTS Loves this Music SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA. Doors: 7:00 Hit Series, the Venue and having Lake Tahoe as your back drop > VENUE..... RIVER RANCH LODGE 2007-07-19 www.renegadeshows.com . #530- 583-4264. CA. Doors: 8:00 p.m Hit ALPINE MEADOWS THURSDAY HWY 89 at ALPINE MEADOWS ROAD. An , Time: 9:00 Evening with BTS VENUE 4 PEAKS MUSIC FESTIVAL www.4peaksmusic.com PRESENTS: HOT BUTTERED RUM, BTS & 2007-08-03 FRIDAY POORMAN'S WHISKEY at The Midtown OREGON Doors: 8:00 p.m. BEND Ballroom's. DOMINO ROOM 51 NW , Greenwood Ave. 2 DAY FESTIVAL PASSES are your Ticket for Fri & Sat www. fro ntg atetickets VENUE 4 PEAKS MUSIC FESTIVAL Lineur): NEW MONSOON, ALO, BTS, POOR MAN'S WHISKEY, RAINMAKER, JACK 2007-08-04 MOON MTN RAMBLERS STRAW BEND, OREGON All Day!!! SATURDAY , www.4peaksmusic.com ROCKIN A RANCH 19449 Tumalo Reservoir Rd. Tix Available www.frontgatetickets.com Under 10 yr KETHCUM ALIVE MUSIC SERIES Local 2007-08-07 • • Act 7:00 p.m. BTS 7:30 p.m. FREE FREE KETCHUM, IDAHO Event: 7:00 p.m. TUESDAY FREE VENUE STAGE STOP NED FEST 2007-08-25 LATE NITE w/ "PAPA'S IN THE SHED". This Doors: 8:00 p.m. til' SATURDAY is gonna be a Rockin' Pogo Stick Jumpin' ROLLINSVILLE, COLORADO Late Dosey-Do www.myspace.com/stagestop. #303-258-3270 VENUE 9th ANNUAL NED FEST www.nedfest.com. w/SAM BUSH, ALO, PBS 2007-08-26 SUNDAY w/STEVE KIMOCK, VINCE HERMAN'S GREAT COLORADO 3 DAYS & NEDERLAND AMERICAN TAXI, MOTET, EUFORCHESTRA, , NIGHTS!!! TOP'Y FURTADO & much more 3 Days on the Banks of the Barker Reservoir... VENUE..... MULBERRY MTN HARVEST ALL DAY AND 2007-09-21 FRIDAY MUSIC FESTIVAL SOUTHEAST gonna OZARK, ARKANSAS NIGHT!!! Love 'em Turtles!!! 2007-09-22 VENUE MULBERRY MTN HARVEST OZARK, ARKANSAS BTS LATE NITE SATURDAY MUSIC FESTIVAL VENUE EVERGREEN LODGE 2nd Annual LAS TORTUGAS DANCE OF THE DEAD!!! Tickets, Cabins & On Site Camping go 2007-10-25 THUR ON SALE MONDAY 21 st of MAY, 2007 YOSEMITE, CA. ALL NITE LONG!!! Tickets go to www.evergreenhalloween.inticketing.com . Cabins and On Site Camping are VERY L VENUE EVERGREEN LODGE " 2007-10-26 FRI LAS TORTUGA'S DANCE of the DEAD " Flores YOSEMITE, CA. ALL NITE LONG!!! Paralas Muertos.... VENUE EVERGREEN LODGE " LAS TORTUGA'S DANCE of the DEAD " 2007-10-27 SAT MASQUERADA BALL " Costume Contest, YOSEMITE, CA, ALL NITE LONG Register Vote Submitt into the Voting Boxes around the grounds.... Activities for All Ages throughout the Day & Night.... 2007-10-28 SUN VENUE EVERGREEN LODGE..... SUNDAY JUBILEE Music in the Mornin' All YOSEMITE, CA. Hit Time: 10:00 a.m. Day and Night fl! Fianle of this Incredibly Poor Man's Whiskey - About The Band Poor Man's Whiskey is: Jason Beard- Mandolin, guitar, dobro Josh Brough,-Banjo, keyboards, harmonica, vocals Eli Jebidiah Dobro, guitar, duct tape, kazumpet, vocals Gary Neargarder -,Guitar, penny whistle, spoons, vocals Chris Rovetti,- Fiddle, vocals George Smeltz- Drums Joshua Zucker - Bass, vocals Poor Man's Whiskey plays Californicana, a blend of acoustic music shaken with rock-n-roll attitude. Through fermentation and distillation, they've crafted an original and modern American music that inspires you to shake off the days burdens, dance, shout and laugh. Though the exact location of their hideout is unknown, local legends place it somewhere in the backwoods of the wine country, between Pinot vines and a moonshine still, well protected by small arms. Together, they have produced three full length albums: Roadside Attraction, Train to California, and the out of print Hunnerd Proof. They have thrilled west coast crowds for five years running. PMW is known for creating a hoe-down wherever they go. Their music has been featured on KRSH and KGO radio, KTVU and ABC7 television. They have rocked classic venues including the SF Bay Area's Great American Music Hall„ The Bill Graham Civic Auditorium, Slims, The Mystic Theater, and Sweetwater Saloon as well as marquee festivals such as the Strawberry Music Festival The Telluride Music Festival, and Hardly Strictly Bluegrass. Over the past few years Poor Man's Whiskey not only has been a headlining act but have also been a supporting act to such bands as The Eagles, Phil Lesh and Friends, John Mayer, Hot Buttered Rum, New Monsoon, the Duhks, The Waybacks, Page 1 of 3 Calendar About Music Photos News Buy CDs Chronicles Contact Featured Gig: Kicking off the 4 Peaks Music Festival Fri, Aug 3, 07 PMW kicks off the 4 Peaks Music Festival with Blue Turtle Seduction! Gig Updates Sign Up email address Join Old School Freight Train, and the Red Elvises. Poor Man's Whiskey at Smiley's Saloon Poor Man's Whiskey - About The Band How the band came to be: What started as the side project of an electric-funk band took on a life of it's own and quickly overshadowed the funk. At first, playing bluegrass was a way to learn something new and practice music late without angering the neighbors. Then, people started paying attention and asking for it. The band grew organically, from the core of Jason Beard (Mandolin), Josh Brough (Banjo) and Gary Neargarder (Guitar) to include Chris Rovetti (Fiddle) filling out the traditional sound. Special guest Eli Jebidiah joined the band as a fixture on the Dobro in 2005 and George Smeltz on drums in 2006. Joshua Zucker came aboard in 2007 on the double bass. The name of the band comes from a fable that Josh ran into regarding the late blues legend Mississippi John Hurt. During the 60's, when a folk revival made him a prominent act to a newly- appreciative and younger audience, he was offered some marijuana, to which he replied: "That ain't nothin but poor man's whiskey." A part of the community: Poor Man's Whiskey is proud to be an active part of the SF Bay Area community. The band has contributed performances for a number of community and charity organizations, including the Live Oak Preschool, SF School District, Kids with Cancer, Ross Recreation District, Santa Rosa Parks and Recreation and Tamalpais High School. Recent Past Shows and Festival Highlights: Strawberry Music Festival, The Telluride Music Festival (Band Finals), Hardly Strictly Bluegrass 2004-2006, The High Sierra Beard and Mustache Festival at Squaw Valley, The Sugar Bowl Music Festival, The Black Bart Festival, The Sebastopol Gravenstein Apple Fair, Pre-show for the Eagles at the Calavaras County Fairgrounds, Pre-show for Phil Lesh and Friends and John Mayer on New Year's Eve, The Great American Music Hall with Hot Buttered Rum, The Mystic Theater with New Monsoon, the Last Day Saloon with The Waybacks, The Independent with the Duhks, headlined the Great American Music Hall and The Mystic Theater in 2006. Quotes: Poor Man's Whiskey is one of the hottest bluegrass bands to emerge from Sonoma County in years." - Larry Carlin, Bluegrass Gold "You guys sounded great on The my own jug!!!" - Jeff Blazy, 101.7 The Fox DJ Blazy Show. Next time ...I'll bring "Poor Man's Whiskey has something that just brings out the best in people ...joy and happiness... and that is the best there is!" - Vicky Kumpfer, Santa Rosa Parks and Rec Page 2 of 3 6/25/2007 Poor Man's Whiskey - About The Band "We've done several shows with PMW and every time they've had the audience howling for more. They are great singers, instrumentalists, and songwriters, but above all they are entertainers. Their group chemistry invites the audience to be participants rather than onlookers. These are the kind of guys who, in the 1920s, would have been a traveling variety show, complete with freaks, stunts, and banjo comedy. Fortunately, they are here for us to enjoy now". -flat Keefe, Hot Buttered Rum View our Press Kit here. Page 3 of 3 Calendar I About I Music I Photos I News I Buy CDs I Contact I Chronicles Follow the band near and far - get the RSS feed for the Whiskey Chronicles. Got MySpace? Add Poor Man's Whiskey as a friend! For Booking Call Jason Beard (707) 217-7785 AMSMfA7 Myspace.com MvSpace.com I Help i SignUp Search Page 1 of 1 Home I Browse I Search I Invite I Film I Mail I Blog I Favorites I Forum I Groups I Events I Videos I Music I Comedy I Classifieds 1 ` II Music Videos I Directory I Search I Top Artists I Shows I Music Forums I Music Classifieds I Artist Signup MUSIC - Show Details Blue Turtle Seduction August, 4 2007 at 4 PEAKS MUSIC FESTIVAL 19449 Tumalo Reservoir Rd., Bend, Oregon Cost : SATURDAY 4 PEAKS MUSIC FESTIVAL Lineup: NEW MONSOON, ALO, BTS, POOR MAN'S WHISKEY, RAINMAKER, JACK STRAW, MOON MTN RAMBLERS www.4peaksmusic.com ROCKIN A RANCH 19449 Tumalo Reservoir Rd. Tix Available www.frontgatetickets.com Under 10 yr BEND, OR Back to Band Profile About I FAQ I Terms I Privacy I Safety Tips I Contact MySpace. I Promote! I Advertise I MySpace International ©2003-2007 MySpace.com. All Rights Reserved. http://Collectmyspace.comlindex.cfm?fuseaction=tnusic.showDetails&Band Show ID=l5526904... 6/25/2007 MySpace I People I Web I Music I Music Videos I Blogs I Videos I Events ► Mark Ransom UWendar - rowerea oy bomcuias X "S.. L Vl Jun 25, 2007 7:00 PM Kip's Grill Creede, CO Jun 26, 2007 9:00 PM The Summit Durango, CO Jun 27, 2007 8:30 PM Princess Wine Bar Crested Butte, CO El Jun 30, 2007 8:00 PM The Bouquet Boise, ID El Jul 4, 2007 6:00 PM Black Butte Ranch Black Butte, OR El Jul 11, 2007 8:00 PM The Grove Bend, OR 1 Jul 13, 2007 6:00 PM Elk Lake Lodge Bend, OR El Jul 20, 2007 6:00 PM Parrilla Grill on the Deck Bend, OR El Aug 3, 2007 Ali Day Four Peaks Festival Grounds Tumalo Oregon, OR Fil Four Peaks Music Festival! The Mostest shares the bill with local favorites Deb Yeager, Moon Mt. Ramblers, David Bowers (rumored), and a groovy list of heavy- hitters: Hot Buttered Rum, ALO, New Monsoon and Blue Turtle Seduction... more info at 4peaksmusic.com Aug 4, 2007 8:30 PM Silver Moon Brewing Bend, OR Aug 10, 2007 7:00 PM Angelina Summer Music Series Sisters, OR Aug 11, 2007 All Day Easy Wind Ranch Sisters, OR Aug 18, 2007 6:00 PM Outdoor Venue TBA Redmond, OR Aug 24, 2007 6:00 PM Parrilla Grill on the Deck Bend, OR El Sep 4, 2007 All Day Song Carnpl ...Caldera Sisters, OR Q Previous Page ( Next Page Powered by Sonicbids hUp://www.sol)icbi(is.com/epk/calendw view.asp?epk id=60505&record offset=94 6/25/2007 t,necx out 1+ pealks now:::: - rsear r amny - mne.nei rage i of z 'A tribe Search sign in join threaded I unthreaded. newest. first Check out 4 peaks now! ! ! !topic posted Fri, May 11, 2007 - 5:43 AM by reScue Just got an email from the vending coordinator to check out the 4 peaks website. Butter Friday and latenight Saturday. Turtles playing both days also. Monsoon Headlining Sat night after ALO!! Too good to be true. Camping added, and now two of your favorite vendors will be there for both days!!! YAY. Please support this festival guys. WE NEED good music venues in Oregon!!!! posted by: recue Oregon 120 friends join to post Event Planning in- France Perfect Wedding Guide Local Wedding G.u.ide w_ ww.ResortSavings,info Wedding and party planning for 12 Honeymoon Giveaways 12 An Elegant, Free and Easy to Use Give them the ultimate wedding English-speakers in France Designer Gown Giveaways... Wedding Guide for your Local Area gift a lifetime of vacation www.feteinfrance.com www.perfLctweddinggulde.com www.mywedding.com membership www.resortsavings.info Ads by C-0O8 Great.Wedding Ideas Wedding1 usician-s,&Bands Wedding Music Wedding-Photography Everything to make that once In a Wedding Band Browse and Listen Join discussions & find answers at Professional photography & video lifetime moment very specialI Online for Free Willage - The Internet For Women Let us preserve the magic momel www.allweddingworid.com GlgLeader.com www.lvlllage.com www.DVPproductions.com Ads by Gong rescue Re: Check out 4 peaks now!!!! Fri, May 11, 2007 - 5:44 AM Sorry 120 www.4peaksi-nusic.com http://tribes.tribe.neVbearfamily/thread/61cfb936-dbed-453d-9feb-766Oa3574aOf 6/25/2007 u Fl.(•.nn t r Ad% M rirwwwww" %-JIV rl 'JUL `t PV"'J 11VW:::: - 131UUL Vauuiy - Ulvv.uGl. join to post 1 "bb l- - - SO... Re: Check out 4 peaks now!!!! Fri, May 11, 2007 - 11:08 AM No can do. Adam's and Julie's Wedding is that weekend. And, I'm bummed that New Monsoon opted out of playing Aug 3rd in Seattle; it's no longer on their tour 44 schedule. join to post marin Re: Check out 4 peaks now! ! ! ! Fri, May 11, 2007 - 1:32 PM Sweet on the 4 peaks. Beautiful location. Fun fun. I think I need to change my work schedule to Fridays off. 46 Who are these guys putting on this fest? Are they Domino Room folks? Is the event pretty solid or working out the kinks? We'll miss you, Billy and Shannon, and you must give Adam and Julie big hugs from all of us. join to post recent topics in "bear family" Topic Author Replies Last (Post Bear Family.Banner mateo 0 Today, 12:14 PM hsmf & greek marilyn 4 Today, 11:10 AM Repost from NMSAR__-Horn ing's Planning SkiBear (aka... 0 June 18, 2007 Grandpa needs some love Leslie 4 June 14, 2007 ^ top_ of_page I view__aII-topics back to._Bear Family_ links related to "check out 4 peaks now!.'!! - bear family" bear attached _to_rail Fillmore l!!!! What an amazing among humans topic in Hot. Buttered Rum, night! topic in Bear Family Crew topic in Monsoon-Heads view all links related to "Check out 4 peaks now! HI - Bear Family" http://tribes.tribe.net/bearfamilylthread/61 cfb936-dbed-453d-9feb-766Oa3574aOf 6/25/2007