Loading...
2009-1532-Minutes for Meeting October 28,2009 Recorded 11/25/2009/DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS Q 700901537 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK vu r+ COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL »25/2009 08;25;34 AM [11111!1111111111111111111111 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., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2009 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Tom Blust, Road Department; Tom Anderson, Teri Payne, Kristen Maze, Peter Russell and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Planning Commissioners Brenda Pace, Christen Brown and Keith Cyrus; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin and approximately a dozen other citizens. The meeting was brought to order at 1:55 p.m., following an executive session. 1. Update on Foster Road - Acceptance for County Maintenance. Tom Blust gave an overview of the history of the moratorium on the County taking over the maintenance of roads. The local improvement district was put in place after the moratorium was established, and members of the Special Road District were aware of this. They have come to the Board to seek maintenance after learning that the forest funding was increased and the State put into place an additional gasoline tax. However, the forest funding is being reduced and the County will not get much from the gas tax increase. He said that about 70% of the traffic through the development is from the development. Part of Foster Road is not improved and generally impassible much of the year. The gravel portion is maintained by the Deschutes Recreation Homesites Unit #6 Special Road District. Most of the access roads are County-maintained. Mr. Blust said that the Beaver Special Road District maintained the road prior to and after its improvement. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 1 of 11 Pages Robert Dryden, past president of the District, said they went into negotiations with Oregon Water Wonderland #2, regarding a project that benefited all of Oregon Water Wonderland, which made all of their lots buildable. His group could have demanded funding for part of the road paving. It comes back to before that land was provided to Oregon Water Wonderland, the County took over the right of way from the Forest Service. There are four properties on that road with access. Foster Road does not have many driveways on it, so should be brought up as a collector or arterial. It took a long time to get to the process to that point, at which time other local improvement districts were in the works and were allowed to go into the system. There has been an extension of the forest funding, and some of the local improvement districts did not happen after all, so the County did not have to take them all in. Mr. Blust said that most of Foster Road goes through BLM land. The USFS and BLM do not have public road authority. Typically, rather than doing easements for access, they prefer to grant it to a public entity. The County accepted those rights of way. Commissioner Unger asked if collectors and arterials are accepted. Mr. Blust said the first resolution did not allow any to come in to the County. The most recent version left this at the discretion of the Board. Foster Road is classified as a collector on the transportation system plan. The thought was that as funds allow, it would be improved. Commissioner Unger said a collector is classified as a road that does just that. Mr. Blust said it is serving a large area, but based on traffic counts at this point, it serves primarily local needs and not at the collector level. Mr. Dryden asked when the count was done. He said someone was there to do it when most of the part-time residents were gone for the season. He counted it five years ago and the count was higher. Commissioner Luke said the road was paved in 2008 and the road district agreed to keep maintaining it. He asked what has changed since. Charlie Jones, current president of the District, said they are looking for a change that would validate the use. They have a relatively limited budget, but would like to further improve the condition of the roads there. Drainage and upkeep is a constant problem. The other change is that they built it to County standards. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 2 of I I Pages Bruce Standolf added that one big expense is snowplowing, which takes at least a third of the budget, often more. Mr. Dryden asked about the first resolution. The latest one talks about adequate funding; about 18 miles were to come in and it ended up being less than two miles, so that should make it possible to take in Foster Road. Commissioner Unger said they have to put funds into capital improvements but not necessarily maintenance, as there is some funding available for a few years; however, the problem is not going to go away. Chair Baney stated that this is a unique situation, which is why they are here at this time. Mr. Blust said this is the only LID that had been started but was not completed when the moratorium was put into place. Commissioner Unger said there are reasons why this should be accepted, as a collector or arterial. These roads need to be maintained for fire, law enforcement and other reasons, as well as for school buses and local traffic. Mr. Jones stated that the schools would not send buses until it was improved. Chair Baney asked if the Road Department feels this is beneficial, and if there are concessions that can be made. Mr. Blust said that a new paved road has low maintenance costs for about five years. The main cost the first few years is plowing snow. Mr. Dryden stated that not much maintenance would be required for eight to ten years, and there should be funding by that time. Mr. Blust explained that whoever does the maintenance, it would be low cost for at least five years with the road paved. If funding issues have been resolved, the County could take this over, but that is not known at this time. Commissioner Luke asked if the road stopped at the subdivision, should maintenance be provided. There is about 30% of traffic that comes from other places. Commissioner Unger stated that he would like to work with the road districts to figure out how to handle these situations in the future. Perhaps traffic counts can be done to help develop a policy as to how much assistance should be given. Chair Baney said that the existing roads are not being handled now, and it will not get better. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 3 of 11 Pages Commissioner Luke stated that ODOT was not going to do any new projects for two years until the gas tax increase came about. The County is already talking about which roads to let go back to gravel. There are options. There can be shared maintenance and plowing to save money. Some work can be contracted out. Other options should be explored. Chair Baney asked if the District could go to its membership and talk about how this responsibility can be shared. Commissioner Luke observed that there are other road districts that complain about pass-through traffic. Chair Baney asked about similar situations. Mr. Blust said that Lazy River Drive was similar, but this one is called out as a collector. Chair Baney asked if there are other collectors that are not being maintained. Mr. Blust said that there are a few in the area that might fit this description. Mr. Dryden said they would discuss it further and are okay with this situation as long as they can keep talking with the County and come to some kind of beneficial resolution. At this time, recording equipment was put into place to audio record this next part of the meeting. 2. Comprehensive Plan Update. Teri Payne showed the board displayed at the home show regarding destination resorts. Ms. Lelack said they also talked about generating power through the use of wind, which got a lot of public interest. Approximately 70 to 100 attendees at the home show took the time to give a "vote" on these issues. Other outreach was a community meeting in Terrebonne. Kristen Maze said 65 people turned out, mostly from inside the community. Four stations were put in place, for land use, boundaries, transportation and other ideas. Several options and questionnaires were presented and the public indicated their preferences. Overwhelmingly the people wanted little or no change there. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 4 of 11 Pages Another community meeting was held in Tumalo, with about 20 attendees. They were interested in establishing a sewer district, to enhance property values and to allow more and better commercial areas. Most people were those who live outside of the town area but identify with the town. Mr. Lelack said the sewer district would be within the rural community boundary. Ms. Maze said that the people seemed to appreciate the event. One more is scheduled for Deschutes Junction on October 29. Mr. Gutowsky said there was a mix of expertise at these meetings and he felt his department was able to provide a lot of answers. Ms. Maze stated that they will put together a draft community plan for each of the areas, and that process should bring up any issues that are not yet apparent. Both Terrebonne and Tumalo have fairly active community groups. Ms. Payne said another meeting was held in Brothers, with 23 people attending from the area. They started with what was heard last week, what was incorporated and what was not. The major issues are agricultural lands; the large acreages that they are required to have are too unmanageable, with interspersed public lands and public trespass, and conflicts with wildlife agencies. A new inventory was given regarding wildlife plans from the public agencies, along with new recommendations. There was a lot of talk about keeping a balance. This would not change the big game habitat, but will affect the bird sites per ESEE. There is a section that would look at the Goal 5 inventory. Peter Gutowsky added that a committee would be convened to work on these specific issues. Commissioner Luke said that State laws about private land impose restrictions that people will not accept. He asked how this can be addressed. Ms. Payne said that they do not take this lightly and there is discretion. Under Measure 49, government entities could be subject to the just compensation provision. Mr. Lelack said these decisions do have an impact. The review period is to hear all of the concerns. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 5 of 11 Pages Climate change and piping canals were also discussed. Ms. Maze asked whether to include action or just leave it at goals. They have heard from the Farm Bureau, Land Watch and others. Most liked the concept, but felt it was too big and cumbersome. The Farm Bureau had some information regarding farm uses. They would like to see the wildlife section removed completely, since there is plenty of public land available. Land Watch felt the action items were not complete. They are looking for funding sources. At this point, they are taking in all this information and tracking it. The Planning Commission expressed concern over the interagency report. They have considered implementing this before, and asked that it now be included. They wan to try to find a balance. They offered to create a matrix showing goals, policies and actions. They have heard that it is too lengthy, and just should include basic goals. They are incorporating what DLCD requires as well. Commissioner Luke said that it should be general, giving guidance and guidelines. The Planning Commission expressed that they do not think revisions will be easy enough and want more outside of the plan. Ms. Craghead said that there should not be a loss of actions in the comprehensive plan or ESEEs that might be required. Peter Gutowsky stated that the detail plan is complicated, but was reduced down to 90 pages. The scorecard will allow a manageable document that will allow modifications or changes. The source documents are also included, as most did not come to them in any other way. This will help prove certain things. Mr. Lelack said that there are a lot of action items, and there is a tendency to make it too long. Commissioner Unger asked where does it land when the population information is considered. Ms. Maze said that Oregon land use is supposed to discourage growth outside of the cities. Commissioner Unger noted that balance is a key issue. There will be growth. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 6 of 11 Pages Ms. Payne replied that they may not be allowed to have any more than that. Commissioner Luke said that if the past rate of growth had continued, there would not be much left in the rural areas in the future. Commissioner Unger stated that they should listen to those living in the country, as perhaps things can change so that family farms can be supported. Peter Gutowsky noted that the plan is aspirational in that way. They want people to think big, and consider the next twenty years. There is a piece on the `big look'. They have to work with the legislature on the `big look' to achieve balance. Ms. Payne said that if funding becomes available, agricultural lands could be examined. The Board indicated that they would like to see the public provide input and then the issues narrowed. Planning Commission: Keith Cyrus, Chair of the Planning Commission, said they are not yet there as a quorum, but have their opinions. He personally takes this undertaking very seriously, as they have lived a long time with the original. It will be hard to stick with the current timeline, if there is thorough review. There might even need to be Saturday sessions. They are having trouble getting direction. They will deal with the less controversial issues first. Fish & Wildlife's interagency report mandates some things be included that are contradictory to other sections. With 80% of land public, those agencies should take care of their own back yards before pressuring private property owners. He said he has a feeling that the report should not dictate what private landowners can or cannot do. Perhaps they can compensate or buy properties for their purposes. No one wants to rubber stamp the plan unless it is fully understood. He presented a copy of a letter from Richard Kylce. Susan Quatre would like to hear all of the public comment first, and then handle the document line by line. She wants to see things go easier and mean something to people. A lot of new residents need to know the history and background. She knows there have to be action items to give direction. There also have to be links between where you come from and where you want to go, how to get there and how often this should be reevaluated. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 7 of 11 Pages Chair Baney asked about handling the documents as action items. Ms. Quatre said she would like to see columns with the action items that can be analyzed carefully. Public input should come first, and then they can grind through the document. Mr. Cyrus said the last meeting was a hearing, and there was public there, which did not allow enough time for much analysis. Christen Brown said he is looking for a complete replacement of what is on the books now. All they want is some guiding action. If there are too many pieces, it becomes a free for all, as they can find many contradictions. For instance, regarding farm stands - some state agencies want it in, others say no. There needs to be generic language, and supporting or action items are a problem. Reviewing and prioritizing is a huge problem. This should not be a part of the document. They cannot have the comp plan be everything to everybody and make them all feel good. It needs to be more general. They are looking to Commissioners to know how this should be pursued. Commissioner Luke said that having public hearings on the actions items could produce a mix. The question of how to do things will split people up. It can get too complicated. Ms. Maze stated that the document is too large and cumbersome. There need to be supporting documents on the side and not part of the document. Chair Baney noted that action items can be used against it also. They are depending on the Planners' expertise. Then there is zoning to consider. Commissioner Luke said that the Board was presented with a timeline, but he has no problem if it takes longer. 3. Discussion of Tumalo Irrigation District's Appeal of the Historic Landmarks Decision regarding Fencing and Landscaping at Shevlin Park Dam. Kristen Maze said there is considerable history with this appeal, being considered since 2005. She gave an overview of the item. An exception was given regarding fencing, which brought it back to the Historic Landmarks Commission. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 8 of 11 Pages An appeal was made in 2007, but the applicant asked that it be put on hold so the landscape plan could be reevaluated. In December 2008, the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) held another hearing. The plan was then denied again. Tumalo Irrigation District wants to reactivate the plan. There are a lot of issues. The fence was put in after the work was done for safety reasons, and was required. The HLC said it was put up before permission was granted. Laurie Craghead said that it was supposed to be reviewed by the HLC before installation. Commissioner Unger asked if the owner can choose to be off the landmarks list. Ms. Craghead said that the area where the fence is has no jurisdiction by the HLC to deny the plan. The appeal for the Board is whether they have jurisdiction to deny the plan. Only the headgate is a historic site. The new headgate was approved and a plaque put up acknowledging that an old one was there in the past. It is unreasonable to deny this because there is nothing historical to consider now. Commissioner Luke asked who legal counsel is for HLC. Ms. Craghead said they can speak as a Commission but cannot file an appeal. Only an adjacent property owner could file an appeal. The HLC could express an opinion but have no right to appeal. It is unknown whether there is an opponent at this time; that could come up at the time of the hearing. The Parks District owns the land that the fence is on; Tumalo Irrigation District has an easement through it. In Goal 5, it clearly calls out the headgate but not the surrounding area. Commissioner Luke stated that it appears that negotiations will not go anywhere. Ms. Craghead said in 2005 they did not have legal counsel and went in with a fencing plan that was denied. They appealed that. In the meantime, they submitted a plan for what they are going to do with the fish ladder and something different with the headgate. That portion was approved but not the fencing or landscape plan. Only the landscaping plan, with the fence, is coming before the Board. This was the original appeal. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 9 of I 1 Pages Commissioner Luke asked why it went to the HLC in the first place. Ms. Craghead said the fence was an addition for safety reasons. HLC went beyond its authority, however. The staff person at the time was on the HLC and thought they had authority to do so. The request would be to approve the landscaping and fencing plan since there was no authority of the HLC to deny it, and if there was, it was unreasonable to do so. There are property owners who oppose the fencing but may not have standing. They may be basing their opposition solely on the HLC's opinion. Commissioner Unger said that the HLC needs to be clear on their scope and where they are going. They can be difficult to work with. They should be supported, but their mission needs to be clear. Ms. Craghead said she will work with the City's attorney to see if a meeting can be coordinated to perhaps provide some training to the HLC members. 4. Other Items. Mr. Kanner said that a request has been made to approve an application for a competitive grant for intensive drug treatment. Ken Hales found it would take a lot of up front funding to apply and they may not even get it. However, Judge Brady really wants to pursue it. Ernie Mazorol, the Court Administrator, and Judge Sullivan asked Mr. hales to get the Board to agree not to apply for the grant. The grant would provide about half of the daily cost of treatment. LUKE: Move that if the Courts want to pursue the grant, that the Courts agree to provide funds required to cover any shortages that might arise as a result of obtaining the grant. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 10 of 11 Pages DATED this 28th Day of October 2009 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: fox,4~e- 6Lk&t--- Recording Secretary Tammy Baney, Chair Dennis R. Luke, Vice Chair a&-- L~ Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 11 of 11 Pages 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 WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2009 1. Update on Foster Road - Acceptance for County Maintenance - Tom Blust 2. Comprehensive Plan Update - Nick Lelack & Long-range Planning Staff 3. Discussion of Tumalo Irrigation District's Appeal of the Historic Landmarks Decision regarding Fencing and Landscaping at Shevlin Park Dam - Kristen Maze 4. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted 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. 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. s ON o o Q v 00 O E 3 N e d ~ ell, o n ti N `10 V~ U~ z ~c C M C V qt 0 O 'wl G •C C 1 f 1 ol mQj Z, --j 0 A AA"A ~ DATE: October 19, 2009 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Tom Blust, Director RE: Foster Road - Acceptance for County Maintenance Road Department 61150 SE 27th St. • Bend, Oregon 97702 (541) 388-6581 • FAX (541) 388-2719 Earlier this month the Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution 2009-118 extending the moratorium on the acceptance of new roads into the county maintenance system. At that Board meeting two residents from the Beaver Road Special Road District (Bob Dryden and Charlie Jones) requested that the Board accept Foster Road for county maintenance. The Road District contends that since the county received an extension in federal forest payments and an increase in state gas tax and vehicle fees, Foster Road, which is classified as a rural collector, should be maintained by the county. The Board requested further discussion on the issue at a future work session. Background Foster Road is a public road right of way running generally north-south between South Century Drive and La Pine State Recreation Road. Foster Road is classified as a rural collector roadway in the County's Transportation System Plan (adopted in 1998). The road right of way crosses private, Forest Service and BLM lands (see attached map). Foster Road is approximately 4.4 miles in length - the northerly 2.1 miles are paved, the center section is dirt and the south end is gravel. The dirt portion of the road is often impassable during the winter months. The northerly section of Foster Road, from South Century Drive to Beaver Drive, was paved through a Local Improvement District (LID) in 2008. This LID was formed after the 2006 road establishment moratorium was in place. The Board made an exception to form the LID with the stipulation that the Beaver Special Road District would continue to maintain the road. The road maintenance stipulation was clearly spelled out in the LID Engineer's Report and was discussed at the public hearing for formation of the LID (documented in the meeting minutes). Traffic counts done earlier this year show an average daily traffic of 225 vehicles. 70% of this traffic was generated from the Beaver Special Road District and 30% was through traffic from the south. The through traffic is likely to drop dramatically during the winter months when the dirt portion of Foster is difficult or impossible to negotiate. October 13, 2009 Foster Road Page 2 of 2 Discussion Resolution 2009-118 was adopted by the Board in response to the county's projected shortfall of resources to meet the long-term maintenance and preservation needs of the existing road system. The Resolution, while continuing the moratorium on acceptance of new roads, allows for the acceptance of arterial and collector roadways at the Board's discretion. It was felt that it would be in the best interest of the public to accept and maintain those roads that are of county- wide or regional significance (e.g. 19th Street extension, Deschutes Market realignment/overcrossing). Argument in favor of acceptance: Foster road was constructed to county standards and paid for by the Beaver Special Road District residents. By accepting Foster Road for maintenance, the county would ensure that the investment in public infrastructure is adequately maintained. It is possible that there could be some cost sharing of the maintenance responsibility. The Beaver Special Road District has suggested that they continue to perform some of the maintenance tasks at the District's expense (snow plowing in particular). Maintenance costs will be relatively low in the short-term (first five or six years). Argument against acceptance: The county clearly does not have adequate resources for the long-term maintenance of additional road mileage. The county made it clear to the Beaver Special Road District property owners that Foster Road would be the Road District's maintenance responsibility upon completion of the LID. Foster Road currently functions as a local road serving the Beaver Special Road District. If the county were to take over maintenance of Foster Road the average annual cost of maintenance would be $31,500 ($15,000 per mile). Recommendation The Road Department recommends against taking over maintenance of Foster Road at this time. At some point in the future, when the entire length of Foster is improved (from South Century to La Pine State Recreation Road), the road will provide a significant "system" benefit (versus a "local" benefit). It would then make sense for the County to accept road maintenance responsibility. 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 Feet Legend Printed: October 13, 2009 Foster Road County Roads Beaver special Road Distract Theirkwnaft on the mepwas derived itwrdy7iiebtempeaan Deschutes County Road Department PAVED -Road Centerlines Public Land DeecleneaCesneysO.l.ti. CsewseeteesisMwaEOnefthis gem ROCK River State of Oregon map. WlIllisprmided"ni`. DwchatmCoungianndecupterry reepatNIsMI lm erne, m Isideo, orpeoJeled aeaeaey M the agitel date atisewkedyinyreeardc TMnar~novrerraMiK aa eseor W. - • John Anderson. O5 Specialist LLL IL - I nr.5s';;12- el ■ DIRT Taxlots BLM , p B Eman:)ohnxfco.iescnxe:o•.us WOW: MehiftfkAwomrKyofnwdwamilllyetMtenIN a ~~f ems: c ~ rsi: US Forest Service PericArpurpose, aaonprrying ft product. How ow, nctiAaliat 3_j OR W702 7 gro? of wW erene raw be atpeeMed. PWrcGIS_Projects\Ama Maffoster Rd 1 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/ MEMORANDUM DATE: October 20, 2009 MEETING DATE: October 28, 2009 TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM Nick Lelack, Planning Director Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update BACKGROUND The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an update to the Board of County Commissioners on public input received on the draft Comprehensive Plan. So far, the Planning Commission has held two meetings to discuss sections of the draft plan, a booth was set up at the Fall Home and Garden Show, and a community plan meeting was held in Terrebonne. Still to come this month are community plan meetings in Tumalo (10-20) and Deschutes Junction (10-29), a Planning Commission meeting (10-22) and open houses in Brothers (10- 27) and Redmond (10-28). PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS October 1 and 8 Some members of the Planning Commission were provided copies of the draft Comprehensive Plan at the Board of County Commissioners meeting on September 30t", the rest received a copy at their meeting on October 1St. The discussion that evening focused on how the Plan was arranged and formatted. There was concern expressed over the size of the draft Plan, so for ease of use Staff created a supplemental document focusing solely on the draft goals, policies and actions. The Planning Commission meeting on October 8 was focused on Groundwater Quantity and Quality and Rivers, Streams and Fish and was held in La Pine. South county residents expressed dissatisfaction about the Plan's citing USGS groundwater studies in light of the fact that the Local Rule referendum was successful. Quality Services Performed With Pride Comprehensive Plan Memo Residents also expressed frustration with the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) section. Staff explained that the RPS chapter has not been amended as part of the Plan update because there was consensus by the participants of the Community Conversations associated with the High Groundwater work program for Deschutes County to slow down and wait for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to lead the groundwater protection program and see the results of Sunriver's Sewer Feasibility Study. HOME AND GARDEN SHOW - October 16,17,18 The Home and Garden Show display included a flyer that lists all upcoming meetings, a pamphlet/questionnaire on wind power and a brief survey. The response to the brief survey was light and mixed, with no one response standing out. The questionnaire on wind power will be tabulated separately. In addition to those opportunities for input, a board was created (Attachment 1) that discussed balancing land use alternatives using three concepts, each of which had three choices. People were invited to vote on the choice that best matched their views. The purpose of the exercise was to raise awareness of land use choices and the comprehensive plan. Concept 1: Farming/Commercial - staff explained the issue of rural weddings Question: If commercial uses conflict with a rural lifestyle, which would you choose? Commercial - 8 votes Rural lifestyle - 35 votes Regulate commercial to minimize the impacts on rural lifestyles - 91 votes Concept 2: Ducks/Beavers - included to generate discussion Question: If the Ducks and Beavers are tied for first place, who would you support? Ducks - 51 Beavers - 60 Since both teams are from Oregon, either is acceptable - 34 Concept 3: Natural Resources/Property Rights - an often challenging issue Question: If natural resource protection (water/wildlife) conflicts with property rights (ability to develop property), which would you choose? Natural resource protection - 26 Private property rights - 31 Achieve a balance between regulations that protect natural resources with an owners right to develop his or her property - 85 TERREBONNE COMMUNITY MEETING - October 19 Approximately 65 people attended this meeting. Staff did a brief PowerPoint then people circulated around four stations: Transportation, Land Use, Boundary and Other Ideas. At each station there were County maps and wall displays for voting on a set of alternative futures. Brief surveys (Attachment 2 sample survey) were available to allow more detailed comments. The overwhelming sentiment at all wall display stations was to make no changes to existing regulations. The surveys are still being reviewed. Page 2 10-20-09 Comprehensive Plan Memo OTHER COMMENTS A few comments have been received that the wildlife section needs to have stronger protections. Factual corrections have been raised regarding the Davenport Power discussion in the Energy section, based on changed circumstances. Comments have also been provided on the surface mining section and how to update the Goal 5 resources. All comments received are being carefully reviewed. Attachments 1. Photo of Home and Garden Board 2. Sample Terrebonne questionnaire Page 3 10-20-09 c O s _ c •(Q x N ui cu j a -Fu a) ca c O C MK 't X U) -0 a) . p (0 U O C O ~ O .p c6 cu N - C fd O O N CO) s -a o c CC) U E O > O > to tq O U N O N a -0 a- 0 -0 cu O a a X U a~ n• N O G1 E w C o m rn U p d L N C w+ a) co U) 0 cu U p E E cv 0 O L 3 O a ca L E O v r- ~ ~ O r N N N d N p N O 4 G1 E t4 O = o M Q c O N Y o U 0 s t~ N cu i C C co d m cm -C O d H m a) CL s m U a ~ 7 t0 ( 6 N ~ W L s V Z o = o 0 s , N o m 6 W 4 3 `1 p 3 N d a L d s 0 13 w E O U am N C• R O C O L of E A Y N R s 3 L 7 L L w L C. L O O LL N c~• C m E O V L s 0 cM a O cu N co C O t Q U a~ O C 0 N O L Q1 O ,p O U L ~O Y c co Balancing Alternatives put your dot on the choice that comes closest to your views. To provide more details, fill out a comment card. Farming/Commercial Ducks/Beavers if coctal arts conflict with a aural Ntestyle, which would you choose? • • Commercial Uses • • • r Rural t.ffestyle • • • • i • • ~ • s « b• • ♦ s Regulate corm clal to n**rjze•• • • I „ • a the Impacts o0n" tlfesty M • 1 i a I. If the Ducks and the Beavers are tied for first place in the league, who would you support? • e • ~ • • 3 a8 • e • Ducks • e • • aF • • • • + i • • • • • • Beavers • • ' e • • Since both teams are from Oregon, either one is acceptable. • Natural Resources/ Property Rights If natural resource protection (water, wildlife) conflicts with property rights (ability to develop property), which would you choose? • r • • Natural Resource Protection • i • • • Property Rights 00 Achieve a balance between regulations that protect natural resources with a property owner's right • to develop his or her Pro • op ___-PertS- r J~ My view of the Comprehensive Plan is that it should be a document which paints the wishes of the citizens of Deschutes County in broad strokes rather than minute detail. It should set forth the framework needed to run the county but leave the details to the County Code. The best analogy is that the Comp Plan should function for the county as the Constitution functions for the country as a whole. The current draft of the Comp Plan is 422 pages of minutia and in my opinion should be pronounced dead on arrival. The fundamental flaw with the current approach is that in creating a document which attempts to have something in it for everyone the Comp Plan creates too many issues for conflict and will foster argument rather attempt to find common ground. It creates dissention rather than finding compromise. For example the agriculture section endorses farm stands and the wildlife section forbids them and when I mentioned, at the club where I shoot, that the Comp Plan would prohibit additional shooting ranges the reaction was immediate and visceral. A second flaw is the inclusion of so much detail. This level of detail is more appropriate in the County Code rather than the Comp plan. The function of the Comp Plan is to guide decision making rather than dictate it. Another problem with this level of detail is that the ability of the County to adjust to changing times is more restricted. It might, for example, be necessary to go through the time consuming process of changing the comp plan sooner rather than later when more broadly written guidelines could give the necessary guidance instead. There is not much to like here. Certainly the prose sections give interesting historical perspective on how the County has gotten to where it is currently. But even the facts in some of those sections have been hotly disputed. My feeling is that after this period of preliminary public comment there need to be an extended period for staff to work with the Planning Commission to draft a shorter Comp Plan which would emulate, perhaps, the style of the Constitution rather than the entire us judicial code.