Loading...
2010-162-Minutes for Meeting March 01,2010 Recorded 3/23/2010DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS Q 20100162 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 0312312010 03;36;29 PM 1 -i 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 at the request of [give reason] previously recorded in Book _ or as Fee Number to correct and Page , Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2010 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Anthony Raguine, George Read, Nick Lelack, Tom Anderson and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; and about twenty other citizens, including representatives of The Bulletin and KOHD TV. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. Harold B. Evans said that he was told that work needed on a road located northeast of Bend might be authorized by the Board. Commissioner Luke stated that if this is done for this road, it would be a problem turning down people living on the other hundreds of miles of unmaintained roads. Mr. Evans stated that the developer did not pay taxes on the property so it was foreclosed on by the County. They have been unable to form a road district to address the problem. Laurie Craghead stated that foreclosures are generally handled by County Counsel or the Tax Office. She will do some research on how the County ended up owning the road. Dave Kanner stated that there are State laws on how funding can be spent, especially ad valorem or gas tax money. No other testimony was offered. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 1, 2010 Page 1 of 10 Pages 2. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2010-011, Amending Code regarding Siting of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. Chair Luke read the opening statement. (A copy is attached for reference) In regard to prejudgment or personal interest, the Commissioners indicated that they had only attended on the record, public meetings to discuss this issue. There were no challenges from the audience. Anthony Raguine gave his staff report. The text amendment was initiated by staff to better meet the needs of the wireless telecommunications ordinance. This would help streamline the application process. (A copy is attached for reference) A building permit is still required for equipment cabinets. Mr. Raguine said that the Ordinance today has three categories. Tier 3 structures could have an adverse impact, so require a conditional use permit. Tier 1 are for co-location on structures that are already there. Tier 2 is specific to certain zones where there is already development that would not be impacted by this structure. Commissioner Baney asked if there is a way to make sure that a structure is appropriate in a given area. Mr. Raguine stated that Tier 3 facilities have to be heard by a Hearings Officer due to the need for a conditional use permit. Commissioner Unger asked about aviation lighting on the taller poles. Mr. Raguine said the County has no authority over what the FAA requires. Even if Code did not require a look at FAA lighting, it could still be required. Commissioner Unger would like to see this avoided if possible. Mr. Raguine stated that the lighting is based on flight patterns and topography, not necessarily on the height of the poles. If there was a lower maximum height allowed, this could very well result in more poles to provide the same service. Commissioner Unger does not like the flashing aviation lights. He asked if a different type of light, or the brightness of the light, can be adjusted. Mr. Raguine replied that this is entirely up to the FAA. William Kuhn testified that he finds remarks about concerns for the neighbors interesting. In 1992 there was an Ordinance regarding building setbacks within deer ranges. A neighbor of his submitted an application just before the Ordinance went into effect, and indicated they would build within the required setback. Less than a week ago, the Commission overturned that requirement. He feels the Commissioners are being hypocritical. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 1, 2010 Page 2 of 10 Pages There was no other testimony offered. BANEY: Move first reading of Ordinance No. 2010-011 as amended per staff's memo. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY UNGER: LUKE: Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. Chair Luke then conducted the first reading of the Ordinance. The second reading and consideration of adoption will take place at the Monday, March 15, 2010 business meeting. 3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing (continued from January 20) and Consideration of First and Second Readings and Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2010-002, regarding Destination Resort Map Amendment Procedures. Chair Luke opened the hearing at this time. Peter Gutowsky entered the case file into the record. Since the January 20 public hearing, the Board has received input provided by the Planning Commission and various citizens, which he then reviewed. He said that several Planning Commissioners are at this morning's meeting but not as members of the Commission, but as private citizens. Mr. Gutowsky referred to oversized maps showing the current and potentially future eligible properties. The intent is to allow privately owned land that is ineligible simply because of irrigation criteria to become eligible. Todd Turner was absent from the last Planning Commission meeting, and Commissioner Cyrus recused himself. The votes were unanimous. Other motions were supported for undeveloped, unimproved subdivisions that were platted before land use criteria was adopted. Cluster developments that have at least 30% of their area as open space may be available. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 1, 2010 Page 3 of 10 Pages Nick Lelack said there are a lot of issues on the table at the State level, including the 160-acre requirement. The County can be more restrictive, but not less. Mr. Lelack said that there are properties that are significantly smaller, and just because they are on the map does not mean they can have a resort sited on them. Commissioner Unger stated that perhaps property owners should let the County know whether they want to stay on, and if they don't they'd be dropped. Mr. Gutowsky said that one that is currently mapped. Commissioner Unger would like to avoid a `checkerboard' type of effect. Mr. Gutowsky stated that the properties would have to be contiguous. Citizen William Kuhn said that he has great respect for those who own their property since before land use laws came into effect, and does not want to take away their rights. Property rights is a popular issue these days, but some feel they should be able to make as much money as they can when selling their property. They feel that any restriction is unconstitutional. Those who want land use laws and the enforcement of those laws have rights also. It does not make sense to take away some from one for the other. There are far too many destination resorts. He believes that the character of Deschutes County is diminished by more resorts. He asked that the Board consider carefully what they are doing. He is for many of the things that support destination resort, but the rights of others need to be upheld. Paul Dewey, an attorney representing Central Oregon LandWatch, said that the concept of multiple ownerships is not appropriate and may not be consistent with State law. A primary concern is that there be a restriction if there is no more than 40 acres of irrigated land per ownership, but with an extension to others this could potentially end up with hundreds of acres. He could see `pods' of land connected by a line, with strange configurations of multiple ownerships. Viable irrigation farmland should be protected. It would be difficult to map all of the possibilities. The Planning Commission has recommended dropping all protection. Mr. Dewey said that although the farm and forest land is not as good as in some areas, historically they have been adequate, and what the future might bring in this regard is unknown. It could be that decentralized farming becomes more efficient, by producing things locally. It would be good to preserve as much farm and forest land as possible. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 1, 2010 Page 4 of 10 Pages Partitioning in property, per Measure 49 claims, means that this applies only to residential properties. Destination resorts do not apply even though there is a residential component. Ultimately there could not be this residential development without the destination resort. This should not result in a Measure 49 claim. Commissioner Luke is concerned that people had their rights to use their land impacted over the years by land use laws. He is concerned about taking away a property right without the owner being informed. Mr. Dewey stated that if they are grandfathered in, there seems to be a presumption that they will be able to build if they are on the map. As part of the mapping process, the Board should require Goal 5 and other resource updates outside of periodic review. Originally destination resorts were an exception, and the Planning Commission is asking to expand this exception. These all have impacts on livability and natural resources, and there is no requirement to review the comprehensive or cumulative effects. He would like to respond what is proposed after today. Commissioner Baney asked what is `adequate' or `good enough'. Mr. Dewey stated that there needs to be economies of scale. Things change, but if something is capable of being irrigated should be protected. Commissioner Baney asked if someone has to prove what the capacity is. Commissioner Unger said that new law changes reflect transportation requirements. He asked when this is addressed. Mr. Dewey said that this is reviewed when there is a potential impact. It is provided in the revised Ordinance. Nick Lelack said that transportation needs has to be addressed at the time of rezoning or at remapping. There are extensive requirements in Code for destination resorts. Matt Cyrus said that he appreciates taking the erroneous map out of the record. It shows a lot of land that is zoned EFU but is owned by the public. Regardless of the map, it is unlikely there will be much land available for destination resorts. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 1, 2010 Page 5 of 10 Pages Area land was homesteaded at one point, and land where the irrigation districts are were dedicated to the State. The original developers in the Central Oregon area were the irrigation companies. Most of the canals were never built. So there is a huge diversity in priority dates for water rights. Users had to put the water to beneficial use. There is no differentiation regarding the quality of the water rights. Commissioner Baney asked if he feels this is happening today with this change. Mr. Dewey noted that not all irrigated land is good for farming. The 1992 Ordinance creating the mapping and specified the contiguous lands were not excluded from it. The argument also is that the new mitigation rules mean less impact on irrigated land or irrigation. Modern irrigation districts are modern and well run. For instance, if a resort buys irrigation rights, that means some land will be dried up as a result. This doubles the impact on farmland because that acreage will be dried up. He encouraged the Board adopt the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Christen Brown is the Chair of the Deschutes County Planning Commission, but spoke as a citizen. He said that he raised an issue about the 40/60 rule of irrigated land. There are distinct issues. In 1992 it was not clarified. He thinks this is doing it the hard way. He wants to talk about good farm land, not just irrigated acreage. The science has changed significantly. If someone does qualify in other ways, the alternative is to brown up land. It is partially in the Code now. The second piece is subdivisions. The additional item added to County guidelines was to remove subdivisions as an acceptable place for resorts. The Planning Commission has given something different. They removed subdivisions as a restriction, as it is too broad and too general, if there is just a paper subdivision out there. Chair Luke asked if they mean one ownership does not mean just one person. Commissioner Baney believes that his thoughts are different than that of the Planning Commission. She sees it being to allow subdivisions. Mr. Brown said that the criteria is extensive and most that is on the map will not truly be eligible for destination resorts. It has the possibility of at least not being disqualified, where there are a lot of safeguards in place. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 1, 2010 Page 6 of 10 Pages Commissioner Baney stated that this may cause the general public to feel that the lands are eligible when they truly are not. Mr. Brown said that the State has a lot of criteria and is adding more all the time, so augmenting those rules would make it that much more difficult to put in a resort. There is a lot of discussion about undeveloped areas, specifically paper subdivisions that are not built. He is concerned about stepping on the toes of people who have invested in the past under acceptable criteria at the time. In regard to open space, Mr. Brown said that destination resorts and cluster developments look similar, with the questions of overnight housing and other issues remaining. The exposure is limited to about three. They should be allowed to try to meet the test. The grandfather clause is another issue. It is not as easy as he originally thought. If someone does not know - for instance, the property could be in the form of an estate - there is potential exposure. Chair Luke said the map would not be reduced much. The mailing that goes out with the tax bill goes to every property owner. He does not know what else can be done in this regard. Mr. Brown wants to protect property owners' rights so this does not end up being an improper taking. Commissioner Baney said that a cluster development would be easier than a destination resort. Mr. Brown stated that this would have to be a preexisting cluster development. Perhaps a sunset date could be added. Chair Luke said that a cluster development and a destination resort may be perceived by neighbors as being much the same. Mr. Brown stated that there would have to be a full process in either case. Just because the land is eligible does not mean it will be happen. He does not know the particular situations of the three that can fit this, but he does not want to see their rights taken away without due process. Commissioner Unger asked about paper subdivisions - are they platted? Mr. Gutowsky said they are two-dimensional plats, with no infrastructure. These happened before land use required improvements being in place. Theoretically, someone could have a legal subdivision with no improvements in place. Commissioner Unger asked if there is a time limit in this regard. Mr. Gutowsky replied that now there are time limits for certain things, but assumes that these requirements did not exist at the time these subdivisions were approved and recorded. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 1, 2010 Page 7 of 10 Pages Ed Criss, a member of the Planning Commission, spoke as a citizen. The people of south County are concerned about destination resorts, as there are a lot of platted subdivisions in that area. He supported the smaller acreage destination resorts which should be considered for economic development. These types of developments are not gated nor do they have golf courses. It has been said that it is not economically viable to do these. He thinks they are viable and should be an option. There are not many places where recreationists can stay and enjoy the area. Even if it is dedicated just to the upper Deschutes basin, it should be considered. People are concerned about destination resorts and developments that occur around them. Most do not oppose smaller resorts. The transferable development credit and pollution reduction credit plan has not worked as well as planned. Some lost the use of their land and other land was made available. Land swapping with the Forest Service is possible to protect wetlands. He feels that the remapping, as pointed out by Commissioner Baney, is more complicated than expected. He would like to see them look at lands that really belong on the map. Those that can be put together in partnerships can be added later. They might want to wait until the State addresses this in 2011. Chair Luke said that Commissioner Unger has raised the smaller destination resort issue more than once. It would take a change in State law to allow these. This has been considered for years, and staff has been working on this for a long time. Mr. Lelack said that a key issue is that large destination resorts are allowed on research land, when for whatever reason small ones are not. That limits what can be done. Liz Fancher, representing Belveron Partners Real Estate LLC, spoke regarding multiple ownerships and the 160 acres. The Planning Commission reviewed these, and the State law indicates a 160-acre site, not just a single parcel. There is no requirement that they be under one ownership. The 160 acres is not a mapping requirement at all, but an application requirement. There is a time period, and they would not be able to do that if the property was not eligible. Her client owns a property that qualifies and the neighbor wants to include land as well. The current plan is to develop together. It was considered before by the Board, but was dropped. The law indicates just a site requirement for the 160 acres. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 1, 2010 Page 8 of 10 Pages There are concerns about Measure 4% but this should not drive a decision on this. It would not help anyone who wants to make a claim, especially if the land was not eligible in the first place. In regard to cluster developments, it should include planned developments as well if the properties are large enough. They have to be at least 40 acres. Both require smaller lots and open space. In regard to the Planning Commission recommendation about leaving everyone on unless they opt out, she would recommend they go ahead and fix the area in south County due to wildlife special area rules already in place. It makes sense to let everyone know what can never be developed. Commissioner Luke suggested that the record be left open, and the other Commissioners agreed. This will allow them to receive more information on some of the things that were just brought up. Merry Ann Moore, representing the Sierra Club, stated that the future, in five or ten years, could be quite different. A property owner could assume that land is destination resort eligible. A simple map is needed to show where it is possible and where it is not. If this is opened up for cluster developments, there will be others lining up for other ways to have a resort. The public hearing for oral testimony was continued until 10:00 a.m. on Monday, April 5, 2010. The written record continues to remain open as well. A work session may be held with staff in the meantime. Chair Luke said that a letter to the individual Planning Commissioners has been written regarding the timeframe for drafting the Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Lelack read the letter into the record at this time. (A copy is attached for reference) Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 a. m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 1, 2010 Page 9 of 10 Pages DATED this 1St Day of March 2010 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. De i~~s R. Luke,, Chair Alan nger, Vice Chair ATTEST: n n Tammy Baney, Comm Toner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 1, 2010 Page 10 of 10 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2010 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 cards 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. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2010-011, Amending Code regarding Siting of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities - Anthony Raguine, Community Development 3. A PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from January 20) and Consideration of First and Second Readings and Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2010-002, regarding Destination Resort Map Amendment Procedures - Peter Gutowsky, Community Development 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. 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) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 1, 2010 Page 1 of 5 Pages Monday, March 1 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' 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, March 3 7:30 a.m. Conference Call with State Lobbyist regarding Legislative Session 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, March 4 7:30 a.m. County Forecast Breakfast - Bend Country Club 10:00 a.m. Quarterly Update with the District Attorney 11:00 a.m. Quarterly Update with Community Development 12:00 p.m. Economic Revitalization Team Meeting 2:30 p.m. Quarterly Update with Solid Waste 3:30 p.m. Quarterly Update with the Road Department Wednesday, March 10 11:45 a.m. Redmond Chamber of Commerce - State of the City Meeting, Chloe's in Redmond 2:00 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) - note later time Thursday, March 11 7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council, Council Chambers, Redmond Monday, March 15 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, March 17 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 1, 2010 Page 2 of 5 Pages Thursday, March 18 8:00 a.m. Quarterly Meeting with Health & Human Services 9:00 a.m. Semi-annual Meeting with the Clerk Monday, March 22 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, March 24 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, March 25 9:00 a.m. Quarterly Meeting with the Fair & Expo 10:00 a.m. Semi-annual Meeting with the Assessor 2:00 p.m. Quarterly Meeting with the Sheriff 3:00 p.m. Quarterly Meeting with Community Justice Monday, March 29 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, March 31 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, April 1 8:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Sisters Council, Sisters City Hall Monday, April 5 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' 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) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 1, 2010 Page 3 of 5 Pages Wednesday, April 7 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, April 14 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, April 19 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, April 21 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, April 22 11:00 a.m. Quarterly Meeting with the Commission on Children & Families Monday, April 26 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, April 28 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, May 3 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' 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) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 1, 2010 Page 4 of 5 Pages Wednesday, May 5 10:00 a.m. 1:30 p.m Board of Commissioners' Meeting Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 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. nuara of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 1, 2010 Page 5 of 5 Pages -vv2 a { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: /r6)9c / Date: ' Name Address Phone #s 4""_3V1 F all .j ) 3 E-mail address ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. v-sES ~ QClY \Z~ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Name Address b 9 z2 5 mb&'~ Date: I LS: -P ~ Phone #s S-`1 I `-t - r o 0 6 E-mail address 2n r) OLqA'~JC~ ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes &No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. U~J-+res c~ Q BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: 1). PI%X4 V Date: Name Gt VW'3 0, S Address ~ 3 V Phone #s E-mail address In Favor ~Neutral/Undecided F] Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F~ Yes eo If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ~ilTFS lu~U ' Za a < Agenda I Name Address Phone #s BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING of Interest: E-mail address In Favor 9 Neutral/Undecided F~ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F]Yes F-] No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. -J// .IvTE~ c0 D G Z{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Date: Name Address Phone #s E-mail address 1-1 In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided El Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F]Yes © No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Z~ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING LU04 REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: UCst-s At t ,a 1 ~26 5 a.- Date: 1/1 o Name 9AU L 'DEWJS_1' C-In kr q.i or4.:10 , L.1 , Cj Address 1539 NW kj"Ch3lourr, AUC Q,.,d 0t2 Phone #s 5 q l - 31,)- 1,q53 E-mail address ,p dE w ~y e b 6 ~1 ~4 t ~Q,, t F1 In Favor . F-] Neutral/Undecided F1 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Q Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING a { REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: 3 - Date: Name Am, Ko k+A, Address I~0 a~ S ~q 977 o c~ - 9 Phone #s E-mail address In Favor F~ Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1:1 Yes F-] No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. a 2{BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Date: Name L INC.-'c-- Address 1-1-7 01 Phone #s - (,c.> -R:>~ ov-1 0 54 I - .-~>P~S - 3C;)(q E-mail address I i Z In Favor F-1 Neutral/Undecided 1-1 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? E] Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the recor . PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS This is a public hearing on County File Number TA-09-2, an application proposing amendments to the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code. The amendments would revise language in Sections 18.116.250 and 18.128.340, related to wireless telecommunications facilities. The Board of County Commissioners will hear oral testimony, receive written testimony, and consider the testimony submitted at this hearing. The hearing is also being taped. The Board may make a decision on this matter tonight, continue the public hearing to a date certain, or leave the written record open for a specified period of time. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a report on this issue. We will then open the hearing to all present and ask people to present testimony at one of the tables or at the podium. You can also provide the Board with a copy of written testimony. Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the Chair's discretion. Cross-examination of people testifying will not be allowed. However, if any person wishes ask a question of another person during that person's testimony, please direct your question to the Chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the person testifying. Prior to the commencement of the hearing any party may challenge the qualifications of any of the County Commissioners prejudgment or personal interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts. Should any Commissioner be challenged, the Commissioner may disqualify himself or herself, withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity to hear and decide this issue. At this time, do any members of the Board of County Commissioners need to set forth any information that may be perceived as prejudgment or personal interest? I will accept any challenges from the public now. (Hearing none, I will open the public hearing). STAFF REPORT S:\CDD\planning\StafflAnthony\TA\TA-09-2 Wireless Telecom\BOCC Opening Statement Legislative, TA-09-2.doc 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 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner Date: February 25, 2010 Re: Revision to proposed text amendment in DCC 18.128.340, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities On February 24, 2010, staff presented a proposed text amendment to DCC 18.128.340 to the Board during a work session. One of the proposed changes would require the applicant to hold the required neighborhood meeting in the general vicinity of a proposed wireless telecommunications facility. At the work session, Commissioner Luke suggested additional language that would require the applicant to provide the location of the neighborhood meeting to Planning staff during the required pre-application conference. Staff has added proposed language to DCC 18.128.340(A)(2) to address Commissioner Luke's concern. The revised code section is attached to this memo in preparation for the March 1, 2010 public hearing. Quality Services Performed -with Pride 18.128.340. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. An application for a conditional use permit for a wireless telecommunications facility or its equivalent in the EFU, Forest, or Surface Mining Zones shall comply with the applicable standards, setbacks and criteria of the base zone and any combining zone and the following requirements. Site plan review under DCC 18.124 including site plan review for a use that would otherwise require site plan review under DCC 18.84 shall not be required. A. Application Requirements. An application for a wireless telecommunications facility shall comply with the following meeting, notice, and submittal requirements: 1. Neighborhood Meeting. Prior to Divisien sta fsubmission of a land use application for a wireless telecommunications facility, the applicant shall provide notice of and hold a meeting with interested owners of property nearby to a potential facility location. To the greatest extent practicable, the neighborhood meeting shall be held in the general vicinity of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility. Notice shall be in writing and shall be mailed no less than 10 days prior to the date set for the meeting to owners of record of property within: a. One thousand three hundred twenty feet for a tower or monopole no greater than 100 feet in height, and b. Two thousand feet for a tower or monopole at least 100 feet and no higher than 150 feet in height. Such notice shall not take the place of notice required by DCC Title 22. 2. Pre-Application Conference. Applicant shall attend a scheduled pre-application conference prior to submission of a land use application. The applicant shall provide the proposed location of the required neighborhood meeting for review by Planning Division staff to ensure compliance with subsection A(1) above. An application for a wireless telecommunications facility permit will not be deemed complete until the applicant has had a pre-application conference with Planning Division staff. 3. Submittal Requirements. An application for a conditional use permit for a wireless telecommunications facility shall include: a. A copy of the blank lease form. b. A copy of the applicant's Federal Communications Commission license. c. A map that shows the applicant's search ring for the proposed site and the properties within the search ring, including locations of existing telecommunications towers or monopoles. d. A copy of the written notice of the required neighborhood meeting and a certificate of mailing showing that the notice was mailed to the list of property owners falling within the notice area designated under DCC 18.128.340(A)(1). e. A written summary of the neighborhood meeting detailing the substance of the meeting, the time, date and location of the meeting and a list of meeting attendees. f. A site plan showing the location of the proposed facility and its components. The site plan shall also identify the location of existing and proposed landscaping, any equipment shelters, utility connections, and any fencing proposed to enclose the facility. g. A copy of the design specifications, including proposed colors, and/or elevation of an antenna array proposed with the facility. h. An elevation drawing of the facility and a photographic simulation of the facility showing how it would fit into the landscape. i. A copy of a letter of determination from the Federal Aviation Administration or the Oregon Department of T: a .spei4atien ^ efenauties ^ viation as to whether or not aviation lighting would be required for the proposed facility. B. Approval Criteria: An application for a wireless telecommunication facility will be approved upon findings that: 1. The facility will not be located on irrigated land, as defined by DCC 18.04.030. 2. The applicant has considered other sites in its search area that would have less visual impact as viewed from nearby residences than the site proposed and has determined that any less intrusive sites are either unavailable or do not provide the communications coverage necessary. To meet this criterion, the applicant must demonstrate that it has made a good faith effort to co-locate its antennas and microwave dishes on existing monopoles in the area to be served. The applicant can demonstrate this by submitting a statement from a qualified engineer that indicates whether the necessary service can or cannot be provided by co-location within the area to be served. 3. The facility is sited using trees, vegetation, and topography to the maximum extent practicable to screen the facility from view of nearby residences. 4. A tower or monopole located in an LM Zone is no taller than 30 feet. Towers or monopoles shall not be sited in locations where there is no vegetative, structural or topographic screening available. 5. In all cases, the applicant shall site the facility in a manner to minimize its impact on scenic views and shall site the facility using trees, vegetation, and topography in order to screen it to the maximum extent practicable from view from protected roadways. Towers or monopoles shall not be sited in locations where there is no vegetative, structural or topographic screening available. 6. Any tower or monopole is finished with natural wood colors or colors selected from amongst colors approved by Ordinance 97-017. 7. Any required aviation lighting is shielded to the maximum extent allowed by FAA and/or ODOT-Aeronautics regulations. 8. The form of lease for the site does not prevent the possibility of co-location of additional wireless telecommunication facilities at the site. 9. Any tower or monopole shall be designed in a manner that it can carry the antennas of at least one additional wireless carrier. This criterion may be satisfied by submitting the statement of a licensed structural engineer licensed in Oregon that the monopole or tower has been designed with sufficient strength to carry such an additional antenna array and by elevation drawings of the proposed tower or monopole that identifies an area designed to provide the required spacing between antenna arrays of different carriers. 10. Any approval of a wireless telecommunication facility shall include a condition that if the facility is left unused or is abandoned by all wireless providers located on the facility for more than one year the facility shall be removed by the landowner. (Ord. 2010-011 §2, Ord. 2000-019 §2, 2000; Ord. 97-063 §2, 1997; Ord. 97-017 §8, 1997) "Property Rights" is a popular issue these days. Unfortunately it has been co-opted to mean property owners have a right to make as much money as they can from selling their property. Any restrictions on this right are considered practically unconstitutional. In reality and WHEN THEY ARE ENFORCED - zoning and land use restrictions are also property rights. For those like us who wish to preserve the aesthetic or natural value of their property these are precious rights for both property owners and communities. tea. I believe this is ow fundamental issue of the destination resorts argument. I also believe a community whatever its size has the duty and responsibility of citizenship to carefully consider and understand the impacts of their decisions on the land, their neighbors, both human and non-human, and their future. In our central Oregon neighborhood we live in a transition zone making our area rich in the qualities of the high desert, diverse forests, and mountains all jammed into a relatively small space. Making it attractive for people to come here, making it also vulnerable to abuse. The number of destination resorts especially in Deschutes County have obviously gone far beyond their reason for being - whether you agree or not with the original premise of having them. For all the reasons so concisely summed up by the Sierra Club and others, I believe, as a property owner and citizen, destination resorts are too destructive and offer too little and place an increasingly unreasonable burden on resources to support even one more. It's time to take back the future. And to my fellow citizens of Deschutes County - please remember this is an election year. William Kuhn Post Office Box 5996 Bend 97708-5996 Paul D. Dewey Attorney at Law 1539 NW Vicksburg Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 317-1993 fax (541) 383-3470 pdeweygbendcable.com March 1, 2010 Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall St. Bend, OR 97701 Re: Proposed Ordinance Nos. 2010-001 and 2010-002 Destination Resorts Dear Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of Central Oregon LandWatch in opposition to the proposed plan amendments. First, these plan amendments do far more than provide new procedures for map amendments. They also substantially increase what destination resort development is available within the existing map area by allowing multiple ownerships and by changing the criteria applicable to destination resort applications. The effects of these changes are not adequately explained. As shown in the attached e-mail exchange between Nunzie Gould and Tim Berg, the County apparently did an analysis of developable destination resorts of at least 400 acres in size which are in multiple ownerships. That analysis is not complete since the multiple ownership provision would apply to any groupings of lands 160 acres or larger. The analysis also understates the impacts of this amendment since there are numerous ownership changes that could be made to make virtually any destination resort development configuration possible. The County's Findings also fail to acknowledge the development potential of the new "multiple ownership" provision. This lack of facts and analysis is contrary to Goal 2 and the impacts are contrary to the County Plan provisions protecting EFU land (Chapter 23.88) and to the other destination resort policies protecting irrigated land. It is reasonable to anticipate a "gerrymander" of lands where un- irrigated lands of a property are separated from its irrigated lands and where lands of multiple owners are used to create high-impact configurations of resort development which can surround irrigation land with pods of residential development in the destination resorts. March 1, 2010 Page 2 Note that this "multiple ownership" provision substantially undercuts DCC 23.84.030(3)(d) limiting development only to lands with certain numbers of irrigated acres. While only 40 contiguous acres and 60 non-contiguous acres could be included in a resort developed in one ownership, hundreds of irrigated acres could be included in a multiple ownership development where no owner individually violated the 40 and 60-acre limits. We also believe the County errs in proposing that Goal 12's OAR 660-012-0060 will apply only to new areas proposed to be mapped. Where the County is significantly increasing the development potential within the existing map area through amendments to the comprehensive plan, the Goal 12 rules must also be applied to the development potential resulting from the amendments. LandWatch also disagrees with the proposal that existing mapped properties may remain on the map even though they don't meet the criteria of DCC 23.84.030(a)-(d). There is no basis for this "grandfathering" provision which is apparently the result of a concern about being sued under Measure 49. Even if a component of a destination resort could be considered to be residential in nature (what Measure 49 only applies to), the visitor accommodations, recreation facilities and commercial development clearly are not. Where the residential component cannot be allowed without the recreation development and other required elements of a destination resort and nothing under Measure 49 or anything else limits the county controlling such recreation and destination resort development, there is simply no reason for the County to being doing this "grandfathering" clause. This allowance also ignores the fact that the demarcation on a map means something different now than it did when the map was adopted in terms of eligibility. Resort proposals still needed to show eligibility even if they were shown on a map, while eligibility now might be assumed if the land is on a map. Though this process was originally billed as both the reduction and expansion of areas to be developed, we now see that the sole agenda is to expand the opportunities for more destination resorts. It is not appropriate for the County to so substantially change its direction after having represented something else to the public. The proposal is also inappropriate where the many issues such as wildlife impacts, costs, etc. raised by the public are not even addressed by the County in its analysis. I also wish to express our opposition to including "leased land" owned by the State or other governments or including platted subdivisions. No explanation is given by DSL on how destination resort zoning code rules would be applied to "leases." Everything in the County's zoning code is oriented to controlling what the owner does with the land, not what lessees or others with less than fee interest may do. March 1, 2010 Page 3 Finally, we are disappointed that the County is investing so much effort to address an industry that does such harm and offers so little for the future of this county. Please inform me in writing of any decision by the County on these matters. Very truly yours, `r~Q PAUL DEWEY PD:ao Attachment cc: Board Page I of') Paul Dewey From: Nunzie [nunzie@pacifier.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 12:42 AM To: Paul Dewey Subject: DR remapping please introduce this explanation into the BOCC record 3-1-2010 DR remapping Thank you Nunzie Gould ps see separate fowarding of database which I have printed Begin forwarded message: From: "Tim Berg" <Tim Ber co.deschutes.or.us> Date: February 16, 2010 1:58:17 PM PST To: "Nunzie" <nunzie(ftacifier.com> Subject: RE: DR remapping Nunzie, Within this particular set of analyses, it was requested that I create a map to display lands that could potentially be developed within the existing Destination Resort Combining Zone code. This analysis consisted of determining where properties that were either 160 acres or greater and within the Destination Resort Combining Zone or properties that were any size, but contiguous to other lands that could be potentially blocked up to larger tracts of land that are 160 acres or greater. For instance, if 3 contiguous parcels are mapped for Destination Resort Combining Zone, and each parcel was 150 acres in size and also contiguous, the size of the tract would be considered 450 acres, regardless of ownership. I'm not sure exactly who wanted to know how many tracts of land within the Destination Resort Combining Zone were over 400 acres. It could have been a member of the Planning Commission or CDD staff. The analysis was completed in February of 2009. Tim Berg Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97701 phone: (541) 330-4648 From: Nunzie [maiIto: nunzieCa)pacifier.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 1:42 PM To: Tim Berg Subject: Fwd: DR remapping Hi Tim: I see many parcels in your database that are smaller than 160 acres. (such as Three Sisters Irrigation District, Willett, Tumalo River LLC, Westlund, Loomis, Charlotte Nash, Kenneth & Tracy Johnson, Baney Corp. etc) Yet, some of these parcels appear in yellow on the map "remaining eligible 2/19/2010 Page 2 of 3 lands". Why are these trapped in yellow if they aren't eligible due to size? On what basis (by whom) was the 400 acres established as a criteria in your database? (the "remaining eligible lands" map clearly identifies ineligible lands as individual parcels < 160 acres) Could you kindly email me a database and map that would show only those parcels > 160 acres? Thanks in advance, Nunzie Begin forwarded message: From: "Tim Berg" <Tim Bero(Wco.deschutes.or.us> Date: February 16, 2010 9:33:59 AM PST To: "Nunzie" <nunzie(a)oacifier.com> Subject: RE: DR remapping Hi Nunzie, If you open the database with Microsoft Excel, the database will act much like an Excel spreadsheet, and should be more friendly to read/view. Once you have opened the database with Excel, you can also save it to an Excel spreadsheet if you would like. Depending on your personal settings, you may need to first save the attachment to your local PC hard drive, then open Excel, then choose "File" "Open" to navigate to the location that you have saved the database to on your PC. The fields within the database are as follows: TAXLOT - 13 digit taxlot number NAME - First name on Assessor ownership table for current taxlot number NAME2 - Second name on Assessor ownership table for current taxlot number MAILING _AD - Mailing address (house number, street name) for current taxlot number CITY/ST/ZI - Mailing address (City, State, Zip Code) for current taxlot number ACRES - Number of acres of each individual taxlot (many taxlots may be contiguous to make a larger block of land) 400ACRES - Do the number of contiguous taxlots amount to 400 acres or more? (YES or NO) SITUS_ADDR - Situs address of each taxlot number (physical property address) If you have any more issues, let me know and I will try to help you out. Tim Berg Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97701 phone: (541) 330-4648 From: Nunzie Finailto:nunzie(&pacifier.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:20 AM To: Tim Berg 2/19/2010 Page 3 of 3 Subject: DR remapping Hi Tim: Your attachment is hard to read because it is not in a columnar format. When I open your attachment, I see 9 letter sized pages. It appears that at the end of each entry there is a yes or no after the acreage... what does yes/no relate to? Perhaps if you could identify the titles for each heading (data title) this would help me navigate your database and decipher this list. nrr!,TAXLOTCNAMEC3NAME2C"MAILING _ADC(CITY/ST/ZICACRESN 400ACRESC What I understand is taxlot, owner name(s), mailing address (city/St/Zip) and I think acres but I don't understand yes/ no... Thanks much for your assistance. Nunzie Gould Begin forwarded message: From: "Tim Berg" <Tim Berg(cDco.deschutes.or.us> Date: January 28, 2010 11:35:48 AM PST To: "Nunzie" <nunzie(apacifier.com> Subject: RE: DR remapping Nunzie, Attached is a database that contains all of the property records displayed on the maps that display the "contiguous ownership parcesl", relating to the unmapping scenario for the Destination Resort Remapping project. Tim Berg Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97701 phone: (541) 330-4648 2/19/2010 Paul Dewe From: Nunzie [nunzie@pacifier.com] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 11:43 PM To: Kevin Harrison; Nick Lelack; Tammy Baney; Alan Unger; Dennis Luke; Terri Hansen Payne Subject: DR Remapping Attachments: Remapping proposal as of 1-20-10.pdf Remapping roposal as of 1-20-. Greetings Deschutes County Officials: It has come to my attention that the data for one of the planning map tools used in Comprehensive Plan Update and also used for the DR remapping contains lands that do not meet the criteria in the legend of the map. In particular this map was recently used in another power point presentation at the Board's Work Session held January 6, 2010. The map in question is the last map "Remaining eligible lards = approximately 15,058 acres". It is a disservice to our community to introduce a visual "aid" as a planning tool when it is erroneous. Please correct this map and correct the database to remove parcels < 160 acres from the map (shown in yellow). Please email me the corrected database and a pdf of the corrected map prior to the Board's March 1, 2010 meeting. Deschutes County deserves our best effort for today and for the future. Good planning is only as good as the data it is based on! Please enter this email and attachment into the Board's record on DR remapping and into the record on the Comprehensive Plan Update. Thank you in advance, Nunzie Gould 19845 JW Brown Rd Bend, OR 97701 541-420-3325 1 T- N M ai " ' ~ Lm N te ~T✓. 'y W ~1 IA ° s - 5I „ J ~ 3 ~ P ~ gg ICT IFa- _7~1 Ea _ y dd Cd ~ I iti_ 'N7 a t A E 41 Q C y N o < y a o 9 •g O 3W° E C ~ E az m q pp N A G p U C ~ gg a RM a~a~s ' as €a ° ~t M o.+c~ 8rc~9a93 ~ • M• 1F Y k M M ~ ~ ~ at dd H rA . pq~6o \ i 10 }C~ d w4 fB C G; _ 10 Al W d V4 y, .n° 4L e ~ . w.7 m WS °cYS; O SITUS ADDRC! 1412000002604 SKVORAK,DAVID A BOWERS,LISA M PO BOX 1237 REDMOND OR 97756 150.17YES 10325 NW COYNER AVE 1412000002603 SKVORAK,DAVID A BOWERS,LISA M PO BOX 1237 REDMOND OR 97756 20.03YES 20600 NW COYNER AVE 1412000002601 SKVORAK,DAVID A BOWERS,LISA M PO BOX 1237 REDMOND OR 97756 283.39YES 1410240000100 DIERK D & CECILE E PETERS TRUST PETERS,DIERK D PO BOX 1119 SISTERS OR 97759 14.27NO 16869 WILT RD 1410240000100 DIERK D & CECILE E PETERS TRUST PETERS,DIERK D PO BOX 1119 SISTERS OR 97759 73.88NO 16869 WILT RD 141024DO05600 DIERK D PETERS & CECILE E PETERS TRUST PETERS,DIERK D PO BOX 1119 SISTERS OR 97759 30.31 NO 17087 BUFFALO DR 141024DO05600 DIERK D PETERS & CECILE E PETERS TRUST PETERS,DIERK D PO BOX 1119 SISTERS OR 97759 9.76NO 17087 BUFFALO DR 141024DO05601 DIERK D & CECILE E PETERS TRUST PETERS,DIERK D PO BOX 1119 SISTERS OR 97759 41.52NO 17095 BUFFALO DR 1511000002600 THORNBURGH,AMBERS J THORNBURGH, BONNIE J 19419 W HWY 126 REDMOND OR 97756 90.56NO 19419 W HWY 126 1511000002600 THORNBURGH,AMBERS J THORNBURGH,BONN IE J 19419 W HWY 126 REDMOND OR 97756 67.52NO 19419 W HWY 126 1511000002900 DESERT SPRINGS RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 11301 SW MILITARY RD PORTLAND OR 97219 12.97YES 1511000002900 DESERT SPRINGS RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 11301 SW MILITARY RD PORTLAND OR 97219 25.04YES 1511000002800 DESERT SPRINGS RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 11301 SW MILITARY RD PORTLAND OR 97219 399.66YES 17830 FORKED HORN DR 1511000003303 DESERT SPRINGS RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 11301 SW MILITARY RD PORTLAND OR 97219 40.44YES 1511000002800 DESERT SPRINGS RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 11301 SW MILITARY RD PORTLAND OR 97219 1.33YES 17830 FORKED HORN DR 1511000003302 DESERT SPRINGS RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 11301 SW MILITARY RD PORTLAND OR 97219 40.42YES 1511000002800 DESERT SPRINGS RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 11301 SW MILITARY RD PORTLAND OR 97219 0.25YES 17830 FORKED HORN DR 1511000004002 DESERT SPRINGS RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 11301 SW MILITARY RD PORTLAND OR 97219 80.98YES 1511000004001 DESERT SPRINGS RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 11301 SW MILITARY RD PORTLAND OR 97219 158.91 YES 1511000006000 WINFREE,DENNIS M WINFREE,LEONOR A 5601 PENNY CIR ANCHORAGE AK 99516 163.32NO 1511000005901 DORSEY,SAGE DORSEY,LYNNE 67200 SAGE RANCH RD BEND OR 97701 80.86NO 67300 SAGE RANCH RD 1511000005900 DORSEY,SAGE DORSEY,LYNNE L 67200 SAGE RANCH RD BEND OR 97701 14.57NO 67200 SAGE RANCH RD 1511000005900 DORSEY,SAGE DORSEY,LYNNE L 67200 SAGE RANCH RD BEND OR 97701 101.79NO 67200 SAGE RANCH RD 1511000005902 DORSEY,SAGE DORSEY,LYNNE 67200 SAGE RANCH RD BEND OR 97701 2.88NO 67190 SAGE RANCH RD 1512000001400 WILLETT,ART PO BOX 1529 REDMOND OR 97756 79.24YES 11900 EAGLE CREST BLVD 1512000005000 THORNBURGH RESORT COMPANY LLC PARKER GROUP INVESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 264 BEND OR 97708 676.49YES 1512000004701 BCC LLC PO BOX 70006 EUGENE OR 97401 1.OONO 1512000005001 THORNBURGH RESORT COMPANY LLC EVENSON,JOHN E 2447 NW CANYON DR REDMOND OR 97756 3.OOYES 1512000007700 THORNBURGH RESORT COMPANY LLC PARKER GROUP INVESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 264 BEND OR 97708 644.94YES 67205 CLINE FALLS RD 1512000007701 THORNBURGH RESORT COMPANY LLC EVENSON,JOHN E 2447 NW CANYON DR REDMOND OR 97756 1.OOYES 1512000005002 THORNBURGH RESORT COMPANY LLC EVENSON,JOHN E 2447 NW CANYON DR REDMOND OR 97756 1.OOYES 1512000007800 THORNBURGH RESORT COMPANY LLC PARKER GROUP INVESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 264 BEND OR 97709 445.14YES 67555 CLINE FALLS RD 1512000007900 THORNBURGH RESORT COMPANY LLC PARKER GROUP INVESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 264 BEND OR 97709 40.63YES 67545 CLINE FALLS RD 1512000007700 THORNBURGH RESORT COMPANY LLC PARKER GROUP INVESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 264 BEND OR 97708 4.62YES 67205 CLINE FALLS RD 1512000007801 THORNBURGH RESORT COMPANY LLC PARKER GROUP INVESTMENTS LLC 79-145 MONTEGO BAY DR BERMUDA CA 92203 40.79YES 67525 CLINE FALLS RD 1512000008000 DE LASHMUTT,AGNES M 4048 NW XAVIER REDMOND OR 97756 46.81 YES 1512000008000 DE LASHMUTT,AGNES M 4048 NW XAVIER REDMOND OR 97756 110.04YES 1512000004700 TRAIL CROSSING REVOCABLE TRUST THORNBURG,EVERETT 16450 SW TRAIL CROSSING RD TERREBONNE OR 97760 167.54NO 67585 CLINE FALLS RD 1510120000500 CYRUS,OMER K CYRUS,CONIDA E 17204 HWY 126 SISTERS OR 97759 81.31 YES 16809 HWY 126 1510140000700 THREE SISTERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT PO BOX 2230 SISTERS OR 97759 190.96YES 68000 HWY 20 1510130000100 CYRUS,O KEITH CYRUS,CONIDA E 17204 HWY 126 SISTERS OR 97759 271.27YES 16850 JORDAN RD 1510130000100 CYRUS,O KEITH CYRUS,CONIDA E 17204 HWY 126 SISTERS OR 97759 39.25YES 16850 JORDAN RD 1510130000702 CYRUS,OMER KEITH CYRUS,CONIDA E 17204 HWY 126 SISTERS OR 97759 67.70YES 68195 CLOVERDALE RD 1510130000501 CYRUS,O KEITH CYRUS,CONIDA E 16900 ASPEN LAKES DR SISTERS OR 97759 2.15YES 1510130000600 THREE SISTERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT PO BOX 2230 SISTERS OR 97759 16.61YES 1511170001100 DESERT SPRINGS RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 11301 SW MILITARY RD PORTLAND OR 97219 27.21 YES 1511170001000 DESERT SPRINGS RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 11301 SW MILITARY RD PORTLAND OR 97219 34.52YES 1511170001100 DESERT SPRINGS RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 11301 SW MILITARY RD PORTLAND OR 97219 3.79YES 1511170001200 DESERT SPRINGS RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 11301 SW MILITARY RD PORTLAND OR 97219 37:99YES 1511170001200 DESERT SPRINGS RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 11301 SW MILITARY RD PORTLAND OR 97219 1.57YES 1510240000200 PATTERSON,KAY ELLEN PO BOX 1839 SISTERS OR 97759 108.43YES 67750 HWY 20 1510240000100 PATTERSON,KAY ELLEN PO BOX 1839 SISTERS OR 97759 13.30YES 1510240000300 PATTERSON,KAY ELLEN PO BOX 1839 SISTERS OR 97759 107.56YES 67640 HWY 20 151119AO01305 DESERT SPRINGS RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 11301 SW MILITARY RD PORTLAND OR 97219 5.06YES 151119AO01304 DESERT SPRINGS RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 11301 SW MILITARY RD PORTLAND OR 97219 5.06YES 151119AO01303 DESERT SPRINGS RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 11301 SW MILITARY RD PORTLAND OR 97219 10.12YES 1511300000100 DESERT SPRINGS RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 11301 SW MILITARY RD PORTLAND OR 97219 87.86YES 1511300000300 DESERT SPRINGS RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 11301 SW MILITARY RD PORTLAND OR 97219 80.60YES 1 51 1 340000400 MEEK,MARVIN 66900 FRYREAR RD BEND OR 97701 40.02NO 1 51 1 340000300 TOMJACK,TOM TOMJACK,MARY 18290 PLAINVIEW RD BEND OR 97701 0.02NO 1511000005600 MEEK,MARVIN 66900 FRYREAR RD BEND OR 97701 161.02NO 66900 FRYREAR RD 1611140000402 NASH-BRAUER,ELIZABETH NASH,CHARLOTTE 65870 WALDRON TRL BEND OR 97701 39.11 YES 65870 WALDRON TRL 1611130001300 HOWARD DAY LIVING TRUST DAY,HOWARD M 65525 GERKING MARKET RD BEND OR 97701 27.04YES 65635 GERKING MARKET RD 1612170002503 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC 20210 SWALLEY RD BEND OR 97701 3.26NO 65770 WILD HORSE TRL 1612170002500 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC 20210 SWALLEY RD BEND OR 97701 27.37NO 65750 WILD HORSE TRL 1612170002501 SUSAN C LOOMIS REVOCABLE TRUST LOOMIS,SUSAN C 65798 WHITE ROCK LOOP RD BEND OR 97701 4.98NO 65740 WILD HORSE TRL 1612170002603 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC FINEBERG,HARVEY V 1812 NW KALORANA SQUARE WASHINGTON DC 20008 3.25NO 65700 WILD HORSE TRL 1612170002700 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC 20210 SWALLEY RD BEND OR 97701 1.78NO 65620 TWIN BRIDGES RD 1612170002701 TUMALO RIVER LLC DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC 21210 SWALLEY RD 420 BEND OR 97701 4.15NO 20400 ARROWHEAD DR 1612170002600 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC 20210 SWALLEY RD BEND OR 97701 26.88NO 65695 WILD HORSE TRL 1612160000500 WESTLUND,BERNARD J II WESTLUND, ELIZABETH J 20590 ARROWHEAD DR BEND OR 97701 0.24NO 20590 ARROWHEAD DR 1612160000500 WESTLUND,BERNARD J 11 WESTLUND, ELIZABETH J 20590 ARROWHEAD DR BEND OR 97701 19.58NO 20590 ARROWHEAD DR 1612160001400 HEDLUND, BEATRICE B 240 SW BIRDSHILL RD PORTLAND OR 97219 0.69NO 1612160001600 KOLISCH,J PIERRE ETUX 11343 SW BREYMAN AVE PORTLAND OR 97219 0.69NO 1612160001002 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC 20210 SWALLEY RD BEND OR 97701 1.67NO 1612160001004 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC VONHEIDEKEN,SVEN G 20435 ARROWHEAD DR BEND OR 97701 2.50NO 20435 ARROWHEAD DR 1612160001002 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC 20210 SWALLEY RD BEND OR 97701 0.41 NO 1612160001001 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC 20210 SWALLEY RD BEND OR 97701 35.28NO 1612160001000 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC 20210 SWALLEY RD BEND OR 97701 2.90NO 1612160001005 JAEGER,JAY D ESTATE OF DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC PO BOX 819 SANTA BARBARA CA 93102 2.50NO 20450 ARROWHEAD DR 1612160001003 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC MOHR,SHAWN M 4831 ROSA RD WOODLAND HILLS CA 91364-3924 2.50NO 20425 ARROWHEAD DR 1612160001300 GATES,SYLVIA B KOLISCH,J PIERRE 2024 SW 58TH ST REDMOND OR 97756 38.09NO 1612160001500 GATES,SYLVIA B 01659 SW GREENWOOD RD PORTLAND OR 97219 0.42NO 1612160000400 SWINDELLS,THEODORE H 20210 SWALLEY RD BEND OR 97701 47.54NO 1612160000900 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC 20210 SWALLEY RD BEND OR 97701 24.48NO 1612160001100 MORTON,DEAN O 20210 SWALLEY RD BEND OR 97701 1.1 ONO 1612160001200 GATES,SYLVIA B KOLISCH,J PIERRE 2024 SW 58TH ST REDMOND OR 97756 38.93NO 1612160000700 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC 20210 SWALLEY RD BEND OR 97701 26.33NO 65900 WHITE ROCK LOOP 1612160000800 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC 20210 SWALLEY RD BEND OR 97701 9.96NO 65850 WHITE ROCK LOOP 1612160000703 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC 20210 SWALLEY RD BEND OR 97701 2.95NO 1612140000802 BUNGE,JOHN L BUNGE,CAROL Y 21225 YOUNG AVE BEND OR 97701 99.85NO 21225 YOUNG AVE 1612140000502 BUNGE,JOHN L BUNGE,CAROL Y 21225 YOUNG AVENUE BEND OR 97701 20.61 NO 65825 61 ST ST 1612140000500 BUNGE,JOHN L BUNGE,CAROL Y 21225 YOUNG AVENUE BEND OR 97701 79.57NO 65745 61 ST ST 1611000010500 TUMALO CREEK DEVELOPMENT LLC 95 SW SCALEHOUSE LOOP BEND OR 97702 403.99YES 1611230000402 JOHNSON,KENNETH C JOHNSON,TRACY A 19228 DAYTON RD BEND OR 97701 0.11 YES 1611230000514 TUMALO CREEK DEVELOPMENT LLC 95 SW SCALEHOUSE LOOP BEND OR 97702 14.83YES 19170 DAYTON RD 1611230000400 TUMALO CREEK DEVELOPMENT LLC 95 SW SCALEHOUSE LOOP BEND OR 97702 15.11 YES 19200 DAYTON RD 1611240000700 DAY,HOWARD M JR 19330 DAYTON RD BEND OR 97701 5.15YES 19330 DAYTON RD 1611240000800 HOWARD M DAY JR TRUST CARLTON,JERRY W 19330 DAYTON RD BEND OR 97701 5.11 YES 19350 DAYTON RD 1612200000104 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC JOHNSON TRUST DATED APRIL 6 1993 20220 SWALLEY RD BEND OR 97701 4.96NO 20220 SWALLEY RD 1612200000100 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC 20210 SWALLEY RD BEND OR 97701 0.20NO 20210 SWALLEY RD 1612200000100 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC 20210 SWALLEY RD BEND OR 97701 0.62NO 20210 SWALLEY RD 161220AA02500 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC 20210 SWALLEY RD BEND OR 97701 5.14NO 20355 ROCK CANYON RD 161220AA02501 BALLENGER,TIM BALLENGER,KIM 2498 NW 1 ST ST BEND OR 97701 5.18NO 1612200000102 PAHLISCH,DENNIS L PAHLISCH, BEVERLY A 20290 ROCK CANYON RD BEND OR 97701 3.23NO 20290 ROCK CANYON RD 161220AA02500 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC 20210 SWALLEY RD BEND OR 97701 11.05NO 20355 ROCK CANYON RD 1612200000103 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC BLAKE,GARY B 20240 ROCK CANYON RD BEND OR 97701 5.43NO 20240 ROCK CANYON RD 1612200000101 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC PAHLISCH,DENNIS L 20290 ROCK CANYON RD BEND OR 97701 2.13NO 1612200000100 DESCHUTES RIVER RANCH GROUP LLC 20210 SWALLEY RD BEND OR 97701 0.14NO 20210 SWALLEY RD 1711000006000 TUMALO CREEK DEVELOPMENT LLC 95 SW SCALEHOUSE LOOP BEND OR 97702 335.58YES 62600 MCCLAIN DR 1711000006205 MILLER TREE FARM LLC 110 NE GREENWOOD AVE BEND OR 97701 526.33YES 18900 SKYLINERS RD 1711000006002 MILLER TREE FARM LLC 110 NE GREENWOOD AVE BEND OR 97701 160.58YES 1713210000100 GASSNER,PETER GASSNER,PIYAJIT 4512 LIN GATE ST PLEASANTON CA 94566 233.52NO 1711260000400 TUMALO CREEK DEVELOPMENT LLC 95 SW SCALEHOUSE LOOP BEND OR 97702 40.25YES 3225 NW SHEVLIN PARK RD 1813060001700 BEND METRO PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT 200 PACIFIC PARK LN BEND OR 97701 79.87YES 1813060001100 DAN AND HELEN RASTOVICH TRUST RASTOVICH,DAN TRUSTEE (CB) 21925 RASTOVICH RD BEND OR 97702 80.26YES 1813050000201 BANEY CORPORATION 475 NE BELLEVUE AVE 210 BEND OR 97701 116.23YES 1813040000105 WARD,KIM D LLC 61535S HWY 97 9-517 BEND OR 97702 17.97NO 23040 HWY 20 1813040000107 WARD,KIM D LLC 61535 S HWY 97 9-517 BEND OR 97702 20.09NO 23050 HWY 20 1813040000108 WARD,KIM D LLC 61535 S HWY 97 9-517 BEND OR 97702 19.89NO 23160 HWY 20 1813040000803 BANEY CORPORATION 475 NE BELLEVUE AVE 210 BEND OR 97701 90.48YES 1813040000300 KIM D WARD LLC 61535S HWY 97 9-517 BEND OR 97702 31.43NO 23125 HWY 20 1813040000300 KIM D WARD LLC 61535 S HWY 97 9-517 BEND OR 97702 13.89NO 23125 HWY 20 1813040000300 KIM D WARD LLC 61535 S HWY 97 9-517 BEND OR 97702 57.09NO 23125 HWY 20 1813030000600 CENTRAL OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1055 SW LAKE CT REDMOND OR 97756 39.93YES 1813030000602 CENTRAL OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1055 SW LAKE CT REDMOND OR 97756 39.80YES 1813000000100 CENTRAL OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1055 SW LAKE CT REDMOND OR 97756 871.69YES 1813000000300 WOHLERS,RUSSEL F WOHLERS,LINDA B 23636 TEN BARR TRAIL BEND OR 97701 159.82YES 23636 TEN BARR TRL 1814000000400 CENTRAL OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1055 SW LAKE CT REDMOND OR 97756 160.66NO 1814000001203 CLARNO CATTLE COMPANY 6811 THUNDERBIRD CT REDMOND OR 97756 280.28NO 61100 OBERNOLTE RD 1813080000101 CURTIS O BANEY TRUST BANEY,CURTIS O COTRUSTEE (CB) 475 NE BELLEVUE AVE 210 BEND OR 97701 4.44YES 61530 GOSNEY RD 1813080000900 CURTIS O BANEY TRUST BANEY,CURTIS O COTRUSTEE (CB) 475 NE BELLEVUE AVE 210 BEND OR 97701 59.13YES 61388 GOSNEY RD 1813080001001 BANEY CORPORATION 475 NE BELLEVUE AVE 210 BEND OR 97701 44.56YES 61330 GOSNEY RD 1813080001000 CURT BANEY INC 475 NE BELLEVUE AVE 210 BEND OR 97701 71.63YES 61270 GOSNEY RD 1813080000200 ELSEY,ANITA S ELSEY,DANIEL T 61590 GOSNEY RD BEND OR 97702 3.05YES 61590 GOSNEY RD 1813080000201 RONALD J ROBINSON JR REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST ROBINSON,RONALD J JR 61560 GOSNEY RD BEND OR 97702 11.40YES 61560 GOSNEY RD 1813080000100 CURTIS O BANEY TRUST BANEY,CURTIS O COTRUSTEE (CB) 475 NE BELLEVUE AVE 210 BEND OR 97701 127.52YES 61508 GOSNEY RD 1813080000700 BEND METRO PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT 200 PACIFIC PARK LN BEND OR 97701 80.49YES 1813080000800 BEND METRO PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT 200 PACIFIC PARK LN BEND OR 97701 78.80YES 1812120000101 RASTOVICH, ROBERT D RASTOVICH,COLLEEN 21915 RASTOVICH RD BEND OR 97702 2.17YES 21915 RASTOVICH RD 1812120000100 DAN AND HELEN RASTOVICH TRUST RASTOVICH,DAN TRUSTEE (CB) 21925 RASTOVICH RD BEND OR 97702 37.79YES 21925 RASTOVICH RD 1813070000301 DAN AND HELEN RASTOVICH TRUST RASTOVICH,DAN TRUSTEE (CB) 21925 RASTOVICH RD BEND OR 97702 41.13YES 1813070000200 DAN AND HELEN RASTOVICH TRUST RASTOVICH,DAN TRUSTEE (CB) 21925 RASTOVICH RD BEND OR 97702 40.OOYES 1813070000100 BEND METRO PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT 200 PACIFIC PARK LN BEND OR 97701 121.51 YES 1813070000500 BEND METRO PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT 200 PACIFIC PARK LN BEND OR 97701 39.93YES 1813070000600 BEND METRO PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT 200 PACIFIC PARK LN BEND OR 97701 39.24YES 61130 WARD RD 1813070000600 BEND METRO PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT 200 PACIFIC PARK LN BEND OR 97701 0.03YES 61130 WARD RD 1813090000900 MONDRY,JEFFREY L 22820 TIMLAND LN BEND OR 97702 19.84YES 22820 TIMLAND LN 1813090002200 BANEY,CURTIS A BANEY,ROBIN J 1550 NE WILLIAMSON BLVD BEND OR 97701 19.06YES 1813090002100 BANEY,CURTIS A BANEY,ROBIN J 1550 NE WILLIAMSON BLVD BEND OR 97701 20.58YES 22895 TIMLAND LN 1813180000100 BEND METRO PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT 200 PACIFIC PARK LN BEND OR 97701 38.73YES 61135 WARD RD 1813180000100 BEND METRO PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT 200 PACIFIC PARK LN BEND OR 97701 O.OOYES 61135 WARD RD 1813180000100 BEND METRO PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT 200 PACIFIC PARK LN BEND OR 97701 155.38YES 61135 WARD RD 1813170002300 BEND METROPOLITAN PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT 200 PACIFIC PARK LN BEND OR 97701 3.90YES 61105 WARD RD 1813170002301 BEND METRO PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT 200 PACIFIC PARK LN BEND OR 97701 3.77YES 1813170002301 BEND METRO PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT 200 PACIFIC PARK LN BEND OR 97701 74.25YES 1813170002300 BEND METROPOLITAN PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT 200 PACIFIC PARK LN BEND OR 97701 34.62YES 61105 WARD RD 1813000006005 SUNDANCE MEADOWS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION 60335 ARNOLD LOOP BEND OR 97702 23.67YES 60305 ARNOLD MARKET RD 1813000006005 SUNDANCE MEADOWS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION 60335 ARNOLD LOOP BEND OR 97702 389.18YES 60305 ARNOLD MARKET RD 1813000006008 SUNDANCE MEADOWS INC 60335 ARNOLD MARKET ROAD BEND OR 97702 3.95YES 1813000006004 SUNDANCE LAND & LIVESTOCK INC PO BOX 644 MURRIETTA CA 92564 5.18YES 60220 STIRLING DR 1812000004400 WINDLINX,ROBERT H TRUSTEE WINDLINX,SHIRLEY M TRUSTEE 59850 SCALE HOUSE RD BEND OR 97702 282.98YES 1812000004411 WINDLINX,ROBERT H TRUSTEE WINDLINX,SHIRLEY M TRUSTEE 59850 SCALE HOUSE RD BEND OR 97702 145.03YES 60000 SCALE HOUSE RD 1812000004419 WINDLINX, FREDERICK R 59895 SCALE HOUSE RD BEND OR 97702 41.83YES 59895 SCALE HOUSE RD 1812000004418 WINDLINX,ROBERT H TRUSTEE WINDLINX,SHIRLEY M TRUSTEE 59850 SCALE HOUSE RD BEND OR 97702 248.52YES 59850 SCALE HOUSE RD 1812000004420 WINDLINX,ROBERT H WINDLINX,SHIRLEY M 59885 SCALEHOUSE RD BEND OR 97702 35.60YES 59885 SCALE HOUSE RD 1812000004412 KERR,DONALD M KERR,CAMERON M 59700 SCALE HOUSE RD BEND OR 97702 207.43YES 59700 SCALE HOUSE RD 1812000000099 KERR,DONALD M KERR,JOSEPHINE T 59700 SCALE HOUSE RD BEND OR 97702 7.21 YES 1812000004404 J L WARD CO 20505 MURPHY RD BEND OR 97702 33.40YES 20000 KNOTT RD 1812000004404 J L WARD CO 20505 MURPHY RD BEND OR 97702 317.59YES 20000 KNOTT RD 1812220001800 PAPE' PROPERTIES INC 355 GOODPASTURE ISLAND RD EUGENE OR 97401 12.14NO 1812220001900 PAPE' PROPERTIES INC 355 GOODPASTURE ISLAND RD EUGENE OR 97401 7.88NO 60375 CORRAL RD 1812000004400 WINDLINX,ROBERT H TRUSTEE WINDLINX,SHIRLEY M TRUSTEE 59850 SCALE HOUSE RD BEND OR 97702 282.98YES 1812000004411 WINDLINX,ROBERT H TRUSTEE WINDLINX,SHIRLEY M TRUSTEE 59850 SCALE HOUSE RD BEND OR 97702 145.03YES 60000 SCALE HOUSE RD 1812000004419 WINDLINX, FREDERICK R 59895 SCALE HOUSE RD BEND OR 97702 41.83YES 59895 SCALE HOUSE RD 1812000004418 WINDLINX,ROBERT H TRUSTEE WINDLINX,SHIRLEY M TRUSTEE 59850 SCALE HOUSE RD BEND OR 97702 248.52YES 59850 SCALE HOUSE RD 1812000004420 WINDLINX,ROBERT H WINDLINX,SHIRLEY M 59885 SCALEHOUSE RD BEND OR 97702 35.60YES 59885 SCALE HOUSE RD 1812000004412 KERR,DONALD M KERR,CAMERON M 59700 SCALE HOUSE RD BEND OR 97702 207.43YES 59700 SCALE HOUSE RD 1812000000099 KERR,DONALD M KERR,JOSEPHINE T 59700 SCALE HOUSE RD BEND OR 97702 7.21 YES 1812000004404 J L WARD CO 20505 MURPHY RD BEND OR 97702 33.40YES 20000 KNOTT RD 1812000004404 J L WARD CO 20505 MURPHY RD BEND OR 97702 317.59YES 20000 KNOTT RD 1813200001401 SUNDANCE MEADOWS PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION 60335 ARNOLD LOOP BEND OR 97702 157.42YES 60300 ARNOLD MARKET RD 1812270000100 PAPE PROPERTIES INC PO BOX 407 EUGENE OR 97440 80.08NO 1812270000200 PAPE PROPERTIES INC PO BOX 407 EUGENE OR 97440 138.85NO 60340 CORRAL RD 1812260000600 MOORE,PATRICIA A POWERS,CHERYL D 21295 BACK ALLEY RD BEND OR 97702 80.01 NO 21295 BACK ALLEY ~`JTES' cp ~G 2 lU ~ March 1, 2010 Dear Planning Commissioners: Board of County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200 • Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 385-3202 www. co. deschutes. or. us board @ co. deschutes. or. us Tammy Baney Dennis R. Luke Alan Unger The letter is to inform you that the Board of County Commissioners has established a goal to complete the new Comprehensive Plan in Fiscal Year 2010-11. We support the Planning Commission's Comprehensive Plan review schedule included in the February 25, 2010 Planning Commission packet. The schedule anticipates the Planning Commission complete its work sessions by the end of August, begin public hearings in October, and forward a recommendation to the Board no later than December 16, 2010. We expect the Planning Commission to hold to this schedule so the Board can begin its work on the new Plan early in 2011 to achieve this important goal on time. Please know we appreciate the thorough nature of the Planning Commission's work in developing the new Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your time and commitment to Deschutes County. S/enn~is uZ;, ~ air Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Alan Unger, Vice Chair Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Tammy Baney, Commissioner Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Enhancing the Lives of Citizens by Delivering Quality Services in a Cost-Effective Manner /,~/,~rTT~iU ~~s'l~i~lov~ 9. f /p! ~ 20 ~ o/D Q~N4~lO' 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/ Destination Resort Remapping Amendments (Ordinances 2010-001 and 2010-002) Deschutes County Planning Commission Recommendation February 25, 2010 Procedure: The Deschutes County Planning Commission reconsidered their December 2 recommendation regarding the destination resort remapping amendments (Ordinances 2010-001 and 2010-002). Todd Turner was unable to attend the meeting. Ed Criss, Chris Brown, Richard Kylce and Merle Irvine unanimously modified their earlier recommendation by forwarding the following motions to the Board, while Keith Cyrus recused himself. Motions Exclusive Farm Use Motion (1): Remove the existing ineligible EFU criteria (40 or greater contiguous acres in irrigation; and non-contiguous EFU acres in the same ownership having 60 or greater irrigated acres). Platted Subdivisions Motion (2): Remove staff's recommendation that platted subdivision become ineligible for destination resorts. Motion (3): Add as an eligibility criterion undeveloped/unimproved subdivisions. Motion (4): Add as an eligibility criterion cluster developments that have at least 50 percent of their site dedicated to permanent open space, excluding streets and parking areas. Grandfather Clause Motion (5): Properties presently designated as eligible on the destination resort map shall retain that designation unless a property specifically requests in writing, a desire to be unmapped. Quality Services Performed With Pride Page 1 of 1 Peter Gutowsky From: Frank Baldwin [skibum@bendcable.com] Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 3:26 PM To: Peter Gutowsky Subject: Resort Remapping We implore you to consider the following: (1) Deschutes County's proposed resort reforms do not reflect public testimony that has been gathered over several years. To quote the Planning Department's own Jan. 5, 2009 Management Area Listening Sessions Summary "staff held listening sessions around the county to discuss how the comprehensive plan was working and what policy areas needed attention. At each of these listening sessions residents raised the issue of destination resorts. Additionally, other written comments regarding resorts have been submitted. With a few exceptions, what staff heard from the public is that Deschutes County has enough destination resorts. [emphasis added] Concerns were expressed that resorts are primarily exclusive subdivisions, which have impacts on traffic, water availability, natural resources and rural character. A moratorium, similar to the one adopted for Crook County, was recommended by a number of listening session participants." The summary goes on: "The overall consensus (with a few exceptions) was that we don't understand the impacts of resorts, can't enforce the resort regulations and should not allow more resorts. Another common theme was the need to protect water and other natural resources. A final common theme was mistrust and frustration with county land use and with county government in general." (2) Any lands which do not currently comply with county and state ordinances must be eliminated. (3) New lands under multiple ownership must not be added. Thank you. M/M Frank Baldwin Sisters 3/1/2010 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 ~E (541) 388-6575 FAX (541) 385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us\cdd L( Pr, A r Management Area Listening Sessions Summary Six listening sessions were held in October and November of 2008 to allow the public to discuss how well Deschutes County land use policies are working and what needs attention. Staff divided the county into seven Management Areas (MAs), two of which are primarily public lands, where the only houses are a handful of cabins. For the other five Management Areas a listening session was held in a central location. There was an additional meeting scheduled in Terrebonne for the Northeast Management Area because the first meeting for that area was scheduled on election evening. All meetings went from 6-8 p.m. Date Management Area ■ 10-28 Northwest ■ 10-30 Central ■ 11-4 Northeast ■ 11-6 South n 11-12 East ■ 11-13 Northeast Location Attendees Sisters City Hall 23 people Deschutes Services Center 2 people Redmond School District Offices 2 people La Pine Senior Center 20 people Brothers School 23 people Terrebonne Community School 12 people Exercise At each listening session community members were invited to participate in an exercise. Six goals from our current comprehensive plan were set around the room on large sheets of paper and the audience was asked to place a purple dot on the sheet with their most favorite goal and a blue dot on the sheet with their least favorite goal. Results of Listening Session Exercise - MOST LEAST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS FAVORITE FAVORITE "To preserve and enhance rural character, scenic 29 1 values and natural resources of the county." "To maintain existing water supplies at present 8 1 quantity and quality." "To reserve and maintain agriculture land." 6 5 "To allow flexibility of housing location, type and 3 11 density in Deschutes County." "To conserve forest lands for forest uses." 2 0 "To provide for the development of destination resorts 1 48 in Deschutes County." Management Area Listening Sessions Meeting Notes At each meeting staff briefly discussed the comprehensive plan update process, then listened to the community. Notes were taken on large pads to assure the correct capture of ideas. At the Northwest Management Area meeting six written comments were handed to staff on the topic of destination resorts. These written comments as well as detailed notes from each session can be found at our website www.deschutes.or /g cdd under comprehensive plan update. This is a brief rundown of the main issues discussed. Overall The issue of destination resorts was raised and discussed at every session. The overall consensus (with a few exceptions) was that we don't understand the impacts of resorts, can't enforce the resort regulations and should not allow more resorts. Another common theme was the need to protect water and other natural resources. A fmal common theme was mistrust and frustration with county land use and with county government in general. Northwest MA This discussion focused primarily on destination resorts and with one exception there was support for a moratorium on resorts and/or repealing the overlay map. Primary concerns included effects on water quantity/quality and fish/wildlife; the lack of understanding of the cumulative impacts of many resorts; the need for workforce housing; traffic; mitigations across jurisdictions and the inability of the county to enforce existing regulations. Suggestions ■ Enact a moratorium on destination resorts ■ Have resort applications address cumulative impacts from area resorts ■ Have applicants provide funding for the county to hire independent experts for impact analysis ■ Use bond money for funding studies on resorts, for land preservation or for mitigation and monitoring Central MA Concerns were noted over destination resorts, traffic congestion and crime. The county was urged to maintain rural areas and natural resources and to address fire hazards. Suggestion ■ Repeal the destination resort map ■ Create policies for addressing fire hazards ■ Trade county lands to obtain and preserve land along the rivers Northeast MA Water quality and quantity were a concern as were destination resorts, which use water and city services. It was noted that canals should not be piped as they are an historic resource and add moisture to the air and support wildlife, vegetation and quality of life. Suggestions ■ Balance individual and community rights and support agriculture ■ Create an internet site to match people wanting to farm with people who have land that could be farmed Pg 2 December 2, 2008 Management Area Listening Sessions South MA Concern was expressed over the south county position on the Planning Commission being held by someone not from south county. It was noted that the county should do a better job of enforcing dock requirements, since illegal docks affect water quality. A moratorium on destination resorts was recommended and various negative impacts from resorts were noted by many of the participants. A number of residents noted that south county residents feel like they have no control and are treated differently than residents in other parts of the county. It was stated that there are many problems in La Pine but also many involved and active residents. The negative impacts of resorts came up again. Comments were made on the importance of promoting local businesses. The local rule was discussed. Suggestions ■ Send out a questionnaire to understand community opinions on destination resorts ■ Enact a moratorium on destination resorts ■ Develop a code to encourage the use of graywater East MA Concern was expressed over the restrictiveness of the farm zoning in east county. It was noted that the overlay for wildlife is too restrictive and the required fencing does not work. Concern was expressed over the lack of respect for farmers shown by recreational hunters, hikers and motorcycle riders. The large size of the parcels makes it harder to watch over your property and posting doesn't help. Some noted that allowing more homes and a community would help wildlife and the additional children would allow the school to operate. Others objected to additional development. There were mixed opinions over whether to protect large ranches or allow them to subdivide. It was noted that the county needs better light requirements and enforcement to allow the observatory to operate. There were objections to the county land use processes and comments that the community does not trust the county. Suggestions ■ Amend fencing and wildlife overlay requirements ■ Require and enforce cut-off lights Northeast MA #2 It was noted that much EFU land is hard to farm. The importance to the community of natural resources was discussed. Concern was expressed because access to the river at Eagle Rock swimming hole has been closed. A discussion was held over water tables and the impacts of destination resorts. Various traffic concerns were noted, including the lack of enforcement of speed laws and no-parking zones. Suggestions ■ Protect natural resources and promote growth in urban areas ■ Before selling County-owned lands, engage in public outreach ■ Create water management plans ■ Coordinate with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Department of Forestry to protect natural resources and ensure logging of downed timber Pg 3 December 2, 2008 ESCHUTES COUNTY FARM BUREAU YOUR VOICE IN AGRICULTORE P.O. Box 2229, Sisters, OR 97759 February 19, 2010 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Deschutes Service Center 1300 NW Wall Bend, OR 97701 Re; Destination Resort Remapping Dear Commissioners, In reviewing the staff report prepared for the November 19, 2009 Hearing on Destination Resort Siting, I found a couple of issues that I feel need further clarification. On page 2, in section 2. Deschutes County Destination Resort Chapter, it is represented that, "the County supplemented the state's criteria by excluding certain large agricultural and forest parcels, and resource lands within one mile of a UGB." While technically correct, the statement would lead a reader to believe that the lands left off the map were determined to not qualify. However, Ordinance 92-002 is clear that the current map is only Phase I and that "The County has chosen to defer consideration of certain EFU-zoned lands in EFU-20 and EFU 40 zones. These lands are those lands in contiguous ownership containing 40 or more acres of contiguous irrigated land or 60 or more acres of non-contiguous land in tiie same ownership. " (Ord. 92-002, page 9, last paragraph) The last paragraph of page 10 goes on to say that "7lie map does not represent County destination resort mapping decisions on privately-owned EFU-20 or EFU-40 lands in contiguous ownership containing 40 or more acres of contiguous irrigated land or 60 or "tore aches of non-contiguous irrigated land in the same ownership. In succeeding phases of the county's destination-resort zoning process tite County will proceed to consider whether destination resorts should be sited on its privately-ownedforest lands and on privately-owned EFU lands not considered for destination resorts in this first phase." The important omission from the staff report is that, while anticipated, subsequent phases of the resort mapping process have never been completed. The 1992 ordinance was only the first phase of the process and spelled out as such. The EFU lands described above were not excluded from the map, but were omitted due to the fact that they were still under consideration. I believe that the current mapping process should include consideration of these lands on their merits as was anticipated (and provided for) 18 years ago. With that in mind, I would recommend that these lands be included in the map if they otherwise qualify. When these properties were originally being considered, there were no mitigation requirements for new water rights. Anyone who needed groundwater, simply had to file a permit with the state and prove up on that use. Since that time, new water use requires the purchase of mitigation credits. The net result is that for every one acre of new land brought under irrigation, 1.8 acres of existing surface water is required to be transferred to an in-stream use, thereby drying up almost twice as much farm land than if the "new" use was done on irrigated land to start with. Given, the changes in market trends, it is conceivable that new resorts might include working farms or ranches as part of the amenity package. These creative possibilities should not be precluded by arbitrarily excluding them from the resort map. An additional point to consider is that the term irrigated can be misleading. Due to the large variation in priority dates, some "junior" water rights may only receive water for a few days every few years. I would recommend defining "irrigated" to include only land that has 100% water availability. In conclusion, I would ask that the County complete the phased mapping process that was started 18 years ago and include the EFU lands of more than 40 acres of contiguous irrigation and those of more than 60 acres of non-contiguous irrigation on the destination resort map. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Matt Cyru .t 92-05046 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES An Ordinance Amending PL-20, The Deschutes County Year 2000 Plan, to Adopt a Map to Allow for the Siting of Destination Resorts on Certain Lands in Deschutes County and Declaring an Emergency. ORDINANCE NO. 92-002 REVIEWED T"V~ I.EG,AL COUNSEL COUNTY, OREGON og 1 300 ~.7 <n Com&Wheeive imple16 LCDC ms`s ~ r Cn Plan; WHEREAS, Deschutes County has an acknowledged WHEREAS, Deschutes County has determined to Statewide Planning Goal 8; and WHEREAS, public hearings have been held consistent w%rth the requirements of state law on implementing Goal 8 in Deschutes County; WHEREAS, in implementing Goal 8 it is necessary to amend certain portions of Ordinance No. PL-20, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Plan; now therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance No. PL-20, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended (Plan), is further amended by the adoption as a part of the Resource Element of the Plan of a county- wide map designating certain lands in Deschutes County for the siting of destination resorts and a series of 8 maps showing portions of the county-wide map in greater detail. Said county-wide map, labelled "Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Destination Resort Map and Destination Resort Combining Zone Map" has been separately signed by the Board of County Commissioners on this date and is hereby incorporated by reference herein. Said detail maps have likewise each been separately signed on this date and are by this reference incorporated herein. Section 2. The Resource Element of Ordinance PL-20, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, is further amended to include the text setting forth the mapping process supporting adoption of the Deschutes County Destination Resort Map, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 3. The Board of County Commissioners adopts as its findings and conclusions in support of these amendments the text attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein and the findings set forth as Exhibit "B," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 1 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 KEP CHED v,jc~o~iMEC FE; 1 1992 MAR 0? ►.99? . f 0108 1301 Section 4. This ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage. DATED this day of February, 1992. BOARD OF C LINTY COMMISSIONERS OF DES-CHU S COUNTY, OREGON one TE ecording S cretary ss 2 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1302 EXHIBIT B Goal 8 and its codification in state law, found at ORS 197.435 et seq. (hereafter collectively referred to as Goal 8) require that counties adopt a map showing where on rural resource lands destination resorts can be sited. The map adopted by Deschutes County as part of its comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance is shown on the county--wide map labelled "Land Available for Destination Resorts in Deschutes County" and the series of 8 large scale maps covering portions of the county-wide map in greater detail (collectively referred to as "Phase I destination resort map") accompanying this text. Goal 8 requires that a county's Goal 8 map not include certain areas of natural resource significance. Those areas include sites having significant farm soils or highly productive farms; sites of :high forest productivity; sites with inventoried Goal 5 resources that the County has chosen to fully protect; and areas of especially sensitive big game habitat as identified by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department. Counties have the option to go further than the restrictions of Goal 8 and exclude additional areas from consideration for destination resort siting. To aid in developing the County's Goal 8 map, a series of reference maps was produced showing exception areas where destination resorts are currently allowed, showing the location of resource lands that under Goal 8 can not be considered for destination resort siting, showing lands in public ownership and showing other lands that for policy reasons the Board of County Commissioners determined either should not be considered further for destination resort or on which a decision would be deferred to a later date. The information on these reference maps, such as zoning boundaries, soils boundaries, and land ownership boundaries, was digitally scanned from source maps onto the reference maps. These maps were produced by Wilsey & Ham Pacific, a contractor retained by Eagle Crest Partners, Ltd. Eagle Crest's desire to site a destination resort through the Goal 8'process precipitated the legislative Goal 8 process. The Board finds that the technology used in preparing these maps is state of the art. The Board finds that, based on the technology employed by the contractor that the accuracy of these maps meets or exceeds hand drawn maps. The only challenge to the accuracy of these maps during the hearing process was a question as to whether the maps could be trusted to be objective and unbiased given that they were prepared by development interests. Planning staff spot-checked the maps and found the information presented was an exact representation of the County's current data base. Based upon this information, the Board has no reason to believe that these maps are biased in any way. These maps were all made a part of the record and will be referred to hereafter by the Exhibit number given them in the public hearing process. 3 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1303 Phased Mapping Sequence and Deferral of Decision on Certain Lands For reasons that will be discussed below, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that the mapping of areas where destination resorts are permitted should occur in a phased sequence. In Phase I, completed in February 1992, the County has reviewed the desirability county-wide of siting destination resorts in the following areas: privately owned lands in the F-1, EFU-320, EFU-80, OS&C, RSR-5, RSR-M, AD, RSC and RI zones. In addition, the County has reviewed the desirability county-wide of siting destination resorts on resource land within one (1) mile of established urban growth boundaries in the county. Finally, the County has determined the desirability of siting destination resorts on certain EFU-20 and EFU-40 lands. These lands include unirrigated farm lands (so called "dry lands") and irrigated lands having less than 40 contiguous acres in irrigation, or non-contiguous irrigated acres in the same ownership having less than 60 irrigated acres. The Board has determined that at this time it should defer consideration of the County's F-2 and F-3 forest lands and on the irrigated farm lands not considered in the first phase. The reasons for this decision relate to the County's ongoing periodic review process and will be discussed further on in these findings. There was much public discussion as to whether it is permissible for the County to complete its Goal 8 destination resort map in a phased process. The Board finds that the County has developed a data base on a county-wide basis to identify land areas that under Goal 8 are off limits to destination resort siting. As is discussed further below, the only Goal 8 exclusions applicable to Deschutes County are the requirements concerning farmland and wildlife habitat areas. These areas have been identified on reference Maps 3 and 9. The areas so mapped have not been included in the Phase I destination resort map and will not be included in any revised maps resulting from County consideration of the F-2 and F-3 forest lands and the remaining EFU-20 and EFU-40 lands. Having identified the lands required by Goal 8 to be excluded, nothing in the Goal precludes the County from dividing the County's lands on a county-wide basis into several different classes and deferring consideration of destination resort siting for certain of those land classes. The Board finds that a destination resort map produced in phases satisfies Goal 8 as to those areas mapped so long as (1) the Goal 8 areas have been excluded, and (2) the map is sufficiently detailed to determine from the map a site's eligibility without need of any further map refinement. The Board finds ( 1 ) that the Goal 8 areas have been excluded, as is further discussed below, and (2) that the Phase I destination resort map will allow destination resort siting without requiring further refinement. The Phase I map includes maps of a scale that will clearly show which parcels are included. Furthermore, by its terms, the zoning ordinance adopted as part of this package will 4 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1304 allow destination resorts to be sited only on lands designated by the DR zone. Exception Areas The County currently allows destination resorts to be sited in areas within certain exception areas - MUA-10 and RR-10 - on the County's rural lands. The County proposes to continue to allow destination resorts in such areas. These areas already have an exception from the resource land goals under the County's acknowledged comprehensive plan and the use of such lands for destination resorts need not be justified under the Goal 8 process. These areas were depicted on reference Map #6, labelled "Rural Residential Zoning." They are shown on the Phase I destination resort map, and are therefore available for destination resort siting. Other exception areas are generally found in and near the County's rural service centers, such as Tumalo, Alfalfa, and Terrebonne. Destination resorts historically have not been allowed in these areas, and the County finds no reason why this policy should be changed. Consequently, those areas, referenced on Map #5, are not shown on the Phase I destination resort map and are therefore not available for destination resort siting. Publicly owned Lands Much of the rural resource lands in the County lie in public ownership, mostly federal land administered by the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. The County has limited regulatory jurisdiction over such lands. In addition, these lands are not generally available for private development on the scale of destination resorts. Accordingly, these lands were excluded from further consideration. These lands were mapped on Map #2, "Deschutes County Public Land Ownership," and do not show on the Phase I destination resort map. Resource Lands The Board of County Commissioners made a policy choice to not include other lands for further consideration as possible destination resort sites. These lands include lands whose zoning classifications denote them as having special resource values, including all lands within the F-1, EFU-320, EFU-80 and OS&C zones. The F-1 zone is composed of the prime forest areas of the County, virtually all of which is in public ownership. The EFU-320 lands are range lands in the eastern part of the County, most of which is involved in large grazing operations on BLM-owned lands. They also include areas having significant wildlife values for antelope and sage grouse. The EFU-80 lands are composed of the best farm lands in the County or of riparian areas. These lands are shown on Map #4 and do not appear on the Phase I destination resort snap. 5 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 31 a8 1305 Lands Adjacent to Urban Growth Boundaries other lands excluded from further consideration as a matter of discretionary policy include all lands within one (1) mile of the Urban Growth Boundaries of the Bend, Redmond and Sisters urban areas except those in existing MUA-10 or RR-10 exception areas. The Planning Commission expressed concerns that the location of destination resorts on resource lands adjacent to urban growth boundaries could have negative impacts on the orderly expansion of the County's urban areas -and recommended that consideration of destination resorts in these areas be deferred pending further study. The Board of County Commissioners shares the concerns of the Planning Commission. The Board finds that a one-mile buffer area around existing urban growth boundaries is reasonable to safeguard the orderly expansion of the County's urban areas. Accordingly, the Board finds as a matter of policy that it does not wish to allow destination resort siting on resource lands in these areas. These resource areas are mapped on Map #9A and do not appear on the Phase I destination resort map. The Board finds that destination resorts and rural subdivisions are currently permitted in RR-10 and MUA-10 committed exception areas adjacent to urban growth boundaries. The Board finds no evidence that the existing designations would create a significant problem and will allow destination resorts to continue to be sited in these areas adjacent to the counties urban growth boundaries. Goal 8 excluded areas Wildlife Areas Goal 8 requires exclusion of all areas of especially signficant big game habitat mapped by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) in July of 1984, as further refined by local comprehensive plans implementing this requirement. The County's Phase I destination resort map does not include any such areas. The 1984 Fish and Wildlife Map shows four areas of the County as areas of especially signficant big game habitat. The areas mapped by ODFW include the Tumalo deer winter range, a portion of the Metolius deer winter range and two areas of antelope winter range east of Bend near Horse Ridge and Millican. The LCDC Destination Resort Handbook states that the especially sensitive areas mapped by ODFW are much less extensive that the areas designated as big game habitat in acknowledged plans. The ODFW map notes that the location of the denoted wildlife habitat is generalized and is subject to local refinement. The County's comprehensive range areas that cover more are area These areas have been designated plan includes specific deer winter than those shown on the ODFW map. as a wildlife area combining zone in 6 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1306 the County's zoning ordinance. In addition to covering the ODFW mapped deer winter ranges, the WA zone encompasses the antelope range hear Horse Ridge and most of the Millican antelope range. Reference map #3, "Deschutes County Wildlife Overlay Zone," shows these wildlife zones. These mapped areas are not included in the Phase I destination resort map. The remainder of the Millican antelope area shown on the ODFW map coincides with EFU-320 zoning and has already been excluded from destination resort siting by the Board's decision to not site destination resorts on EFU-320 lands. Farm lands Goal 8 protects sites with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farm land identified and mapped by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and lands that are within three miles of farm lands lying within a High-value Crop area. No areas were identified as having unique soils. In Deschutes County, numerous soils are considered to be prime farm land when irrigated. A list of those soils is included in the record. After excluding the wildlife areas and all other excluded areas, the occurrence of each of these soil types on EFU-20 and EFU-40 lands and in non-resource lands (MUA-10 and RR-10) was mapped by digitally scanning SCS maps and then transferring that information onto a county zoning map. (Reference maps 6 and 8 depict the EFU-20, EFU-40, MUA-10 and RR-10 land base on which soil information was obtained.) The occurrence of all prime soils in these areas was mapped regardless of whether the prime soils occurred in areas of less than 50 contiguous acres. The prime soils map reflecting this information is shown on reference Map #9. The Board finds that EFU-20 and EFU-40 lands with prime soils have not been included on the County's Phase 1 destination resort map. The Board finds that by adhering to the Phase I destination resort map, the County will not allow destination resorts to be sited on any prime soils on those resource lands.' The Board finds that the zoning ordinance implementing Goal 8 adopted as part of this Goal 8 package permits siting of destination resorts only on ].ands actually mapped and zoned for destination resort use. Consequently, even if a parcel located on resource lands has prime soils on one portion and a destination resort designation on another portion, the prime soils will not be available for destination resort siting. By definition High Crop Value areas consist of a concentration of farms capable of producing crops or products with a minimum gross ' With respect to the non-resource lands, the Board has already found that destination resorts should continue to be recognized as appropriate uses in such areas. 7 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0.08 130' value of $1,000 per acre per year.' The Board finds that no such areas exist in Deschutes County. The Board finds from OSU Extension Service annual commodity reports that potatoes are the only field crop produced commercially in Deschutes County that yields a gross value of at least $1,000. In 1983 potatoes could yield $1,890 per acre, when 700 acres of potatoes were harvested in Deschutes County. In 1991, only 350 acres were harvested, with a value of $2237 per acre. The Board finds from the evidence that it is reasonable to conclude that the lower figures in 1991 as compared to 1984 represents a general decline rather than a low point in a cyclical pattern. The evidence shows that potato production in Deschutes County was 300 acres in 1989 and 300 acres in 1990. This conclusion is corroborated by testimony that the Fred Hodecker Potato Company in .Redmond went out of business in recent years. Peppermint is the only other field crop of signficance; however, according to Extension Service data, the value of peppermint was $720 per acre in 1903 and $960 per acre in 1991. The County finds that there is not a concentration of commercial farms growing potatoes in the County. Only a few individual growers in the County produce potatoes; they are isolated from one another and not of sufficient concentration to qualify any area as a High Value Crop areas. Furthermore, the County finds that the stated purpose of the High-Value Crop Areas is to minimize conflicts in resort siting. The Board finds that the relatively few number of acres in potato production tend to in and of itself minimize conflicts. According to extension data, the acreage total is relatively small and the dollar value of potatoes constitutes less than 5% of the County's aggregate agricultural produce value. The County recognizes that llamas are achieving increasing importance as an agricultural commodity in the County. However, the production of livestock is riot by the Goal 8 definition a high value crop, unless such production is concentrated in the form of feed lots. Furthermore, llama producers are scattered throughout the County and not concentrated sufficiently to qualify any llama producing areas as High Value Crop areas. Based upon the above analysis, the Board finds that it is not s The Board makes no determination at this time on whether the $1,000 figure must be expressed in 1984 dollars or in 1991 dollars. Goal 8 is ambiguous on this point. For the purposes of this analysis, the Board need not makes this determination, since it is clear from the data presented below that whether 1984 or 1991 is used as the benchmark, only potatoes qualify as a high value crop. 8 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0.08 1308 necessary to identify any High Value Crop Areas in Deschutes County for exclusion. The Phase I Destination Resort Map therefore does not include any High-Value Crop Areas. Goal 5 Protected Areas Goal 8 requires exclusion of all areas fully protected by a County under the Goal 5 administrative rule (so called "3A" sites) in an acknowledged comprehensive plan. Fully protected Goal 5 sites do place limitations on the conflicting land uses and resources to the extent that there are no conflicts with the Goal 5 resource. No sites currently inventoried as Goal 5 sites in Deschutes County are fully protected under Goal 5. The treatment of all such sites under the County's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances either fully protects the land use or resource in conflict with the Goal 5 resource (e.g., surface mining site 251) or limits both the conflicting use or resource and the Goal 5 resource (e.g. surface mining site 294). Other Goal 8 Protected Areas Other areas required to be excluded by Goal 8 by their terms do not apply to Deschutes County. No part of the County is within 24 air miles of an urban growth boundary with an existing population of 100,000 or more. The County has no forest lands classified as predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class I or 2. The County is not within the Columbia Gorge. Deferred Areas The County has chosen to proceed with the destination resort mapping in a phased process. The County's forest lands will not be considered for destination resort zoning until such time as the County completes its implementation of the LCDC forest rule. The forest rule does not allow Counties to amend their comprehensive plans concerning their forest lands prior to implementation of the rule. Consequently, the Phase I Destination Resort Map does not reflect decisions on the county's forest lands. The Planning Commission had made a recommendation for discussion purposes defining "impacted forest areas" and "non-impacted forest areas" and recommended that destination resorts he sited only on as yet unmapped impacted forest areas. The Board finds that it is more appropriate that this issue be addressed during the implementation of the forest rule and thereafter. Therefore, the Board declines to take further action at this time. The County has also chosen to defer consideration of certain EFU-zoned lands in the EFU-20 and EFU-40 zones. These lands are those composed of lands in contiguous ownership containing 40 or more acres of contiguous irrigated land or 60 or more acres of non- contiguous irrigated land in the same ownership. These lands were referred to by the Planning Commission in their recommendation to the 9 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1309 Board of County Com*nissioners as „other important agricultural areas." The Planning commission expressed concerns about the potential impacts on agricultural communities and commercial agriculture if such lands were designated for destination resort siting. The Board expresses no opinion on the Planning Commission's concerns. Because of uncertainties surrounding what constitutes commercial agriculture in the County, the Board finds that it would be prudent to await the results of a farm study currently being undertaken as part of the periodic review of the County's comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances before considering these lands for destination resort siting. The Board attaches no signficance of any kind to the Planning Commission's "important agricultural areas" label, and will conduct an independent analysis of the deferred areas as part of the periodic review process. Summary of Process The Phase I Destination Resort Map represents the County's compliance with Goal 8's mapping requirement in this first phase of destination resort mapping and reflects other discretionary local decisions. The map represents the County's final mapping decision county- wide on all privately-owned F-1, EFU-320, EFU-80, OS&C, RSR-5, RSR-M, AD, RSC, and RI zones. In addition, the map represents the County's final mapping decision on all private resource land within 1 mile of the County's urban growth boundaries. Finally, outside the 1-mile buffer, the map represents final zoning destination resort zoning decisions on a portion of the County's privately owned EFU-20 and EFU-40 lands that have less than 40 contiguous acres of irrigation in the same ownership or that have less than 60 non-contiguous acres of non-irrigated lands in the same ownership. The map does not include any area that Goal 8 excludes from destination resort siting. n The map does not represent County destination resort mapping decisions on privately-owned forest lands nor does it represent County destination resort zoning decisions on privately-owned EFU-20 or EFU-40 lands in contiguous ownership containing 40 or more acres of contiguous irrigated land or 60 or more acres of non-contiguous irrigated land in the same ownership. In succeeding phases of the county's destination-resort zoning process the County will proceed to consider whether destination resorts should be sited on its privately-owned forest lands and on privately-owned EFU lands not considered for destination resorts in this first phase. TT~c- NPS ) Dti 10 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1310 Exhibit B FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF DESTINATION RESORT ORDINANCES 92-001, 92-002, 92-003, and 92-004 i. On April 19, 1991, the County accepted an application from Eagle Crest Partners, Ltd. for a legislative amendment to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County Zoning ordinance to implement the provisions of LCDC Statewide Planning Goal 8 relating to destination resort siting on resource lands. 2. Goal 8 sets forth two components for Counties seeking to implement the Goal's destination resort siting program. First, the County must identify those areas in the County available for destination resort siting after identifying and excluding certain farm and forest resource lands, wildlife habitat areas, and areas including inventoried Goal 5 resources fully protected under the County's acknowledged comprehensive plan. The second component is to implement regulations that will at a minimum (1) maintain identified natural features, such as threatened or endangered species, streams, river and significant wetlands; (2) provide buffers and setbacks between improvements and activities taking place within destination resorts in order to avoid or minimize adverse effects of destination resorts on surrounding lands; (3) limit uses occurring within the destination resort to those permitted by Goal 8; and (4) provide assurance that the required developed recreational facilities, visitor-oriented accommodations, and other key facilities are physically provided or are guaranteed through surety bonding or other substantially equivalent financial assurances prior to closure of sale of individual lots or units. 3. The Planning Commission held several public hearings and worksession at which destination resorts and their impacts were generally reviewed; policies were reviewed for determining which of the resource lands in the Countv should be made available for destination resort siting; data concerning certain classes of resource lands required to be excluded from destination resort siting was reviewed; and a proposed ordinance regulating siting of destination resorts was reviewed. 4. Based upon their extensive review of the issues and the data, the Planning Commission issued a report recommending a destination resort package to the Board of County Commissioners, which included a proposed map for siting destination resorts, a proposed zoning ordinance regulating destination resort siting, and certain policy recommendations. 5. The Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the Planning Commission's recommendations on January 8, 1992. 11 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0,108 1311 6. Based upon its extensive review of the record, including the record developed before the Planning Commission, the Board made a tentative decision on a destination resort map and ordinance provisions governing the siting of destination resorts. 7. Based upon the Board's tentative decision, County staff assembled a package of ordinances to implement the Board's decision. Those ordinances are as follows: Ordinance 92-001, amending the Comprehensive Plan to adopt Goals and Policies regarding development of the County's destination resort map and the County's zoning ordinance regulating destination resort siting; Ordinance 92-002, amending the Comprehensive Plan to adopt a countywide destination resort siting map and amendments to the resource element of the Comprehensive Plan describing the mapping process; Ordinance 92-003, amending the County zoning ordinance to adopt zoning maps to show which County lands are available for destination resort siting; and Ordinance 92-004, amending the text of the County zoning ordinance to adopt new provisions regulating the siting of destination resorts on lands identified on the destination resort map as available for destination resort siting (hereinafter collectively referred to as "destination resort siting package"). 8. The Board finds that other than the process Goals set forth in LCDC Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 2, Statewide Planning Goal 8 (and its associated codification in state statute - hereinafter collectively referred to as Goal 8) provide the the only criteria for reviewing the County's destination resort package. 9. The Board finds that the County's destination resort package meets the requirements of Goal 8 for the following reasons: a) The County has adopted as part of its comprehensive plan a county-wide destination resort map and a series of large scale enlargements of that map (hereinafter collectively referred to as "destination resort map" or simply "the map") indicating where destination resorts may occur in the County on certain EFU-20 and EFU-40 lands as well as certain exception areas. The County finds from the discussion set forth in Exhibit A to Ordinance 92-002, which discussion is incorporated herein by reference, that the map meets Goal 8's requirement that areas available for destination resorts be mapped and that certain resource areas not be included on such a map. That map has been adopted as part of the County's zoning maps by Ordinance 92-003. b) The County has adopted by Ordinance 92-001 amendments to the text of its Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies designed to provide for the implementation of Goal 8, including a recitation of Goal 8 requirements. This ensures that County ordinances drawn to implement Goal 8 will comply with Goal 8 and 12 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1312 that completion of the County's destination resort map will comply with Goal 8. C) The Goal 8 requirement that uses and activities in destination resorts be limited to those that are consistent with the Goal are satisfied by provisions in the zoning ordinance, adopted by Ordinance 92-004. Those provisions include Sections 18.113.030 and 18.113.070(Q) of the Deschutes County Code, as amended by the destination resort additions. Uses allowed in the destination resort are limited to those, such as visitor- oriented accommodations and developed recreational facilities, that are defined by Goal 8 to be elements of destination resorts, or are limited in scope to serve only the needs of the visitors to the resort. All definitions of component parts of destination resort duplicate or are more stringent than those found in the Goal. d) The Goal 8 requirement that important natural features be maintained is satisfied by inclusion in the zoning ordinance at Section 18.113.070(E) of language duplicating that found in the Goal. e) The Goal 8 requirement that buffers and setbacks be required to avoid or minimize adverse effects on land uses, particularly intensive farming operations, on surrounding lands is satisfied by the setback requirements set forth in Section 18. 113.060(G)(2). These setbacks require that most recreational activites be setback at least 50 feet from property lines, that residential structures be set back at least 150 feet, that multifamily development be set back 250 feet, and that commercial development be set back 350 feet. The setback specified in the current acknowledge County zoning ordinance from intensive farming operations is 100 feet. f) The Goal 8 requirement that a mechanism be included to assure that developed recreational facilities, visitor-oriented accommodations, and key facilities intended to serve the entire development are physically provided or are guaranteed by surety bonding or similar financial assurances prior to closure of sale of individual lots is satisfied by Sections 18.113.060(E) and 8.113.110, which duplicate the Goal 8 provisions and allow the County to require security through existing provisions in the County's subdivision ordinance. 10. e Board finds that Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, has been met by the series of hearings held before both the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners on the destination resort package. The Planning Commission serves as the County's Citizen Involvement Committee. 11. The Board finds that Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is satisfied by this destination resort package with respect to requirements for 13 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1313 setting forth the factual base for its decision. The Board has provided an extensive discussion of the process by which its destination resort map was produced. 14 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 Deschutes County Destination Resort Overlay Map - Meeting January 20, 2010 Deschutes County Commission Tammy Baney tammy baney(c_,deschutes.org Dennis Luke dennis lukekco.deschutes.onus Alan Unger alan unger9co.deschutes.or.us Peter Gutowsky petergkco.deschutes.or.us It is a wise decision you have made to have the Overlay Map for Deschutes County Destination Resorts sent back to the Planning Commission. After all, we are focused on "planning" for the future. We need a map that protects the rights of us all. A minority of individuals would have you stop all destination resorts, while they threatening to continue to waste our tax dollars fighting for the ideals they would thrust upon us all, it is important to protect the rights of property owners as well, especially those who should be grandfathered because of how their property is/was coded and their entitlement. Johnny-come-lately's should not dictate to the majority, who recognize the importance of tourism on Central Oregon. Think about all the jobs we have because of Destination Resorts. The only reason Deschutes County staff will waste valuable time, energy, and our resources, is because a few citizens will continue to litigate unless they get their way. Enough is enough! I am tired of it! Deschutes County will have a destination resort overlay map that reflects lands that are genuinely eligible for resort development. Look at how much land has been protected. See how little land is actually available for destination resorts. These property owners who choose to venture forth with a Destination Resort will have to be ecologically and environmentally friendly focused upon energy conservation, utilizing the technology developed here in Central Oregon and Deschutes County. Like it or not Deschutes County is a "Destination County or Resort area" in and of itself. We sell it and market it. Think of the room tax generated for the county and cities. Think of all the businesses and jobs dependent upon all visitors and second home owners. Yes there is concern for the environment and the impact that can be created by wanted visitors on our resources. Several civic and special interest groups are working together with the National Forest and State Parks to construct, improve and maintain trails and recreational areas. The last thing we want to do is restrict access and use. Control and education is critically important. A map that allows landowners to keep their rights is critically important. If we eliminate them, then more time, money, and energy will be wasted in litigation, because their rights have been stomped upon. It is their land after all; if they don't want their land included on the map, they can choose to have it removed, though I don't see them doing that or they already would have. The property owners will still have to meet current state and local requirements for destination resorts if they want to move forward. That is their right as it is their land and not the special interest groups who want to take it away their landowners rights. What's next? If we approve No more Destination Resorts, then No more restaurants, no more hotels, no more auto dealers, no more dry cleaners, no more construction, and on and on. Close the gates, no more we are isolating. Thank you for protecting landowners' rights. Deschutes County will continue to have land use disputes and litigation because of private interest groups who continue to try to push their will on how a property owner can use their property, even when they trample on those owners rights. Landowners should be allowed the opportunity to build a destination resort because they have had that right. Removing those rights goes against our constitution. They still have to meet state/local statutes, and then they can bring more jobs to Deschutes County, broadening our economic stability. Deschutes County is not over built with destination resorts. Taxes are generated from these projects and from the homes that people purchase. These are not all second homes of just the rich. These are homes that some of those in the special interest groups own. Does that make them "the rich". The Planning Commission has protected so much land from destination resorts, for which I am grateful. However when we as a county have given property owners rights for the use of their land, then we as a county must stand behind our promise. Otherwise we as a county are taking away from the property owners from whom we as a county depend upon. There is enough land when including the property owners grandfathered by previous commitment from the county and those property owners who's property meets the current criteria for a destination resort fat into the future. Future destination resort will allow others to enjoy and live here as all of us do and have a right to. It is time to protect property owners rights and our economy. Destination Resorts boost Construction, Home Interiors, Hardware, Real Estate, Education, Tourism, Lodging, Service Industries, Food & Beverage Service, Recreation, Agriculture, Government, Transportation, Printing and Stationary, Grocery Stores, Advertising, all kinds of business and every taxpayer/citizen benefits. Thank you! Paul Haggerty Deschutes County Resident and Voter 500 Hwy 20 W Sisters, Oregon BRUCE W. WHITE, ATTORNEY, LLC January 20, 2010 Hand Delivered Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 Subject: Destination Resort Mapping Ordinances 2010-001,2010-002 This office represents Whispering Star Ranch, LLC with regard to the above-referenced matter. Whispering Star Ranch is a 448-acre tract located along Wychus Creek downstream of Sisters, portions of which are mapped for destination resort siting and portions of which are not so mapped. The Whispering Star Ranch tract is made up of the following tax lots: 14-11-19D-2300 (partially mapped for destination resort siting), 14-11-00-6500, 14-11-00-2012, 14-11-20B-200, 14-11-20B-100, 14-11-00-2004, 14-11-17C-200, 14-11-17-300, 400 and 500. Whispering Star favors retention of the grandfather provision found at Section 22.23.010C of the proposed amendments to the Deschutes County Land Use Procedures ordinance that allows for retention of existing destination resort mapping even where such mapping would not be consistent with the new proposed destination resort mapping eligibility criteria. Please enter these comments into the hearing record on this matter. Sincerely, L&k UJ `I& Bruce W. White P.O. BOX 1298 • BEND, OR • 97709 PHONE: (541) 382-2085 Written Statement of the Central Oregon Association of REALTORS@ before the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners RE: Ordinances Nos. 2010-001 and 2010-002 (Destination Resort Remapping) March 1, 2010 The Central Oregon Association of REALTORSO thanks the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners for the opportunity to present our views on Ordinances 2010-001 and 2010-002, the destination resort remapping criteria and process. COAR is the trade association for Central Oregon's real estate industry. We are the second largest REALTORS association in Oregon and represent more than 1,500 real estate professionals. Our members are engaged daily in residential and commercial transactions providing essential services to their clients and adding value to their communities. COAR appreciates the county's efforts to open up the destination resort code and clarify the mapping criteria. Given the attention paid to resorts by the state legislature the past two legislative sessions and likely continued scrutiny going forward it is probably worthwhile to reconsider how resorts are regulated here in Central Oregon. COAR supports destination resorts and encourages their creation as vital assets of the regional economy. As intended, they have played an important economic role in rural areas where land use restrictions have left few other options for job creation and tax revenue generation. As a manifestly valuable economic asset in Central Oregon's tourism and real estate based economy destination resorts should be allowed maximum flexibility under state law. COAR believe the county's remapping effort should focus on repealing the additional local restrictions that the county has placed on resorts that exceed what is required by state law. We urge the Board of Commissioners to amend the ordinance to simply require that all resorts be sited according to state law. Oregon statutes provides sufficient regulatory oversight of resorts and with changes made to the resort code this year local governments have additional authority to address any potential negative impacts of a planned resort. While we have not yet examined all the details of the Planning Commission's decision on the ordinances made last Thursday, we believe our recommendations are consistent with theirs. Testimony submitted by Commissioner Unger to the state legislature on May 7, 2009 does an excellent job of documenting the benefits of destination resorts to Deschutes County, so we will not recount them again. Tourism and real estate development and construction are the foundation of our economy. COAR agrees with resort opponents that we need to diversify our economy beyond these two sectors. But the reality is that our local prosperity stands on those two pillars - now and the in the foreseeable future. And how does it diversify our economy to restrict or prohibit one of its most valuable elements? Under any circumstances it is unwise to limit your economic options, and given the dire conditions we now face and the slow recovery expected for our region COAR believes it is more important than ever to keep our options open. The county Planning Commission has heard testimony during the comprehensive plan work sessions that commercial agriculture is not economically viable in Deschutes County. The local media has also noted this fact. Whether resorts remain commercially viable after this recession remains to be seen. But that should be determined by the marketplace, not politics. We urge the Board of Commissioners to grant maximum flexibility to future resorts by acceding to state standards on resort siting criteria and eliminating unnecessary additional local restrictions. Thank you for considering our views on this important issue. Page 1 of 2 Peter Gutowsky From: Tammy Baney Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 1:55 PM To: Peter Gutowsky Subject: FW: Enough Resorts Oops, she had the wrong email address for you and it bounced back ...this is for the record... In service to our community- Tammy Baney Deschutes County Board of Commissioners O 541 388-6567 1 F 541 385-3202 1 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 From: Tammy Baney Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 1:54 PM To: 'Emilie Marlinghaus' Cc: peter@co.deschutes.or.us; Dave Kanner; Dennis Luke; Alan Unger Subject: RE: Enough Resorts Hi Emilie- Thank you for making time to share your thoughts and concerns about the Destination Resort Map update that we are currently working on. First, thank you for attending the hearing. Second, I value your input very much and appreciate those that take the time to get involved in their community! As Commissioner Luke stated in his response to you, we have added your comments into the public record. In service to our community- Tammy Baney Deschutes County Board of Commissioners O 541 388-6567 1 F 541 385-3202 1 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 From: Emilie Marlinghaus [maiIto:emagen@bendbroadband.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 1:12 PM To: Board Cc: peter@co.deschutes.or.us Subject: Enough Resorts ATTN: Tammy Baney, Dennis Luke, and Alan Unger - (County Board of Commmissioners) I attended the public hearing reference the Destination Resort Map proposals for Deschutes County held on the evening of January, 20th. Although I would have liked to have testified at that hearing, I didn't feel brave enough or adequately informed at the time. I believe, however, that you are still open to public comments on this issue, so am submitting my comments for your consideration today. My thoughts on the matter are probably well summarized by the subject heading above: Enough Resorts. This is an important decision making process for the county that should not be held hostage to certain powerful special interest groups (COAR being one that comes to mind). It seems to me that the voices of the citizens of this county should be 2/16/2010 Page 2 of 2 the ones the decision makers need to be listening to, and as far as I can ascertain those voices when given opportunity to be heard are largely in agreement with much of the eloquent and sometimes passionate testimony that was presented at the January 20th hearing: again, perhaps best summarized as'Enough Resorts'. To expand a bit on some specific areas in the current resort map proposal that concern me: 1) A grandfather clause that would allow retaining properties that clearly do not qualify under current regulations 2) another clause that would potentially add more property to the map by combining adjacent properties 3) recommendations do not seem to reflect the majority views of the public comments on destination resorts (as mentioned above) 4) there is no apparent consideration of latest research on current wildlife habitat status & needs. It seems to me that the DCBOC and the Planning Commission should be in accord on coming up a with a plan. that would address the current economic realities of Deschutes County. Allowing more destination resorts is not the answer, and will only feed the boom & bust cycle of the real estate based economy that has had devastating inripact on this area. Please focus on a proposal directed at producing thoughtful, planned, sustainable growth: with a diversified, stable economic base. Tourism should remain an important part of that base, but can probably be more appropriately advanced by doing all possible to maintain the natural beauty of expansive, untrammeled wilderness areas; healthy wildlife populations with adequate environmental supports and space to sustain them; and sane„ controlled growth. I also believe that local farmers & agriculture (local business in general) should be encouraged and supported as an important component to maintaining a sustainable economic base for Central Oregon, not discouraged. Destination resorts, when allowed, should be kept well outside the UGB, and adequate consideration given to the weighing of all the cost/benefits of any new proposal. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of all the diverse issues involved in this complex process. I look forward ttryour next hearing on this topic. Sincerely, Emilie Marlinghaus 753 SW Silver Lake Blvd. Bend, OR 97702 2/16001() Page 1 of 2 Peter Gutowsky From: Tammy Baney Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:31 PM To: 'dianejacobs@igc.org' Cc: Peter Gutowsky Subject: RE: A strong comprehensive plan is good for Deschutes County Hi Diane- Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Please know that I appreciate you making time to send me such well thought out comments. Please know that I have forwarded them for inclusion in the public record. Thank you for weighing in! In service to our community- 7ammn Tammy Baney Deschutes County Board of Commissioners O 541 388-6567 1 F 541 385-3202 1 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 From: dianejacobs@igc.org [mailto:dianejacobs@igc.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:10 AM To: Tammy Baney Subject: A strong comprehensive plan is good for Deschutes County February 10, 2010 Deschutes County Commissioner Tammy Baney 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 Dear Tammy Baney, I care about how our county will use public lands and guide development of private lands. I support the excellent draft Plan prepared by County staff and believe it would best serve the residents of Deschutes County. I also support changes to the current provisions regarding "destination resorts." The rules work to the advantage of a small number of developers and should be replaced with provisions that benefit the full range of natural resource-based activities and not just a few vacation resorts or second homes. In the County, our natural amenities are our most valuable economic and cultural resources. Please ensure that the services needed by future development can be provided. Urban Growth Areas have the resources to provide accountable, long-term public services such as police, fire, schools, waste water treatment and transportation public services such as police, fire, schools, waste water treatment and transportation. By limiting as much development as possible within Urban Growth Areas, the County can provide the services needed while providing necessary protections to our irreplaceable natural resources. A strong comprehensive plan will protect our resources for future generations. The emphasis should be on long-term livability, not shortsighted development. Thanks for listening to my comments. Page 2 of 2 Sincerely Diane Jacobs 2828 NE 69th Ave Portland, OR 97213-4654 Page 1 of 1 Peter Gutowsky From: Eric Brittingham [brittingham3771 @msn.com] Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 7:37 PM To: Tammy Baney; Dennis Luke; Alan Unger; Peter Gutowsky Cc: 'Gary Barnett' Subject: Aspen Lakes Destination Resort opinion Greetings to you all, I'll keep my comments short and begin by telling you all that I've lived 15 years in Lake Tahoe under the tyranny of the TRPA (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency). Then 10 years in the Columbia Gorge under that same tyranny of the Gorge Commission. Do yourselves a favor and don't fall in line with anti-private citizen rights. I've lived through ridiculous regulations for over 25 years and now it's following me here. I've been here 10 years and lived in Aspen Lakes for 5. The Cyrus's are good people. i have no relationship to them other than talking with them and knowing they are good people trying to do a good thing for our area. Don't fall prey to the likes of the Sierra Club or their ilk's. We don't need to impede progress, especially when it's a benefit for nearly everyone in our beautiful area. Do the right thing and support their project. Sincerely, Eric Brittingham, owner and homeowner Brittingham Enterprises, Inc. Central Oregon Communications Office 541-549-1977 Fax 541-549-6184 ebrittin_ghamAemail.com 1/25/2010 Peter Gutowsky From: Terri Hansen Payne Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 8:40 AM To: Peter Gutowsky Subject: FW: DR Remapping Attachments: Remapping proposal as of 1-20-10.pdf Remapping roposal as of 1-20-. -----Original Message----- From: Nunzie [mailto:nunzie@pacifier.com] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 11:43 PM To: Kevin Harrison; Nick Lelack; Tammy Baney; Alan Unger; Dennis Luke; Terri Hansen Payne Subject: DR Remapping Greetings Deschutes County Officials: It has come to my attention that the data for one of the planning map tools used in Comprehensive Plan Update and also used for the DR remapping contains lands that do not meet the criteria in the legend of the map. In particular this map was recently used in another power point presentation at the Board's Work Session held January 6, 2010. The map in question is the last map "Remaining eligible lands = approximately 15,058 acres". It is a disservice to our community to introduce a visual "aid" as a planning tool when it is erroneous. Please correct this map and correct the database to remove parcels < 160 acres from the map (shown in yellow). Please email me the corrected database and a pdf of the corrected map prior to the Board's March 1, 2010 meeting. Deschutes County deserves our best effort for today and for the future. Good planning is only as good as the data it is based on! Please enter this email and attachment into the Board's record on DR remapping and into the record on the Comprehensive Plan Update. Thank you in advance, Nunzie Gould 19845 JW Brown Rd Bend, OR 97701 541-420-3325 1 1 V. 0~ 3 ? yap a ^i5 _ ~ 0~ 0 eCaz1 Z OE " ` 3 3 i:r ue2 ~ N All ak'X1M;'l a ~ t j 1 M l r 1 j 6 s P 1 r W .'s 1 i v t i 4 44- rx1 ~ ~fh ~P T 4 't T - I s f d t f'~. ' s' t} i t ~ ~ II un C ~ 10 M d X01 N p. . 11 t t W ri r 0 a a ~ c a, o W E 3! JQ c~~3 i .S II - € r . `i - - -!Q vi { m E ' + v m v o - c . c c d ~ o g i om A o s , 42 v i a ;m a c v o a= c 3 c .n ro m m rc o O TJ C 'f D O 0 0 G! O 9 ~ e $ ~ p z ~ t ~ a s~ ` Eo v ~ ~ g at ~ 3 3 9 a J Page 1 of 2 Bonnie Baker From: Mike Mech [mikearea51@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 4:15 PM To: Board Subject: Apology, summary, appeal Dear Commissioners, Despite my affection and openness to you I still objectified and did no service to me or you. Too muddy, and more. Please try to overlook my plainness, is only other way to be direct: "Most all levels of government do a kind of false-front presentation, copying the deterrent way of Police, whom do no good for a burglar once he has invaded, comes and cleans up dead, prosecutes and persecutes (good job!) ""Bad Guys"". However the more distant (semi-gerographically) the more it is just another con job distracting away from the fact that life, accidents, happen, no need to pen us, pin us, tie us, lock us, toll us hold us, exploit us, tax severally, and then tax us for the services cited herein this sentence. "Us" includes you good people whom are commissioners, having to bend to requests (like blatant violation of first amendment rights to gather under a roof that is not some municipalities, without ANY ! ! ! ! ! ANY ! ! ! ! ! limits except public safety. Example: If I have a rock dry pile with sprinkle of sand, I should be able to come up with any kind of resort that can use the wonder of Place! "Oops! No resorts! But resort means a lot of things! Lets just ban it all and then maybe make a new law if protest occurs. Commissioners, any ban on EFU (ANY) lands for such hypothetical, non existent, details as neighbor comfort-for NO REASON not even SAFETY its <frigging> PRIVATE PROPERTY. Therefore I conclude respectfully: All municipalities, like the resisted layers of lava below Bend, County, all are melted, yes, fused, together into a hegemony that can only be described well as Idolic. There is no God about any municipality, forcibly removed with word games. Shame on all levels, for this fake out, citizen violation several and aplenty and eternal, and I suggest one way to assert my concern is to suggest the firing of one half of all County employees. The overhead of the way things are now means (If I understand correct) inevitable economic insolvency due the teats that multiply per actual County job done. A great cutting back, I merely and only suggest, as medium, to revert to "Public Safety" not to include 3/11/2010 Page 2 of 2 any new programs to work around the intent- cut back County employees only to basics. Then maybe we can get some real action in the County, instead of this (current) way County, State (Odot comes to mind, despite honorable work) drains Citizens and uses "Deterrence like con game" to FEIGN abilities County does not have. Ever more does the municipalities (including County) invade the person privately publicly runs us over like a steamroller- for safety reasons. I beg you consider no more playing God, had I said this sooner, I would have maybe made my point and respected your time better: "There need be no discussion about theology to disabuse the Municipalities they are not God and should stop acting (employees) aristrocratic, autocratic, "Smarter than citizens" as I have personally witnessed and recorded (APPRECIATED) the falsity of what you do." I beg consideration of what is meant above despite my weird way of expressing self. Respectfully, Mike 3/11/2010 Page 1 of 2 Bonnie Baker From: Dennis Luke Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 1:36 PM To: 'Emilie Marlinghaus'; Board Cc: peter@co.deschutes.or.us; Nick Lelack Subject: RE: Enough Resorts Thank you for your comments and I will see that they are entered into the record If I might, I will try to clarify what is going on in the current process. We, the Planning Commission and Planning Staff, are looking at and revising the current map that shows where destination resorts can locate. When the map was put together in the early 1990's those in charge then determined all lands that state law would not allow DR's to locate and mapped everything else as eligible. We are trying to refine that map some more and will reduce the area to a substantial lesser amount through the current process. Just because an area is mapped, does not mean a resort will be built there. If that were true, there would be resorts on thousand's of acres in Deschutes County. If we ever get a new application for a resort, that will start a whole land use process with a lot of public hearings and the people's right to appeal. One of the reasons we are considering letting people who are currently mapped stay mapped if they want, even though they clearly would not qualify, is that a destination resort mapped lot is a property right. I personally believe that you should not take away someone's property rights without their permission or a payment to them. We do not propose to pay, so we are asking their permission, hopefully they will give their permission. In Crook County the voters voted to stop the resort map process. Does that mean there will no longer be resorts in Crook County, no it does not. If Crook County gets an application for a resort, they have to process it without the map. If the developer can make the case that certain lands meet the state criteria, there is a good chance their application will be granted. In Deschutes County we have developed high standards for resorts. Many of those are being adopted in state statute during the session currently underway in Salem. Thank you for taking the time to share you thoughts with us. Dennis R. Luke Deschutes County Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St. Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97701 541-388-6568 dennisl@co.deschutes.or.us From: Emilie Marlinghaus [mailto:emagen@bendbroadband.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 1:12 PM To: Board Cc: peter@co.deschutes.or.us Subject: Enough Resorts ATTN: Tammy Baney, Dennis Luke, and Alan Unger - (County Board of Commmissioners) I attended the public hearing reference the Destination Resort Map proposals for Deschutes County held 3/11/2010 Page 2 of 2 on the evening of January, 20th. Although I would have liked to have testified at that hearing, I didn't feel brave enough or adequately informed at the time. I believe, however, that you are still open to public comments on this issue, so am submitting my comments for your consideration today. My thoughts on the matter are probably well summarized by the subject heading above: Enough Resorts. This is an important decision making process for the county that should not be held hostage to certain powerful special interest groups (COAR being one that comes to mind). It seems to me that the voices of the citizens of this county should be the ones the decision makers need to be listening to, and as far as I can ascertain those voices when given opportunity to be heard are largely in agreement with much of the eloquent and sometimes passionate testimony that was presented at the January 20th hearing: again, perhaps best summarized as 'Enough Resorts'. To expand a bit on some specific areas in the current resort map proposal that concern me: 1) A grandfather clause that would allow retaining properties that clearly do not qualify under current regulations 2) another clause that would potentially add more property to the map by combining adjacent properties 3) recommendations do not seem to reflect the majority views of the public comments on destination resorts (as mentioned above) 4) there is no apparent consideration of latest research on current wildlife habitat status & needs. It seems to me that the DCBOC and the Planning Commission should be in accord on coming up a with a plan that would address the current economic realities of Deschutes County. Allowing more destination resorts is not the answer, and will only feed the boom & bust cycle of the real estate based economy that has had devastating impact on this area. Please focus on a proposal directed at producing thoughtful, planned, sustainable growth: with a diversified, stable economic base. Tourism should remain an important part of that base, but can probably be more appropriately advanced by doing all possible to maintain the natural beauty of expansive, untrammeled wilderness areas; healthy wildlife populations with adequate environmental supports and space to sustain them; and sane, controlled growth. I also believe that local farmers & agriculture (local business in general) should be encouraged and supported as an important component to maintaining a sustainable economic base for Central Oregon, not discouraged. Destination resorts, when allowed, should be kept well outside the UGB, and adequate consideration given to the weighing of all the cost/benefits of any new proposal. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of all the diverse issues involved in this complex process. I look forward to your next hearing on this topic. Sincerely, Emilie Marlinghaus 753 SW Silver Lake Blvd. Bend, OR 97702 3/11/2010