Loading...
2010-2958-Minutes for Meeting November 22,2010 Recorded 12/14/2010COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKS 4J Z0~0'Zr7~8 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL ,,,1„1,;,..,I.,...,,.,,.,,,oil 12/14/2010 08;41;46 AM 2010-2958 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page n l - Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 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, Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack and Paul Blikstad, Community Development; Susan Ross, Property & Facilities; Marty Wynne and Terri Maerki, Finance; Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin; and approximately twenty other citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 10:02 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. William Kuhn stated that he previously came before the Board to ask questions about a tax situation, but was unable to ask as many questions as he wanted to at the time. He wants to be on a formal agenda so that the discussion can be put on the record. He wants to know if there is a citizen review board regarding property tax issues, regarding equity in the system. If not, he wants to know where citizens can go in order to have input. He is not talking about rates, but philosophy. Dave Kanner said that the rules and regulations are established by State legislators. It is a statewide system and is written into the State Constitution, and the Administrative Rules are adopted by the State Department of Revenue. Commissioner Luke added that if a county is unable or unwilling to administer this program, the State would take it over. The State established the rules and the County has to comply. Mr. Kuhn said that he is one of two owners of a property in the Tumalo Winter Deer Range, and a wildlife habitat program should be available to him. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 1 of 20 Pages Laurie Craghead said that the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife established these programs. Mr. Kuhn stated that the ODF&W told him that the County determines how forest lands fit into this scenario. Commissioner Luke said that it depends on whether it involves forest or EFU zoning. Mr. Kuhn said that there is EFU zoning nearby, but his property is zoned forest. He is also interested in protecting the wildlife in the area. Ms. Craghead said EFU is the only land that has the wildlife habitat zoning overlay. Commissioner Luke stated that this had a lot to do with land in the valley that was being farmed from fence to fence. He said that it is possible that Mr. Kuhn would have to apply for a zone change if he wants this to change. Forest is a natural habitat unlike farming. Commissioner Baney asked if Mr. Kuhn had met with the County Tax Assessor. Mr. Kuhn replied that he is not comfortable doing so again because he feels the Assessor has not been totally frank with him. Commissioner Luke suggested that some time be set aside for Mr. Kuhn to meet with the ODF&W, the Assessor and the Board in a work session to discuss this issue. Commissioner Unger asked that there be a series of questions provided so that the meeting will have some structure. Mr. Kuhn asked about a suggestion to remove the ODF&W fee from his tax bill. He feels this is a policy decision that County Legal Counsel does not have the authority to do. Ms. Craghead said that she only conveyed the Assessor's policy to him, and is in discussions with the Assessor and the ODF&W at this point regarding this issue. Mr. Kanner stated that ODF&W is not losing out on anything. The property tax payments that come in to the County include many fees such as these charged by other entities. The Treasurer determines the percentage of the total that goes to each entity. Some developments may have commonly-owned ground with many owners. 2. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No 2010- 131, Establishing Prequalification Standards for Construction of Tenant Improvements at the Deschutes County Jail. Susan Ross gave an overview of the process, which will be based on low competitive bid. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 2 of 20 Pages BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2010-128, Adopting a Supplemental Budget for Fiscal year 2010-11. Commissioner Luke opened the public hearing. Marty Wynne gave a brief overview of the item, and said there have been requests from various departments to make these changes. Being no further testimony or discussion, Chair Luke closed the hearing. BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2010-056, Approving the Hellmuth Annexations into Four Rivers Vector Control District. Laurie Craghead gave an overview of the Orders and their history. She has not received confirmation from the Department of Revenue regarding the legal description, and asked that the Orders be approved in a week to allow for that input. Chair Luke opened the hearing, which relates to three properties owned by the same person. No testimony was offered. The hearing was continued for a week to allow for the Department of Revenue's input. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 3 of 20 Pages 5. Before the Board was Consideration of Second Reading of Ordinance No 2010-030, Amending Code to Change the Designation of Certain Property from Agricultural to Rural Industrial (Applicant: 4-R Equipment). Ms. Craghead said a few typographical errors were corrected but there have been no substantive changes to the Ordinances. BANEY: Move second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 2010-030. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: BANEY: LUKE: Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. Chair Luke conducted the second reading at this time, by title only. BANEY: Move adoption. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Second Reading of Ordinance No 2010-031, Amending the Zoning Map to Change the Designation of Certain Property from Agricultural to Rural Industrial (Applicant: 4-R Equipment). BANEY: Move second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 2010-031. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: BANEY: LUKE: Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. Chair Luke conducted the second reading at this time, by title only. BANEY: Move adoption. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 4 of 20 Pages 7. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision regarding a Nonconforming Use Alteration and Site Plan for Wooden Cabins to Replace Canvas Tents on Existing Platforms at the Outward Bound Facility. Chair Luke opened the public hearing on this issue. Commissioner Baney then read the opening statement (a copy of which is attached for reference). Commissioner Luke said that there has been a Board work session and a few e- mails were received. Commissioner Unger stated that he took a drive years ago and ended up at that location. Paul Blikstad gave an overview of the item. There are about six cabins to be improved within the sensitive zone that were denied by the Hearings Officer; she approved the others. He provided a matrix of questions to the Board (a copy of which is attached for reference). The Hearings Officer found that the tents and cabins had identical uses, for sleeping and storage of camping materials, and said this is not an alteration of a nonconforming use. Staff supports this decision. Regarding the ESEE goal, the Hearings Officer noted that single family dwellings were allowed with setbacks, but it is unclear whether the ESEE refers to any development at all or just single family dwellings. Commissioner Luke asked what precipitated the ESEE requirement. Mr. Blikstad said this was part of the comprehensive plan update in 1992. The idea was to identify all resource sites and sensitive bird and mammal areas. There is a document for every animal and site. Commissioner Luke asked when the original siting of the tents occurred. Mr. Blikstad said this was in 1987, before the ESEE analysis and before any residences were constructed. Mr. Blikstad said that the ESEE applies to the entire circle. Commissioner Luke asked if it applies equally to other sites in that sensitive area. Mr. Blikstad stated that there has been quite a lot of building in the vicinity, with minimum setback requirements. Commissioner Unger noted that the buffer area is closer in relation to the homes than it is for the cabins. He asked why the homes were approved when this property is experiencing more problems. Mr. Blikstad stated that the County tried to identify a balance to avoid a taking of residential property. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 5 of 20 Pages Commissioner Luke said that the structures were already approved. He asked whether Counsel agrees with staff recommendations. Ms. Craghead stated that the residences in the area also have accessory buildings in place. The question is whether this is a different enough use to merit review. Commissioner Unger asked why the ESEE analysis does not look at the impact of uses rather than the types of structures. Commissioner Luke said that this assumes the same person will always have the property. Sometimes the use could change depending on the owner. Mr. Blikstad said that the activities on the south end and the sleeping is on the middle and north end, with minimal impact. If the prohibition applies to more than single family dwellings, the Hearings Office found that it could apply to all structures. Staff feels that it may not have to apply this to the proposed change. There is a question about 14th Amendment Rights, Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Ms. Craghead said that the question is whether the structures are felt to be different enough to merit different treatment. Staff believes that a survey is not needed. In regard to Fire Department requirements and fire code, Commissioner Luke feels that there needs to be a plan in place for increased fire protection if the structures are changed. Mr. Blikstad said Commissioner Luke had asked about handicap use. The storage sheds do not require this, per the applicant, because of size. In regard to Oregon Scenic Waterways requirements, Commissioner Luke asked if State Parks has to approve this application. Mr. Blikstad stated that he understands that the structures are not visible from the river, and therefore State Parks' approval would not apply. Commissioner Unger asked for clarification regarding building permit issues. He asked whether one would be needed for a structure of this type. Ms. Craghead replied that it could be required simply because they will be used for sleeping purposes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 6 of 20 Pages Commissioner Baney asked about the eagle nest site and whether it is known if the eagles are there. Mr. Blikstad replied they do the best they can based on Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife sitings of eagles. It appears that the map for the ESEE is correct. The ODF&W does check these sites on a regular basis. Commissioner Unger said the report reads that the nests have been used since about 1972. Commissioner Luke asked whether the Board would like to break for the department head meeting at noon. Commissioners Luke and Unger said they would like to carry through instead of recessing. The Board took a short break at this time. Tom Anderson said that permits will be required, based on the use of the property for sleeping quarters. Steve Hultberg and Henry Morse of Outward Bound USA Board. He provided a packet of exhibits (a copy of which is attached) that should already be in the record. He also referred to an oversized aerial map of the area. Mr. Morse gave an overview of the Outward Bound program. It has operated in Oregon since the 1960's and the current location was occupied before there were any residences in the area. The facility is used for staging and for seasonal staff to stay at night in the spring and summer. There are a couple of days of training at the site and then the groups go to different locations for the courses. Previously, from the 1980's, wall tents were used for the storage of equipment. Over the years it has been determined that the tents do not hold up well in the weather for long, and gear and other equipment are subject to weathering and rodent damage. They need better shelter for equipment and staff when they are there. They are referring to them as sheds, and will match the other structures on the property. Inside there will just be stud walls. The permit department has designated them as sheds. A question was raised as to why permits were not obtained first. They felt that the EFU zone did not require permits for ancillary buildings; nor were they changing the use of the buildings; nor did the footprint change. They also checked the County website, and there was nothing required for 168 square foot sheds instead of 200 square feet, which is required. In any case, he feels that the ESEE is the trigger point and this would have come up anyway. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 7 of 20 Pages Commissioner Luke asked if the pilings are wood or concrete. Mr. Morris said they are concrete and about three feet under the surface, and were built in the 1980's. Mr. Hultberg stated that two decisions are on appeal - the nonconforming use and site plan. They have only appealed the site plan and ESEE analysis, not the nonconforming use. The Hearings Officer said that this does not apply to any alteration to the nonconforming use. He referred to the distance from the shed closest to the eagle's nest. At the time the ESEE was adopted, there was no other development in the area. There have been a lot of homes and accessory structures allowed since the mid-1990's. Mr. Morse said that framing was in place on a permanent basis to attach the canvas to each year. Mr. Hultberg said that he feels the ESEE does not prohibit this modification. There are only two provisions of the ESEE and they feel the HO interpretation is incorrect through law and policy. When the County adopted the ESEE in the mid-1990's, and decided on a balanced use approach. On property that can be developed, it can be done with certain provisions. This allows for conflicting uses. Within Exhibit C, excerpts of the ESEE, the County said that single family dwellings could be allowed if they meet setbacks. No additional structures for Outward Bound would be allowed in the area. The Hearings Officer said this was an across the board prohibition of development. He believes the ESEE prohibits single family dwellings. The sheds were in place when the ESEE was adopted, and it was understood they were there. The document refers to single family dwellings specifically. Section 5.4 says that for all lots in the sensitive habitat area, maintenance or construction would be prohibited during the nesting season. The Hearings Officer did not address this issue in her argument. He then referred to the oversized aerial photograph of the area, pointing out the sheds in the habitat area. There are six homes of significant size built within that area that are closer to the nesting site than any of the sheds. There are many more residences in the area. One improvement is over 7,000 square feet, which could hold every Outward Bound improvement and more inside of it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 8 of 20 Pages The Hearings Officer's decision said that Outward Bound would not be able to alter anything. Every other property in the area could double the size of their structures or put up a shed or a barn, if they meet the setback requirements. But he is being told that Outward Bound can't do anything, ever. The decision said that placing any additional structural member, such as a floor joist, is prohibited. This does not make sense. Commissioner Luke asked if any of the homes are zoned EFU. Mr. Hultberg said they are zoned differently. Commissioner Luke stated there is a difference in the law for each. Mr. Hultberg said some are EFU and others are MUA. They are treated differently in code, but per the ESEE analysis, they are all ruled by the overlay zone. Conditional uses are not prohibited on the EFU land, but are on the RR-10 or MUA. Commissioner Luke said that this was done in the late 1980's and early 1990's, and it is difficult to interpret what was meant at the time. He asked if any sheds are visible from the river. Mr. Morse said that he believes they are not visible from the river due to the terrain, and there is also considerable screening. Mr. Hultberg stated that the ESEE clearly anticipated the adjacent properties would be developed, which is why the setbacks were established. He feels the Hearings Officer's interpretation is incorrect and contrary to Oregon law in respect to nonconforming uses. The law says these uses can be continued in spite of zoning amendments, and the uses and structures may be altered or modified per criteria. The Hearings Officer said those standards were met. There is case law to support this. The Hearings Officer said the nonconforming use cannot be modified, but that is contrary to the law. This does not make sense when you look at surrounding properties where they can do just about anything they want. The second legal reason showing the Hearings Officer's error is that it is not consistent in interpreting what is ambiguous. There are ways to interpret statute, and you can't omit something that is in statute or add something that is not in there. This cannot lead to an absurd result. All provisions of the statute have to be included. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 9 of 20 Pages The ESEE provision says `single family dwellings can be allowed' but the Hearings Officer omitted this. This needs to be included and has to be properly applied. Section 5.4 says `on all lots' expansion and improvements can be made. The Hearings Officer said that this can be allowed on all except Outward Bound property. The last piece is how this interpretation leads to absurd results. A neighbor can put up a garage that is larger than all Outward Bound structures combined; this is absurd, as the neighbors are closer to the eagle's nest. This does not make sense in the context of the ESEE analysis. Commissioner Luke said the neighbors cannot do just anything that they want. They have to operate within the rules. Mr. Hultberg pointed out they can do a lot more things which Outward Bound won't be allowed to do. In regard to structural development, the Hearings Officer feels that is the addition of any addition of a structural component. He feels this interpretation is not consistent with this and other ESEE's that have been adopted. Many were adopted within the County at the same time, addressing different species and areas. Structural development generally means a new structure, not a change to an existing structure. It does not mean the addition of a structural component to an existing structure. Commissioner Luke said that this is a nonconforming use, so it would be hard to change the footprint. Mr. Hultberg said the threshold question is whether there is a material impact on the surrounding area. It is difficult to add on but would not necessarily be impossible. He said they have no objection to other things. They will get a letter from the Fire Department on what might be required. Also, a surveyed site plan of the cabins and the zone come into play if the appeal is denied. They don't want to go through the expense of a survey and feels that with the help of staff; they should be able to make that determination easily. Paul Blikstad said that with the use of a GPS unit, they should be able to determine within a few feet where the cabins are in relation to other things. At this time public testimony was accepted. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 10 of 20 Pages Suzanne Michaels lives across the river from Outward Bound. She has not had a problem with them until this issue came up; they have been pleasant to deal with. She asked the Board review the record to date. The Outward Bound people feel that additional structural development only refers to single family dwellings. It does not single out that; it just says that it does not apply to any. She feels that the intent of the ESEE is to acknowledge each lot as separate entities, clearly defining each. The properties are referred to by lot number. There is no confusion. It is clear that the Outward Bound property was addressed separately by ESEE. Each have different requirements. Her lot has a 25 foot setback. Others require more. It is clear that a permit was required and building could not occur during the nesting season except for emergency repairs. It is clear what type of construction can happen and when. Residential lot owners do not have the same restrictions and limitations based on the ESEE analysis. Different zones have different requirements, and not all within the sensitive habitat area have to follow the same rules. A structure is anything that is constructed or built or composed in a definite manner, or is attached to something already there. This includes structural modifications. She feels all improvements to the existing structures in the Outward Bound property should be removed. They used to be simple platforms with cross members. They referred to the tents as temporary. They now say they are semi-permanent. They were not the only development across the river at the time. Some infrastructure was put in for Oden Meadows but there was not much activity then. In regard to Equal Rights being violated, she feels hers have been. They are being held to a different standard. Land zoned for agricultural use is different than that for residential use. When Outward Bound first started building, they were designated as a school. They were allowed to build any number of buildings. In 2002, LUBA decided that this should be for only grades K-12, and eliminated trade schools and others. In 2004, Outward Bound tried to get a dining hall, and planning messed up, and it was allowed. This violated her rights again. It was rubber-stamped. The County and Outward Bound seem to have a particularly cozy relationship. Paul Blikstad and Henry Morse have had e-mails going back and forth for some time. She finds it improper for Mr. Blikstad to send other a-mails on to Mr. Morse for his input. He indicated that he did not necessarily want to send this to a hearing. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 11 of 20 Pages Commissioner Luke stated that when the neighbors are notified and have concerns, staff tries to get as many questions answered as possible ahead of time. This can maybe avoid an expensive and time-consuming public hearing. He does not feel this is unusual. Staff tries to be neutral but wants to find out all they can ahead of time for the benefit of all concerned. Ms. Michaels said there were a lot of a-mails in June. They were sent to the ODF&W and the applicant. She feels this is offensive and a violation of her rights, as the applicant was given information in real time that she was not able to get at the time. She feels this benefited the applicant. In regard to the site plan, she feels that the applicant should remove all of the cabins in the specific area. They are not happy with the County's comments. They also feel that the Fire Department has not been given enough information to comment. The applicant sites economic hardship, but did not prove this claim. Mr. Morse said that volunteer labor was used and materials were donated or paid through fundraising. Any economic hardship should fall on the applicant. The cabins were built after the County sent out a letter that they were not to build, because Outward Bound felt that a permit was not needed. Outward Bound has a premier land use attorney and seem to have enough money to pay that fee. They ignored the rules and regulation that others have to follow. The most recent annual report shows that Outward Bound is not the poor nonprofit that they claim to be. Commissioners Luke said that you can't buy land use laws. The financial part does not come into play and this is not part of the discussion. He asked that she refrain from personal attacks. Ms. Michaels said she thinks they have threatened to put blue tarps over the structures if the improvements are not allowed. This is not in the best interests of anyone. Commissioner Luke asked about the structural development within the sensitive habitat area, and the lots were specified. He asked what this means. Mr. Anderson said that there are definitions of a structure requiring permits. Typically those relate to size, foundation, permanence, use, and so on. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 12 of 20 Pages Commissioner Baney asked if this is an additional structure or a modification to an existing structure. Mr. Anderson said that building code is different than land use, and there are frequently modifications allowed to existing structures. Regarding how that relates to language in the ESEE, he does not think they can be compared. This would not be a new structure under building code. Ms. Craghead stated that the definition under land use for structure indicates there is a fixed base attached to the ground. Alteration means any change to a structure's walls and roof and other components. Commissioner Unger said this is a small structure and would not normally need a permit, except that it would be used for sleeping purposes. Commissioner Luke asked about wind shear and lift, and snow loads. He said they are different than a tent; a tent would blow away or collapse. He would like some information in this regard. Mr. Anderson said that with a building permit, this would all be examined. Dawn Kruckenberg said that she lives across from the northern set of cabins. She is a design engineer. She has two issues; all the cabin sites, and the ones in the sensitive area. When the platforms and tents were approved, they did say they might want a future bunkhouse. She asked if they have a permit for the foundations. There was an August 10, 2010 letter that says the use of the platforms were not limited by the original conditional use permit. You can't foresee what might come up in the future. She feels that at the time something else might have been assumed. Outward Bound has been clear about their use; they are good neighbors and have been quiet, although sometimes someone is there longer than the season. She asked if this means they will stay there longer. One has electricity to power up electronic devices. Overall, the four-sided wood-framed boxes will have windows and door openings. They have been called tents, wood cabins, sheds, storage sheds, sleeping cabins, temporary and semi-permanent, and so on. She wants to know how building and planning view these structures. If cabins are allowed to remain, it needs to be stated how they will be used and their occupancy status. They are inhabited part of the time. In regard to the ESEE, she follows the rules that they have to and so has everyone else. They want Outward Bound to work within the ESEE as well to protect species. She would like to talk with Steve George regarding letters that were submitted. He said that he went to the County to talk about the ESEE. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 13 of 20 Pages The subdivisions were already there and building was allowed with setbacks and other requirements. Only a part of the Outward Bound property is in the circle. They could build elsewhere outside of the circle if they wanted to. She supports the Hearings Officer's decision. Spencer Krueger clarified that the nearby homes cannot have any number of additional structures, since they are restricted by CC&R's. The tents were in use less than six months each year and are temporary. This is additional structural development. They are referring to them as sheds. Why not have a storage facility if it is just for equipment. These are habitable units for employees. Regarding the eagles, the walls and roofs are permanent and do not confirm to the ESEE analysis. Outward Bound constructed these hastily and thumbed their nose at regulatory rules. Ignorance of the law should be no excuse. A ruling should be made as if they were not built. They should be penalized. Ms. Kruckenberg stated that the eagle's nest issue is a State item and the State needs to be involved. The nest location might be different. Commissioner Luke said that because it appears that the structures can't be seen from the river, State Parks does not need to be involved. Commissioned Baney said that the Board has to use the information now available. Larry Kruckenberg said that he has been in construction for many years. He has never heard of a tent being referred to as a structure. The platform or base is a structure. When you do additional work, you need a permit. And the entire building needs to be brought up to code at that point. Commissioner Luke said that this is not the case. You'd have to change a lot of things in almost every structure or home if that was the case every time you make a modification. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 14 of 20 Pages Mr. Kruckenberg said that any new part would have to be at Code. He feels there is a big difference between a tent and a shed. Outward Bound has 46 acres and room to build, and most residential areas have just a couple. He is concerned that if the cabins stay, for storage or sleeping, he feels they are primarily used for sleeping. He wanted to know if they are just for Outward Bound people or will the public be able to use them. Mr. Blikstad said they would have to go through a land use process to change the use, and it would be very difficult. The use is specifically for Outward Bound staff and clients. Mr. Kruckenberg stated that the Outward Bound calendar shows an invitation for September 11 and 12 for volunteers to work and spend the night. They had not been approved for anyone to stay in yet. Steve Hultberg asked for the opportunity to provide limited oral testimony at a future date. There is often a need for the applicant to respond directly. Ms. Craghead said that it is not the County's standard procedure. Typically it is done in writing. Commissioners Luke and Unger said they'd prefer what can be answered now be done, followed by written response. The Board took a fifteen-minute break at this time (1:1 S p.m). The hearing continued at 1:30 p.m. The applicant was then given an opportunity to provide oral rebuttal. Mr. Hultberg said that there is a lot of material to respond to. He asked that if there are questions, that they be asked now so he can respond. He said he has taken this project on pro bono. He respects what Outward Bound does, and feels they have gotten caught up in a meat grinder of local land use law and he wants to help them out. There was a lot of discussion regarding structure and alterations. The existing platforms are structures. Commissioner Luke asked how they are attached to the ground, and whether there are concrete piers attached to the platforms. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 15 of 20 Pages Mr. Hultberg said he doesn't think they are just resting on the piers. He believes they are attached under County code. This is a structural modification of an existing structure. It is not a new structure under Code. That is important, because this is just an alteration of something that is already there. This falls under Section 5.1. The ODF&W does not control the habitat zone. Those are County adopted provisions of the Code. Only the County can change this designation. The ODF&W is a commenting agency. Commissioner Luke said that they have the ability to appeal if they feel it is warranted. Mr. Hultberg stated that the ODF&W was concerned about additional activity. There will be no additional activity. There is no evidence that the structures themselves will have any additional impact. The Hearings Officer does not agree with the ODF&W in this regard. Regarding the 1987 approval, the conditional use permit was not limited. The use is what is occurring now, with nothing said that they could not be altered in the future. The website invitation was for a work party limited to alumni and instructors. This was not a public event, but an annual thing, and four people showed up. It is under the alumni section of the website, and was not a violation of the use. Oral testimony was closed at this time. The Board decided that any new evidence or testimony in writing or via e-mail would be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on December 1, 2010, and should be submitted to Paul Blikstad. Rebuttal will be accepted in writing or via e-mail from anyone until December 8, 2010, 5:00 p.m. The applicant gets the last word, and can rebut or respond in writing or by e-mail prior to December 15, 2010, at 5:00 p.m. The Board will make a decision on this issue as soon as possible thereafter. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 16 of 20 Pages UNGER: Move approval of the Consent Agenda with the exception of the minutes, which he has not yet had a chance to review. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items 8. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-130, Transferring Appropriations within the General Fund Non-Department Category 9. Signature of Order No. 2010-059, Approving the Eraker Annexation into Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #1. 10. Signature of an Amendment to an Intergovernmental Agreement to the Oregon Department of Human Services regarding Mental Health Services 11. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-118, regarding a Legal Department Imprest Checking Account and Credit Card 12. Signature of Letters Reappointing Patrick Griffiths and Matt Shinderman to the Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Committee, through February 28, 2013 13. Signature of a Letter Appointing Sarahlee Lawrence to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, through January 31, 2013 14. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of David Pitts from the Board of Cascade View Estates Special Road District 15. Signature of a Letter Appointing Carolyn Chase to the Board of Cascade View Estates Special Road District, through December 31, 2011 16. Approval of an Economic Development Grant Request: Redmond Police Department - K-9 Unit -Commissioner Luke, $591; Commissioner Unger, $209; Commissioner Baney, $200 17. Approval of Minutes: . Work Sessions of October 25 and November 10 • Business Meeting of November 10 Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 17 of 20 Pages CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COUNTYWIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE DISTRICT #1 18. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature o of Resolution No. 2010-129, Adopting a Supplemental Budget of the Countywide Law Enforcement Service District #1 for Fiscal Year 2010-11. Commissioner Luke opened the hearing at this time. Marty Wynne explained that the funding is for the jail remodel project. Commissioner Unger asked about this being a loan. Mr. Wynne said this is from a Sheriff's Department internal fund. It can be repaid by a future bond sale or other sources. Mr. Kanner said that the Board in 2007 authorized borrowing $4 million from other funds. This will be repaid by the sale of land in the future when the real estate market is better. No other testimony was offered, so the hearing was closed. BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE BEND LIBRARY SERVICE DISTRICT 19. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Letter Reappointing Michael A. Maier to the Bend Library County Service District Budget Committee, through June 30, 1013. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: BANEY: LUKE: Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 18 of 20 Pages CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 911 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 20. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 911 County Service District (two weeks) in the Amount of $5,077.79. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: BANEY: LUKE: Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 21. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District (two weeks) in the Amount of $2,421.52. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: BANEY: LUKE: Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 22. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County (two weeks) in the Amount of $8,0809144.34. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: BANEY: LUKE: Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 19 of 20 Pages 23. Before the Board were Additions to the Agenda. Commissioner Baney will now be the First Vice President of the Association of Oregon Counties. Commissioner Unger will be the Chair of the Oregon Water Utilities Council. Mr. Kanner said that he attended the department heads meeting during the lunch hour, and discussion occurred regarding preparing the incoming Commissioner, Tony DeBone, for his new role. Mr. DeBone did attend County College and has already met with most department heads. Mr. Kanner will try to bring him up to speed on issues that he will likely have to address. Commissioner Unger asked that PRC's be included on the discussion list (per input from citizen Vic Russell of La Pine), along with reauthorization of timber payments. Mr. Wynne and Mr. Kanner are putting together a presentation for new Budget Committee members, and will include Mr. DeBone in that presentation. The Board adjourned at 2: 00 p.m. and went into executive session under ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations. DATED this Day o 2010 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Dennis R. Luke, Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary 6L,VL u4~ Alan Unger, Vice Chair ow~).,7 Tammy Baney, Corn issioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 20 of 20 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, NOVEMBER 22, 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. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Resolution No 2010-131, Establishing Prequalification Standards for Construction of Tenant Improvements at the Deschutes County Jail - Susan Ross, Property & Facilities Suggested Motion: Move approval of Resolution No. 2010-131. 3. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2010-128, Adopting a Supplemental Budget for Fiscal year 2010-11 - Marty Wynne, Finance Suggested Motions: Open and close public hearing; move approval of Resolution No. 2010-128. 4. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2010- 056, Approving the Hellmuth Annexations into Four Rivers Vector Control District - Laurie Craghead, County Counsel Suggested Motions: Open & close public hearing; move. approval of Order No. 2010-056. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, November 10, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Pages 5. CONSIDERATION of Second Reading of Ordinance No 2010-030, Amending Code to Change the Designation of Certain Property from Agricultural to Rural Industrial (Applicant: 4-R Equipment) 6. CONSIDERATION of Second Reading of Ordinance No 2010-031, Amending the Zoning Map to Change the Designation of Certain Property from Agricultural to Rural Industrial (Applicant: 4-R Equipment) - Will Groves, Community Development Suggested Motions: Move second reading of the Ordinances one at a time; move adoption (if appropriate) one at a time. 7. A PUBLIC HEARING on an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision regarding a Nonconforming Use Alteration and Site Plan for Wooden Cabins to Replace Canvas Tents on Existing Platforms at the Outward Bound Facility - Paul Blikstad, Community Development Suggested Motions: Open and continue or close public hearing; make decision (as appropriate). CONSENT AGENDA 8. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-130, Transferring Appropriations within the General Fund Non-Department Category 9. Signature of Order No. 2010-059, Approving the Eraker Annexation into Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #1. 10. Signature of an Amendment to an Intergovernmental Agreement to the Oregon Department of Human Services regarding Mental Health Services 11. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-118, regarding a Legal Department Imprest Checking Account and Credit Card 12. Signature of Letters Reappointing Patrick Griffiths and Matt Shinderman to the Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Committee, through February 28, 2013 13. Signature of a Letter Appointing Sarahlee Lawrence to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, through January 31, 2013 Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, November 10, 2010 Page 2 of 6 Pages 14. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of David Pitts from the Board of Cascade View Estates Special Road District 15. Signature of a Letter Appointing Carolyn Chase to the Board of Cascade View Estates Special Road District, through December 31, 2011 16. Approval of an Economic Development Grant Request: • Redmond Police Department- K-9 Unit- Commissioner Luke, $591; Commissioner Unger, $209; Commissioner Baney, $200 17. Approval of Minutes: • Work Sessions of October 25 and November 10 • Business Meeting of November 10 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COUNTYWIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE DISTRICT #1 18. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Signature o of Resolution No. 2010-129, Adopting a Supplemental Budget of the Countywide Law Enforcement Service District # 1 for Fiscal Year 2010-11 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE BEND LIBRARY SERVICE DISTRICT 19. CONSIDERATION of Signature of a Letter Reappointing Michael A. Maier to the Bend Library County Service District Budget Committee, through June 30, 1013 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 911 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 20. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 911 County Service District (two weeks) CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 21. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District (two weeks) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, November 10, 2010 Page 3 of 6 Pages RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 22. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County (two weeks) 23. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. 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) Monday, November 22 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting - may include executive session 12 noon BOCC/Department Directors Quarterly Meeting 1:30 p.m. Executive session (unless addressed after 10:00 a.m. business meeting) Thursday, November 25 and Friday, November 26 Most County offices will be closed to observe Thanksgiving (November 26 unpaid) Monday, November 29 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, November 10, 2010 Page 4 of 6 Pages Wednesday, December 1 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, December 2 9:00 a.m. Annual Meeting with Sunriver Service District Board of Directors, Sunriver (Great Hall) 12:00 noon Audit Committee Meeting Monday, December 6 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. LPSCC Meeting (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council) Wednesday, December 8 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, December 15 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 4:00 p.m. Open House/Retirement for Dennis Luke - at County Monday, December 20 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting (tentative) 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) (tentative) Wednesday, December 22 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting (tentative) 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) (tentative) Friday, December 24 Most County offices will be closed to observe Christmas Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, November 10, 2010 Page 5 of 6 Pages Monday, December 27 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting (tentative) 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) (tentative) Wednesday, December 29 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting (tentative) 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) (tentative) Friday, December 31 Most County offices will be closed to observe New Years Day Monday, January 3 8:00 a.m. Swearing in of Newly Elected/Re-elected Officials 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting (tentative) 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) (tentative) 3:30 p.m. LPSCC Meeting (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council) Wednesday, January 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting (tentative) 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) (tentative) Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, November 10, 2010 Page 6 of 6 Pages GiG~~TES eo`Z o BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING RE UEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Date: rf Name 1,A) t l f v (z~` Address Phone #s E-mail address F] In Favor F~ 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. J-rFS Q w~ Za BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING a ~ REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: a L~6) 11% Date: I t ZZItt) Name Address S S ►tj. G -7 -70Z Phone #s 5 41 • E-mail address In Favor F~ Neutral/Undecided ~ Opposed Submitting written documents-.as part of testimony? Yes F~ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary ibr~th]e record. J-TES ~ o BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK a Ewa Agenda Item of Interest: _ * 1-7 ~ Date: 21-r U I d Name BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING Address I M g 6 S_ S Kl (Ou A C ri Phone #s j 3 - 68 -r 3 y E-mail address @ Cwt cct S ~ . a In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided F-1 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 CES ru~U Za o < Agenda Item of Interest: Name Address b~_3 UEST TO SPEAK ()REI b . ^0 aA 3e) VDate: I I, D1- ( 80 co ~u.) C~ '4~~ V_ Phone#s 5Y'~ rJ0 ' 4('0;t- E-mail address V~K 4b 646rda In Favor F~ Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents- as part of testimony? 0 Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. V- U~ G~JTES Q~ ~ ~J2 o { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda {tem of Interest: u Kate: Name Address '601-D Phone #s `l-41 ) ~ E-mail address LD ~~(,P ❑ 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 e record. ~v-~es co O G a ~2{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: n Name oilce r lep o--r_-rP r- Address TYD /i " I Date: l 2- /j b ISzL, rt/~ Phone #s E-mail address 6"-P ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided 2 Opposed Submitting written documents. as part of testimony? ❑ Yes XNo If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. JTES Q G~ ' - a Z< BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: L~ -rt k e Q C56 a nJr7 Date: 17-2- /1,P, Name of) t.ZuA&E J~ s Address 9,606 ILIA C 1. 1~ G z Phone #s S41 - 54t# - 6 61.7 5 ZI l - T 77 S~;3~5 E-mail address In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided ~ Opposed Submitting written documents-as part of testimony? Yes F-] No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Introduction This is a hearing on an appeal of the County Hearings Officer's decision on file nos NCU-10-3/SP-10-7, applications for a nonconforming use alteration and site plan for replacing canvas tents with wooden cabins on existing platforms at the Outward Bound camp in the exclusive farm use zone. These applications were previously considered and approved in part by the County Hearings Officer by the written decision dated September 29, 2010. The Hearings Officer's decision was timely appealed by the applicant within the 12-day appeal period. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the procedures established under Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, and is being heard de novo before the Board. Pre-hearing Contacts, Biases, Conflicts of Interests Do any of the Commissioners have any ex-parte contacts, prior hearing observations, biases, or conflicts of interest to declare? If so, please state the nature and extent of those. Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner based on ex-parte contacts, biases or conflicts of interest? (Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed.) I Introduction This is a hearing on an appeal of the County Hearings Officer's decision on file nos. NCU-10-3/SP-10-7, applications for a nonconforming use alteration and site plan for replacing canvas tents with wooden cabins on existing platforms at the Outward Bound camp in the exclusive farm use zone. The applicant has requested approval of a nonconforming use alteration and site plan for replacing canvas tents with wooden cabins on existing platforms at the Outward Bound camp in the Exclusive Farm Use zone. These applications were previously considered and approved in part by the County Hearings Officer by the written decision dated September 29, 2010. The Hearings Officer's decision was timely appealed by the applicant within the 12-day appeal period. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the procedures established under Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, and is being heard de novo before the Board. Burden of proof and Applicable criteria The applicant has the burden of proving that they are entitled to the land use approval sought. The standards applicable to the applications are listed on the previously issued Hearings Officer's decision. Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue, with sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners and parties to this proceeding an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes, appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. Additionally, failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to the proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the Board to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Hearings Procedure The procedures applicable to this hearing provide that the Board of County Commissioners will hear testimony, receive evidence and consider the testimony, evidence and information submitted into the record, and will be the basis for their decision. The record as developed to this point is available for public review at this hearing. Order of Presentation The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a staff report of the prior proceedings and the issues. The applicant will then have an opportunity to make a presentation and offer testimony and evidence. Proponents of the appeal will then be given a chance to testify. When all other proponents have testified, opponents will then be given a chance to testify and present evidence. After both proponents and opponents have testified, the applicant will be allowed to present rebuttal testimony, but may not present new evidence. At the Board's discretion, if the applicant presented new evidence on rebuttal, opponents may be recognized for a rebuttal presentation. At the conclusion of this hearing, the staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments. The Board may limit the time period for presentations. 10 Cross-examination of witnesses will not be allowed. A witness who wishes, during that witness' testimony, however, to ask a question of a previous witness, may direct the question to the Chair. If a person has already testified but wishes to ask a question of a subsequent witness, that person may also direct the question to the Chair after all other witnesses have testified, but prior to the proponent's rebuttal. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the witness. Continuances: The grant of a continuance or record extension shall be at the discretion of the Board. If the Board grants a continuance, it shall continue the public hearing to a date certain or leave the written record open. If, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Board leaves the record open for additional written evidence or testimony, the Board shall establish the time period for submittal of new written evidence or testimony and for additional for response to the evidence received while the record was held open. If the hearing is continued or the record left open, the applicant shall also be allowed time after the record is closed to all other parties to submit final written arguments but no new evidence in support of the application. Pre-hearing Contacts, Biases, Conflicts of Interests Do any of the Commissioners have any ex-parte contacts, prior hearing observations, biases, or conflicts of interest to declare? If so, please state the nature and extent of those. Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner based on ex-parte contacts, biases or conflicts of interest? (Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed.) Question Staffs position Notes Was the Hearings We believe the Officer correct in Hearings Officer determining that the was correct in this construction of the determination. The permanent walls and cabin and tent use roof was not an are essentially the alteration of a same in nature and nonconforming use. extent - sleeping quarters and storage for OB instructors. Does the ESEE It appears from the Program to meet the context that it could Goal prohibition on have referred only additional structural to single-family development on the dwellings. The subject site (HO Hearings Officer decision page 25) referred to it as apply only to a "careless drafting." single family dwelling on the subject site? If the prohibition The Hearings applies to more than Officer found that it just a single-family applied to any dwelling, does it construction. Staff apply to new believes it could construction or does apply only to new it also apply to structures, not alterations of alterations, in this existing structures? instance cabins on top of wooden platforms. If the prohibition Staff believes that if applies to the prohibition alterations, are the applies to permanent walls and alterations, the walls roofs for the cabins and roof for the "additional cabins are structural structural development. development", and therefore prohibited? Appeal Issues If the Board finds that the HO was correct that Outward Bound is prohibited from constructing the cabins, does that violate the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution? Condition #5, will the Board allow it to be rewritten in accordance with the applicant's request to not require a survey of the cabin locations. Condition no. 11 for fire department requirements. Should there be more specificity or allow the applicant to work with the Fire Dept. for fire protection for the cabins. Legal Counsel will have to comment on this appeal issue. Staff believes that if the Board limits the cabins to those outside the SBMH zone, we can determine which cabins are in the SBMH zone without the need for a The applicant should contact the Fire Department to see what provisions for fire proteciton would be required for the cabins. Exhibit List Exhibit A Photos of proposal Exhibit B ESEE DE0009-00 Exhibit C Excerpts from ESEE Exhibit D Vicinity Map Exhibit E Adjacent Property Development Matrix Exhibit F Proposed Revised Conditions of Approval Exhibit G Additional ESEEs DocumenQ Document Reproduces Poorly _ ..___.(Archived)__ The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified a golden eagle nest as site DE0009-00 (map number 14-12-22D-300.) The site is also identified as the Odin Falls site. The sensitive habitat area includes the area within a one quarter mile (11_-20 feet) radius of the nest site. The nest site and sensitive habitat area are designated on a map attached as Exhibit "A". 2. Site Characteristics. Site DE0009-00 is a cliff site located on the west side of the Deschutes River. The nest is on a parcel in the Lower Bridge Estates subdivision. There are two rimrock cliffs' on the west side of the river. The nest is on the lower cliff. There is evidence that the eagles use the upper cliff as a roosting site. The nest is active and has been monitored since the 1970's by ODFW. The nesting period ranges from February 1 through August 1. The land in the sensitive habitat area on the west side of the river is zoned Rural Residential (RR-10) and Exclusive Farm Use (EFUTE). On the east side of the river the parcels in the sensitive habitat area are zoned Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10.) All of the property within the sensitive habitat area is also in the Federal Wild and Scenic River corridor and in the County Landscape Management Combining Zone (LM). The following table lists the parcels entirely or partially within the sensitive habitat area. Map and Lot # Zone Size ownership 14-12-22-A0-100 EFUTE 120ac USA 14-12-22-DO-100 RR-10 private 14-12-22-DO-200 RR-10 private 14-12-22-DO-300 RR-10 private 14-12-22-DO-400 RR-10 private 14-12-22-DO-500 EFUTE 46ac outward Bound 14-12-22-DO-600 RR-10 private 14-12-22-DO-700 RR-10 private 14-12-23-BO-1000 RR-10 private 14-12-23-BO-900 RR-10 private 14-12-23-00-600 MUA-10 26ac private 14-12-23-CO-400 MUA-10 2.50ac private 14-12-23-C.0-500 MUA-10 2.49ac private 14-12-23-CO-600 MUA-10 2.54ac private ESEE Findings and Decision - Site DE00 09-00 O T R Page 1 -i-~ E P i 14=12-23-CO0 900 14-12.-23-CO-1000 14-12-23-CO-1100 14-12.-23-C0-1200 14-12-23-CO-1300 14-12-23-C0-099 MUA=10 MUA-10 MUA-10 MUA-10 MUA-10 MUA-10 2.24ac private 2.44ac private 2.51ac private 2.24ac private 2.25ac private 28.97ac common Except for the outward Bound parcel., the sensitive habitat area are undeveloped and solitude, roosting and foraging areas for outward Bound property is used as a base center. During the nesting period there activity on the Outward Bound Property. parcels in the therefore provide the birds. The camp and training is considerable There is a low rimrock adjacent to the river on the east side. A broad juniper covered bench is above the rimrock and extends to Grubsteak Way. A 26 acre parcel (14-12-23-00-600) encompasses most of the relatively flat juniper covered bench adjacent to the river across from the nest. The sensitive habitat area also includes four smaller parcels and a portion of a fifth east of the 26 acre parcel and west of Grubstake Way. One additional parcel and portions of two others are within the sensitive habitat area east of Grubsteak Way. 3. Conflicts Identification. Potentially Conflicting Uses With Habitat Site Zone Permitted Use Conditional Use RR-10 Single family dwelling -Utility facility -Farm use MUA-10 -Single family dwelling -Farm use EFU -Farm use Forest use -Exploration for minerals -Farm accessory building -Some road construction -Public park, playground -Dude ranch -Home occupation -Personal use landing strip -Recreation facility -Bed and breakfast inn -same as RR-10 -Guest house -Single family dwelling -Residential homes -Private park, campground -Personal use airstrip -Home occupation -Process forest products -Solid waste disposal site -Storage, crushing, processing of aggregate -Church or school -Certain road projects ESEE Findings and Decision - Site DE0009-00 Page 2 i Bed and breakfast The significant. conflicting use would be residential development of the RR-10 and MUA-l0: zoned parcels which would reduce the solitude and foraging area for the birds. Even if the residential development is restricted in the sensitive habitat area, if the Lower Bridge Estates and Odin Falls Ranch subdivisions are built-out, the density of development may alter the foraging area and solitude of the birds sufficiently to cause abandonment of the site. The pair of birds using this site are accustomed to an environment with little disturbance because, except for the use of the Outward Bound property, there is little human activity within the sensitive habitat area or nearby. Development on lots on the east side of the river which are opposite of the nest would be a conflict with the nest because the elevation of the bench is near the elevation of the nest and the homes and residential activities would be visible and audible from the nest. On the west side, the upper rimrock could provide visual separation from the nest. However, construction near the upper rimrock would encroach severely on the nest site because the birds use the upper rim as a perching area. Noise from construction activities, lawn mowing, vehicles, loud music or voices could all disturb the birds during the nesting period (February 1 through August 1.) Disturbance could cause the adults to temporarily abandon the nest which would leave the eggs or young birds vulnerable to cold or predation. Increased recreational use of the river during nesting season could also be a significant conflict. This recreational use is unlikely with the present ownership pattern because there is no public access to the river. However, intensification of recreational or training activities on the Outward Bound property during the nesting period could cause significant conflict with the birds. Forest practices are not a conflicting use because there is no commercial forest land within the sensitive habitat area. There is no evidence of farm use within the sensitive habitat area. The county is prohibited by state statute from regulating farm practices. 4. Economic,: Social Environmental and Energy Consequences Analysis. (A) Economic-consequences Restricting residential development for the sixteen ESEE Findings and Decision - Site DE0009-00 Page 3 RR-io zoned parcels.. would have significant economic impact by reducing the value of the properties. Limiting. the.location of development would not reduce the value of the.property to the. degree of prohibition . of development. The site is not commercial forest land so economic consequences of forest practices is non-existent. Construction costs could increase if building activity is restricted during the nesting season. Limiting the development of parks or campgrounds would have a negligible economic consequence as there are numerous private and public recreational facilities throughout the county. Limiting expansion of the Outward Bound facility could result in added training costs for the organization. Maintaining nest sites will help assure that the species does not become a federally threatened and endangered species. Should this happen, the protection criteria' would be much more restrictive around the remaining nest sites. Some home buyers will pray higher prices for property that has resident wildlife or wildlife, such as golden eagles, in close proximity. Property value may.decrease if special setbacks or covenants are required that could diminish the view from a home site. (B) Social Consequences The social consequence of allowing unregulated conflicting uses could be the abandonment of the nest site which would be be a loss to the segment of society that enjoys viewing wildlife. The positive social consequence of limiting conflicting uses would be continuing opportunities for naturalists and bird watchers to study and enjoy the birds. Prohibiting residential development on the parcels within the sensitive habitat area would have significant social impact as property owners would be unable to develop their property. Limiting the location of development would have less social consequence because homes could still be 'constructed. (C) Environmental Consequences There is a high probability that the environmental consequence of allowing unregulated residential development in the sensitive habitat area would be abandonment of the nest. Suitable cliff habitat is a scarce resource and could not be replaced. ESEE Findings and Decision - Site DE0009-00 Page 4 Development in the sensitive habitat area could cause nest failure and would result in alteration of foraging range. There are no identified negative environmental; consequences of prohibiting.conflicting uses. Residential, development might include the. establishment of lawns which would require removal of native vegetation which could provide screening for the houses from the nest and also provide habitat for other wildlife. Golden eagles, consume considerable numbers of rabbits, ground squirrels and other small prey. Farmers are constantly trying to control these small mammal populations. Loss of raptors could mean a higher use of chemical pesticides which can affect many other mammals, insects and birds. (D) Energy Consequences The energy consequence of allowing residential development are the increased use of fuels for transportation to a remote development and the increased cost of other services such as law enforcement and fire protection. There are no negative energy consequences from prohibiting development in the sensitive habitat area. 5. Program To Meet Goal 5. The Board of 'County Commissioners finds that, based on the ESEE consequences, both the resource site and the conflicting uses are important relative to each other 660-16- uses in a 1 1. In order to protect. both the nest site and sensitive habitat area and allow limited- conflicting uses, single family dwellings within the sensitive habitat area shall be allowed if they meet the special setbacks established below and mapped on "Attachment B'" Map and Lot # Special Setback 14-12-22-DO-100 50 feet from upper rimrock 14-12-22-DO-200 150 feet from upper rimrock 14-12-22-D0-300 150 feet from upper rimrock 14-12-22-DO-400 150 feet from lower rimrock and south of existing driveway. 14-12-22-DO-500 additional structural development wit in sensitive ESEE Findings and Decision - Site DE0009-00 Page 5 habitat area 14-12-22-D0-600. no special setback 14-12-22-DO-700 no special setback 14-12723-$0-1000 no structural development within sensitive habitat area. 14-12-23-B0=900. no special setback 14-12-23-00-600 no structural development within no build area on Exhibit "A-3" 14-12-23-C0-400 no special setback 14-12-23-CO-500 no special setback 14-12-23-CO-600 no special setback 14-12-23-CO-900 50 feet from rear lot line 14-12-23-C0-1000 50 feet from rear lot line 14-12-23-CO-1100 50 feet from rear lot line 14-12-23-CO-1200 50 feet from rear lot line 14-12-23-CO-1300 50 feet from rear lot line 14-12-23-C0-099 common area - no structural development in sensitive habitat area. 2. On the following lots native vegetation must be maintained on the side(s) of the house or accessory structures facing the nest to provide screening between the development and the nest site. A restrictive covenant.for the area between the structures and the river or the rear property line to insure the maintenance of native vegetation shall be granted to the county prior to issuance of a building or septic installation permit. Lawns shall be prohibited within the area subject to the restrictive covenant. Map and Lot # Restrictive Covenant 14-12-22-D0-100 Structure(s.) to river 14-12-22-DO-200 Structure.(s) to river 14-12-22-DO-300 Structure(s) to river 14-12-22-DO-400 Structure(s) to riv er and to north lot li ne 14-12-23-BO-1000 Structure(s) to riv er and to south lot li ne 14-12-23-00-600 Structure(s) to r iver and towards nest site 14-12-23-C0-900 Structure(s) to rear (west) lot line 14-12-23-CO-1000 Structure(s) to rear (west) lot line 14-12-23-CO-1100 Structure(s) to rear (west) lot line 14-12-23-CO-1200 Structure(s) to rear (west) lot line 14-12-23-CO-1300 Structure(s) to rear (west) lot line 3. Conditional uses listed in Title 18.60.030 (RR-10) or ESEE Findings and Decision,- Site DE0009-00 Page 6 Title. 18.32.030(MUA-10`) shall not be permitted within the sensitive habitat area. 4. For all lots within the sensitive habitat area, construct on activities for expansion, maintenance, replacement of existing structures or construction of new structures requiring a building permit from the Deschutes County Community Development Department or septic installation requiring a permit from the Environmental Health Division shall be prohibited during the nesting season from February 1 through August 1. Maintenance and repair of existing structures not requiring a construction permit, permitted work conducted within a closed structure, or repair of a failing septic system are exempt from this requirement. Construction activity subject to a construction permit from the Community Development Department or a septic installation permit from the Environmental Health Division may occur after May 1, if ODFW determines in writing that the nest site is not active or that the young birds have fledged. 5. Nonfarm partitions to.create a parcel for a nonfarm dwelling shall. be prohibited within the sensitive habitat area on 14-12-22-D0-500. ESEE Findings and Decision - Site DE0009-00 Page 7 Excerpts from ESEE - Site DE0009-00 5(1) In order to protect the nest site and sensitive habitat area and allow limited conflicting uses, single family dwellings within the sensitive habitat area shall be allowed if they meet the special setbacks established below and mapped on "Attachment B". 14-12-22-DO-500 No additional structural development within sensitive habitat area. 5(4) For all lots within the sensitive habitat area, construction activities for expansion, maintenance, replacement of existing structures or construction of new structures requiring a building permit shall be prohibited during the nesting season. EXHHBIT ::O DMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\737856\ 1 I, I , ,W, k~` t R', + tG,.. t?R"'•' ~'.••~I sT! ,rat . " , .t t R, t.w . t, ! t ♦ tai ♦ x e , +Y t+ s , tt t ; rt e ~y1 `t'r , , ~*'yarty.,k ~ ~~r ~~yr~ r' a~ f ~ •`tr, : •r4 ,.,r~.~ ti~ f♦r+. `ry~'t-~~rf~'R r y~~". t. a'~►''~ry..ri t'1+.~~ •yi t;~ ~~"•Itt~ (♦~,~~~i i, ~ ><t'.' H it . i r ' I've I 1 ~ ~ ~+R,11.tt~ RA a't, +1{i. ~i ,/Y/+`~r'ij't / wfNNty L~'' - ,,.f ♦ t,Ri _ri477777~~i r',,' r~, f 7♦'r_ t e/''• i ~D 1 ~aL 10~ It ~4 `i ~ S IG+Mf r ~ * .r >k~ tR ~ • f \ f! ~~t, `~r.1l~i '~f w ~ ~ ~ 7 . * 4 ♦ •trRR • r11 ! ' ~ y Ott, ly~+ylt~~{, 4o ,'R ,J'~~ y.,e~. ~,a~711iw~ ~.R,'iJ'~1~.ir~~• 1••.: ,'\S'•`*,`".h,i Lf~ .,~riRi ~ r ~ ~ ~f d" ~4 ~ 1w f ~I' / ~ r,f~ s• ~ '+i ••i r',`~:' V ff. ~ ~~~1t 1~/'' •.-1r~f' ~}g,~•t,~"~ Nt ...~rt{'~.,e~'~~~:.r...f.~ ~ 70 k e. T. 4 v+'.'.r',• i f'7~;,• -..r,♦ YrYrl='~ R'.+r~-M.~ 2z ?+,~w~~~:e, { lr._ ! ~rN. t~.r ,~~IIR f 1fr.~ f^"f~ tf•9*~ t r .1~~., t,i~-r • i 1*' ~e } S ,a ~.,i R, ..1 MRrT ' 4 . wi"ri j' }i ~ f♦ T *i~ t/ ,.•••1• 'w• ~~~y, SQ~~ ♦ f.~, ;7 ~ ~ t'. ~ ~ - ~ Y.~11 t`. j ~ r~ y~ r y •,~d,,`~y,~r ~ '1 ~ a R r r t♦ • _t. ~ r ' r 'i ri t ;x ~ ~ ;.H ~i`i~f~~•!~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~3• 1~ t t+r ~'r~ s'~ R~ ~~9 „lIry.L„' ~ J<.:V-'~~tt .♦r.~'k pc. ±ra~ t...~r~ y :'~'•it~~' 1 R , ' ~F ri.,• , I,,r f Irti .ti, 1. .t- J •.t, s. ;`t, F/.r . yr . M ;o~ M4 , ~,4j` 1~. fi ' i yr• \ r.rtR~ ' f~"' r t;,'i' R ~,t,i t ' .f" ` ~•'t t av T t m'' R it *"r '~r~ ♦ 4t 3E':. ' r. t y r y ~♦f f+/ .'F l r .¢',~>i,t ~ ,i,'f!f• iY~ ~t r~`e r ~1, '`i r ' - ~ ~•/1~ ~ , t' t t l a0ilrr,Y1 It ~ Y'~ ~+.r aa ,♦~y M A.i'Sy-`rTit *i . F P f •lr ~ • a~ ! r ~ t ws1r.I . 1% • If'~♦ ~ r.~y. Y ~ i fjr.l+ 1~ t ~~t a1t~\ , 1 32 e I ty~ wry •i` - It" t,'th, `N r Lt.'1 /ytytt Ay r i * NYy.{~F, t 4''r 4.Rr1 tr . Ir. f~' w ' ` ,t, ti/ ,a,,'~., ;ti r i t, * y7,~~'~ a 'w 1C r "t1 s 4ga .t rC r .t,♦~tr '».wif, / VA A/tt~t. .,ee *5~"- Z~•~ '~i.~il,,, ♦4 ~y ~'r~ o ~,a~v,'r' i•. ~ ~~~~~111fRR'!~*, ~7~ t.,~~ •y dam, ~ - ~f'~r ~ x'~'♦ t .i•t,f4t. z -R1i',,rt f. 1r•'~1 r y~ f f 30 % tar tr,'-t 4►y'. `ia:.- ~1, •.i,i,•. >r~ y-' .a~,,°'~ . • r ljtp v 7 k~ 'v• ~yR w..'1 >_:ti! anS,f•-.'♦:; t~t •4., t ~ rr R y ''.r ' ' ~,.4„ IL +,AR. ~ j• : - • -i+J~'~ "1 t V, I lot". ` ~ ~ ~ f 1,, r f stir r,! 1, 0 -oil yt 1 1 #p1 . • 5' i - y: . ~~`~I?' 'RM~. t,- y Y. r'!". ..5 w .t~C, i • ' '.Y~ Oe, Adjacent Property Exhibit Map Reference Tax Lot House Accessory/Garage Total Year Built A 141222D000400 5628 s q. ft. 1734 s q. ft. 7362 s q. ft. 2004 B 141222D000300 County Owned C 141222D000200 Undeveloped D 141222D000100 2928 s q. ft. 864 s q. ft. 3792 s q. ft. 2004 E 141223B001000 County Owned F 1412230001300 2070 s q. ft. 1227 s q. ft. 3297 s q. ft. 2005 G 1412230001200 2951 s q. ft. 2210 s q. ft. 5161 s q. ft. 2001 H 141223C000400 1836 s q. ft. 1509 s q. ft. 3345 s q. ft. 1994 1 1412230001100 2534 s q. ft. 2101 s q. ft. 4635 s q. ft. 1995 J 1412230000500 1970 s q. ft. 1152 s q. ft. 3122 s . ft. 2000 K 141223CO01000 3329 s q. ft. 904 s q. ft. 4233 s q. ft. 2006 L 1412230000900 2679 s q. ft. 1096 s q. ft. 3775 s q. ft. 2002 M 1412230000600 2263 s q. ft. 1672 s q. ft. 3935 s q. ft. 1999 N 1412230000601 4947 s q. ft. 748 s q. ft. 5695 s q. ft. 1998 TOTAL: 48,352 s q. ft. • Square footage of each shed: 168 sq. ft. • Total square footage of 6 sheds in SBMH Zone: 1008 sq. ft. • 43 sheds could fit within the improvements on Property A, the largest improvement. • 18 sheds could fit within the improvements on Property J, the smallest improvement. EXHIMT F_s_- ::ODMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\737106\I Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Page 1 of 13 Enhancing the liven of citizens by delivering quality services to a cost-effective manner ;w Deschutes Coun#y hot nears' be Informed first! i help ;site map ) location I contact us I En espanol LIVING HERE BUSINESS VISITING GOVERNMENT ESERVICES 6e lnfwmed Ftrs4' Living in Deschutes Cowtty Con o'she sivo infor r it:on for t !dons of Da3ishutes County. You are here: Government n Departments . Assessors Ot`_ce - DIAL Search Results Standard DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Information on the Deschutes County Computer is not guaranteed to be accurate and may contain errors and omissions. Deschutes County provides NO WARRANTY AS TO THE MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR. A PARTICULAR PURPOSE FOR ANY INFORMATION. Original records may differ from computer entries. If reliance upon computer record is intended, verification of information on source documents is required. User expressly acknowledges and agrees that the use of any information appearing on the Deschutes County Computer is at User's sole risk. Deschutes County shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages caused by mistakes, omissions, deletions, errors, defects, in any information, or any failure or delays in receiving information. The following property tax assessment data. is updated nightly. Account: 165426 Map/TL: R 2-004 141222 DO 00400 * * * CURRENT Ownership Information ONLY CALKINS,RONALD D CALKINS,NiENDY M PO BOX 2315 TERREBONNE OR 97760 Site Address: 70110 NVd 83RD PL TERREB014NE 97760 Assessor Property Description LOWER BRIDGE ESTATES Lot: 1 Block: 5 Prop C1s:416 MA:2 VA:12 NH 000 Vol-Page: 2003-81331 Asmt Zone:RR1O CDD Zone:FP (FLOOD PLAIN) :SB_T-III (SENSITIVE BIRD & MAP".MAL HABITAT COMBINING) :RR1O (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 10 ACRES MINIMUM) :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) Land Values Asmt type R.M.V. RURAL LOT 67,810 LA 5,500 SD 8,300 *Total $1,610 Inprovement Values FB $ R.M.V. BLT %GD 162 440,100 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Room Grid for 162 Total SgFt: 5628 - - - - - - R O 0 M S - - - - - - - LR K DR PAM BD BATH OTH FP UTL Sq Ft: 3050 1st. F1 1 1 3 2!1 2 1 2578 Basemt 1 1 1734 Garage Values shown below are as of the Assessment Date, January I of each year PROPERTY A http://www.deschutes.orp-/index.cf n?objectld=65F1110A-BDBD-57C1-91D726DBA942... 11/10/2010 Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Pagel of 3 Enhancirg the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner , Deschutes County but nr.ws! !„e infDr ed first! I `0p I site coati I tocat€on i cunta .t us En esparto€9 - HC(7fJY~ LIVING HERE EUSINESS VISITING GOVERNMENT ESERVICES Be mtprmed Flrtt! Living in Deschutes County CDr:1I)rel1ensrve inioiniatit-i for residcints of De% h utes Couniy. . You are here: _qUVernrrent - Ds3.@13rrL~nts n Assessri's Office » DEAL Search Results Standard DISCLAIMER -11D LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Information on the Deschutes County Computer is not guaranteed to be accurate and may contain ea-rors and omissions. Deschutes County provides NO WARRANTY AS TO THE. MF..RCHANTABIL17Y OR FITNESS FOR A PART _CULAR PURPOSE~F'OR ANY INFORMATION. Original records may differ from. computer entries. If reliance upon computer record is intended, verification of information on source documents is required. User expressly acknowledges and agrees that the use of any information appearing on the Deschutes county computer is at user's sole risk. Deschutes County shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages caused by mistakes, omissions, deletions, errors, defects, in any information, or any failure or delays in receiving information. The following property tax assessment data is updated nightly. Account: 165425 Map/TL: R 2-004 141222 DO 00300 DESCHUTES COUNTY PROPERTY & FACILITIES DEPT 14 NW KEARNEY AVE BEND OR 97701 Site Address: 70130 NW 83RD FL TERREBONNE 97760 Assessor Property Description: LOWER BRIDGE ESTATES Lot: 2 Block: 5 Prop C1s:950 PTA:2 VA:12 NH 000 Vol.-Page..:i995-3950866 Asmt 'Lone:RR10 CDD Zone:FP (FLOOD PLAIN) :SBM1q (SENSITIVE BIRD & MAMKAL HABITAT COMBINING) :RR10 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 10 ACRES MINIMUM) :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT C0113- vING ZONE) N 0 N- A S S L•' S S A B L E Land Values Asmt type R.M.V. RURAL LOT 68,390 Values shown below areas of the AEBGSSrnent Date, January 1 of each year*-"*** 201.0 --------2009-------- 2008-------- Totai Taxable Total Taxable Total Taxable RMV A. V. RMV A. V. RYIV A.V. LND: 68,390 68,390 68,390 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * T A X P A Y M E N T S * * * For a copy of the 2010 property tax statment select the following button: C_ Im src al'lamr- io, till pfp Y This web tae uses the FREE AdobaO Acrobat! Reader- plug-lm /~T It you do no', hare ittis plug-in, o!ck the icon to gel it. PROPERTY B http://www.deschutes.org/index.cfm?objectld=65F 1110A-BDBD-57Cl-9lD726DBA942... 11/10/2010 Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Page 1 of 3 nhandrq the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cast-effective marner Deschutes County o ho*. r;owsi be in;ar:n:>d Firstt help I silt., rr:ap € ler.4t:on (contact us i En esuanano! LIVING HERE BUSINESS VISITING GOVERNMENT ESEfiVICES Befn1pnedRrsi! Living in Deschutes County: co p,eltensivs information frn residonts of Deschutes County. You are here: Gpverjfngnt » Departments " kssesiqt's Offire -DIAL Search Results Standard DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Information on the Deschutes county Computer is not gl;aranteed to be accurate and may contain errors and orlifSSiOnS. Deschutes County provides NO WARRANTY AS TO THE MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE FOR ANY INFORMATION. Original records may differ from computer entries. If reliance upon computer record is intended, verification of information on source documents is required. User expressly acknowledges and agrees that the use of any information appearing on the Deschutes County Computer is at User's sole risk. Deschutes County shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages caused by mistakes, omissions, deletions, errors, defects, in any information, or any faiiure or delays in receiving information. The following property tax assessment data is updated nightly. Account: 165424 Map/TL: R 2-004 141222 DO 00200 KEYSTONE TRUST ANDERSON,RONALD TRUSTEE PO BOX 2268 FRIDAY HARBOR WA 98250 Site Address: 70160 NW 83RD PL TERREBONNE 97760 Assessor Property Description LOWER BRIDGE ESTATES Lot: 3 Block: 5 Prow C1s:406 Y.-A:2 VA:12 NH 000 Vol-Page: 2000-10410 Ascot Zone:RR1O CDD Zone:FP (FLOOD PLAIN; " :RRIO (RURAI, RESIDENTIAL - 10 ACRES MINIMUM) " :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) Land Values Asmt type R.M.V. RURAL LOT ?36,480 Values shown below are as of the Assessment Date, January t of each year --------2010-------- --------2009-------- 2008-------- Tota7. Taxable Total Taxable Total Taxable P34V A. V. RMV A. V. RMV A. V, LND: 86,480 32,840 163,170 31,890 196,590 30,970 T A X P A Y M E N T S For a copy of the 2010 property tax statinent select the following button: Get 2{l't0,propf! j lrtxYstatement !or th C_ _ ___4 This web site uses the FREE Adoba9 Aciobat0 ReaderT" plug-in. F *x. H you do not havethis plug-;n, dick the I= to get it. ~J PROPERTY C http://www.deschutes.org/index.cfin?objectld=65Fl 110A-13DBD-57C1-91 D726DBA942... 11/10/2010 Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Page 1 of 4 Enh,, ncdnq the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cast-effective manner Deschutes County hot news! be infortred first! I help I s!te n?ap i bcatian E certact us , En espan"ol HOT NEWS! LIVING HERE SUSIIVESS VISITING GOVERNMENT ESERVICES Bs kdarmed First! Living in Deschutes County: Comprehcn ive in'onnation for residents of Deschutes County. i You are here: Governm r » Departments " Assessors O flce u DIAL Search Results Standard i DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Information on the Deschutes County Computer is not guaranteed to be accurate and may contain errors and omissions. Deschutes County provides NO WARRANTY AS TO THE MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE FOR ANY INFORMATION. Original records may differ from computer entries. If reliance upon computer record i.s intended, verification of information on source documents is required. User expressly acknowledges and agrees that the use of any information appearing on the Desc..utes County Computer is at User's sole risk. Deschutes County shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages caused by mistakes, omissions, deletions, errors, defects, in any information., or any failure or delays in receiving information. The following property tax assessment data is updated niyntly. Account: 1-65423 Mapl•T-7 R 2-004 141222 DO 00100 CHAVEZ,PHILIP L CHAVEZ,KIMBERLY P 70186 1411 83RD PL TERREBONINE OR 97760 THRU: GMAC Mortgage AGENT: CLG (P) Site Address: 70186 NW 83RD PL TERREBONNE 97760 Assessor Property Description LOWER BRIDGE ESTATES Lot: 4 Block: 5 Prop C1s:416 NIA:2 VA:12 NH 000 Vol-Page: 2001-35620 Ascot Zone:RR10 CID Zone:FP (FLOOD PLAIN) " :SBM11 (SENSITIVE BIRD & MAMMAL HABITAT COMBINING) " :RR10 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 10 ACRES MINIMUM) " :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) * * Land Values Asmt type R.M.V. RURAL LOT 861.480 SD 8,300 LA 2,500 *Total 97,280 Improvement Values FB $ R.M.V. BLT %GD 141. 202,190 2004 Room Grid for 141 Total Scft: 2928 R O O M S - - - - - - - LR K DR FAX BD BA'PFI OTH FP UTL Sq Ft- 2928 1st F1 1 2 3 2 1 864 Garage Values shown below are as of the Assessment Date, January 1 of each year PROPERTY D http://www.deschutes.orglindex.cftn?objectId=65FI 11 OA-BDBD-57CI -9lD726DBA942... 11/10/2010 Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Page 1 of 2 Enhancing the lives of citi.ens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner Deschutes county hot news! tip informed first! help I stye map I location (contract us (En esparo' LIVING HERE BUSINESS VISITING GOVERNMENT ESERVICES as ZmedFirsB Living in Deschutes County: Ct ml-rsl:~r=.6iv, ir,iai:r;atinn for reside.nis of Oes=:iwteS County. 1 You are here: Government ° Ue r{ artments , Assessor's Office - DIAL Search Results Standard i DISCLAIMER AND LIMI:TAT'=0N OF LIABI~_i:TY Information on the Deschutes County Computer is not guaranteed to be accurate and may contain errors and omissions. Deschutes County provides NO WARRANTY AS TO THE MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE FOR ANY INFORMATION. Original records may differ from computer entries. I£ reliance aeon computer record is intended, verification of information on source documents is required. User expressly acknowledges and agrees that the use of any information appearing on the Deschutes County Computer is at User's sole risk. Deschutes County shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages caused by mistakes, omissions, deletions, errors, defects, in any information, or any failure or delays in receiving information. The following property tax assessment data is updated nightly. Account: 165438 Map/TL: R 2-004 141223 BO 01000 DESCHUTES COUNTY PROPERTY & FACILITIES DEPT 14 NW KEARNEY AVE BEND OR 97701 Assessor Property Description LOWER BRIDGE ESTATES Lot: 5 Block: 5 Prop C1s:950 MA:2 VA:12 NH 000 vol-Page:1996-4020175 Asmt Zone:RR1O CDD Zone:FP (FLOOD PLAIN) " :SBMH (SENSITIVE BIRD & MAMMAL HABITAT COMBINING) " :RR10 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 10 ACRES MINIMUM) :11-1 (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) N O N- A S S E S S A B L E Land Values Ascot type R.M.V> RURAL LOT 68,390 Values shown below are as of the ?assessment Date, January I of each year --------2010-------- --------2009-------- 2008-------- Tota.l Taxable Total Taxable Total Taxable RMV A.V. RMV A.V. R^N A.V. LND; 68,390 68,390 68,390 T A X P A Y M E N T S * * * For a copy of the 2010 property tax statment select the following button: < ~ t 2()ifJ pr+~eJ(y,.IdK, er~t1~tlk {pr th►sper; This web she uses the FREE Adobe@ AaobatO Readerm plug-in, If you do not have this plug-in, click the icon to get IL PROPERTY E http://www.deschutes.org/index.cfin?ob.ectld=65F 1110A-BDBD-57C 1-91 D726DBA942... 11/10/2010 Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Pagel of 3 Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner Deschutes County hot rewsi be Infcnned fir ti :help (ste map location i contact us j ce espar-toi LIVING HERE BUSINESS VISiTiNG GOVERNMENT ESERVICES Be Informed Flrstt Living in Deschutes County. Conipilehensive informatbrs'.nr resicenls of Deschutes County. I You are here: Government Donartments -Assessor's Office -DIAL Search Results Standard DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY information on the Deschutes County Computer is not guaranteed to be accurate and may contain errors and omissions. Deschutes County provides NO WU RRANTY AS TO THE MERCHANTABILITY OR. FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE FOR ARY INFORMATION, Original records may differ from computer entries. If reliance upon computer record is in'-ended, verification of information on source documents is required. User expressly acknowledges and agrees that the use of any information appearing on the Deschutes County Computer is at User's sole risk. Deschutes County shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages caused by mistakes, omissions, deletions, errors, defects, in any information, or any failure or delays in receiving information. The folio;oing property tax assessment data is updated nightly. Account: 163074 Map/TL: R 2-004 141223 CO 01300 MICHAELS,SU'ZANNE PETIT,KAREN B 8000 NW GRUBSTAKE WAY REDMOND OR 97756 THRU: CitiMortgage AGENT: CLG (P) Site Address: 8000 NN GRUBSTAKE tt,AY REDMOND 97756 Assessor. Property Description ODIN FALLS RANCH PHASE ONE Lot: 28 Block: 1 Prop C1s:416 MA:2 VA:13 NH 000 Vol-Page:1998-4780053 Asmt ZOne:MUA CDD Zone:SBMH (SENSITIVE BIRD & MAKKAL HABITAT COMBINING) :14UA10 (MULTIPLE USE AGRICULTURAL 10 ACRE MIN) :LM (LANDSCAPE MAISIAGEMERTT COMBINING ZONE) Land Values Asmt type Acres R.M.V. RURAL LOT 2.25 117,720 SD 8,300 LA 2,500 *Total 2,25 128,520 Improvement Values FB $ R.M.V. BIT %GD 151 175,640 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Room Grid for i51 Total SgFt: 2070 - - - - - R O 0 M S - - - - - - - LR. K DR FAM BD BATH OTH FP UTL Sq Ft: 2070 1st F1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1227 Garage Values shown below are as of the Assessment Date, January 1 of each year --------2010-------- --------2009-------- ---------2008 PROPERTY F http://www,deschutes.org/index.cfin?objectId=65F I 110A-BDBD-57C1-91D726DBA942... 11/16/2010 Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Page 1 of 3 Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality serviiLva in a Cost-effective manner , Deschutes County hot nev4s! be ir.fornied f rs*.! I tielu I site map ( lerat on ; ;;intact us I En espal ui LIVING HERE BUSINESS VISITING GOVERNMENT ESERVICES Be n'ta mouse Living in Deschutes County: tson;l:;rahensive inlormatlbn foci t, irerr`.s of DP.G^_ siitcs Gotwty. i You are here: Government Departments » Assessors Office » DIAL Search Results Standard DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Information on the Deschutes County Computer is not guaranteed to be accurate and may contain errors and omissions. Deschutes County provides NO WARRANTY AS TO THE MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE FOR ANY INFORMATION. Original records may differ from computer entries. If reliance upon computer record is intended, verification of information on source documents is required. User expressly acknowledges and agrees that the use of any information appearing on the Deschutes County Computer is at User's sole risk. Deschutes County shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages caused by mistakes, omissions. deletions, errors, defects, in any information, or any failure or delays in receiving information. The following property tax assessment data is updated nightly. Account: 163071 Map/TL: R 2-004 141223 CC 01200 KRUCKENBERG FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST KRUICKENBERG; LARRY RAY KRUCKENBER, DAWN YAMANAKA 8010 N1 GRUBSTAKE WAY REDMOND OR 97756 Site Address: 8010 NW GRUBSTAKE WAY REDMONTD 97756 Assessor Property Descr..ipt_on ODIN FALLS RANCH PHASE ONE Lot: 29 Block: 1 Prop C1s:401 MA:2 VA:13 NH 000 Vol-Page: 2005-44522 Asmt ZOne:MUA CDD Zone:SBMH (SENSITIVE BIRD & MAt+ulAL HABITAT COMBINING) :MUTA10 (MULTIPLE USE AGRICULTURAL 10 ACRE MIN) :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) Land Values Asmt type Acres R.M.V. RURAL LOT 2.24 131,410 SD 4,500 LA 3,500 *Total 2.24 139,410 Improvement Values FB $ R.M.V. BLT %GD 151 266,680 200'. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Room Grid for 151 Total SgFt: 2951 R O 0 M S~ - z LR K DR FAM BD BATH OTH FP UTL Sq Ft: 2951 1st F1 1 1 1_ 3 2\1 1 1 2210 Garage Values shown below are as of the Assessment Date, January 1 of each year **x*s 2.010-------- --------2009-------- 2008-------- Tota1 Taxable Total Taxable Total Taxable RMV A.V. P.Mv A.V. RMV A.V. PROPERTY G http://www.deschutes.org/index.cfin?objectId=65Fl t 10A-BDBD-57C 1-91 D726DBA942... 11/16/2010 Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Page 1 of 3 Enhancing the lives of citizena by delivering quality services in a coat-effective manner y Deschutes County ho[ veers! i7e informed €;rsi{ he:p l site tt:ap I location i cont<ci us ) En espanoi LIVING HERE BUSINESS VISITING GOVERNMENT ESERVICES se nOfarmed Rrstt Living in Deschutes County: (~>":i;roP n,:ve bformat:on for res derts of Or.5:;hut s Cotmlq, You are here: GO>emme01- Oep4rlmen14 - Assosso: s_Officp -DIAL Search Results Standard DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Information on the Deschutes County Computer is not guaranteed to be accurate and may contairi errors and omissions. Deschutes County provides NO WARRANTY AS TO THE MERCHANTABILITY OR FIT%-E'SS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE FOR 7WY INFORPIkTION. Original records may differ from computer entries. If reliance upon computer record is intended, verification of information on source documents is required. User expressly acknowledges and agrees that the use of any information appearing on the Deschutes County Computer is at. User's sole risk. Deschutes County shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages caused by mistakes, omissions, deletions, errors, defects, in any information, or any failure or delays in receiving information. The following property tax assessment data is updated nightly. Account: 163060 Map/TL: R 2-004 141223 CO 00400 KDCC LLC C/O RINNE, KEITH & DELLA (A) 8046 r?r3 GRUBSTAKE WAY REDMOND OR 97756 Site Address: 8015 NW GRUBSTAKE WAY REDMOND 97756 Assessor Property Description ODIN FALLS RANCH PHASE ONE Lot: 4 Block: 2 Prop C1s:401 MA:2 VA-13 NTH 000 Vol-Page: 2007-762 Asmt ZOne:MUA CDD Zone:SBMH (SENSITIVE BIRD & MAMMAL HABITAT COMBINING) :14UA10 (MULTIPLE USE AGRICULTURAL 10 ACRE MIN) " :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) Land Values Asmt type Acres R.M.V. RURAL LOT 2.50 83,880 SD 2,500 LA 2,000 *Total 2.50 88,380 Improvesmert Values FB $ R.M.V. BLT %GD 141 175,570 1994 Room Grid for 141 Total SgFt: 1836 a - - - - R 0 0 M S - - - - - - - LR K DR FAM BD BATH OTH FP UTL Sq Ft: 1836 1st F1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 1509 Garage Values shown below are as of the Assessment Date, January 1 ofeach year --------2010-------- Total Taxable RWTJ A.V. LND: 88,380 http://www.deschutes.oriz/ind 2.009-------- Total Taxable RMV A.V. 162,760 ex.cfin?objectId=65F 11 2008-------- To*_al Taxable RMV A.V. 195,180 PROPERTY H [0A-BDBD-57C1-91 D726DBA942... 11/16/2010 Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Page 1 of 3 Enhancing the fives of citizens by delivering quality services in a coast-effectiive manner t er, Deschutes County hot news! be informed first! I hrlp I site map l location I contact us I En espaflol LIVING HERE BUSINESS VISITING GOVERNMENT ESERVICES eearmeeeta~sti Living in Deschutes County: Contnroi,.snsivo info rnation forresidortsof Deschutes County, I You are here: Govrnmeni r Deoartmetnts Assesso,'s Office . DIAL Search Results Standard DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Information on the Deschutes County Computer is not guaranteed to be accurate and may contain errors and cnissions. Deschutes County provides NO WARRANTY AS TO THE MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE FOR ANY INFORMATION. Original records may differ from computer entries. If reliance upon computer record is intended, verification of information on source documents is required. User expressly acknowledges and agrees that the use of any information appearing on the Deschutes County Computer is at User's sole risk. Deschutes County shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages caused by mistakes, omissions, deletions, errors, defects, in any information, or any failure or delays in receiving information. The following property tax assessment data is updated nightly. Account: 163069 Map/TL: R 2-004 141223 CO 01100 WACHS LIVING TRUST WACHS,ERHARDT EDMUND 8020 NW GRUBSTAKE WAY REDMONI) OR 97756 NOTA'1° ION Type, BOPTA CHANGE 309.120 Site Address: 8020 N'tF GRUBSTAKE VIAY REDMOND 97756 Assessor Property Description ODIN FALLS RANCH PHASE ONE Lot: 30 Block: 1 Prop C1s:416 MA:2 VA:13 NH 000 Vol-Page: 2004-03400 Ascot Zone:MUA CDD Zone:SBMH (SENSITIVE BIRD & MAMIAL HABITAT COMBINING) :MUA20 (MULTIFLE USE AGRICULTURAL 10 ACRE MIN) :LM (LANDSCAPE PLANAGEMENT COMBINING `LONE) Land Values Ascot type Acres R.M.V. RURAL LOT 2.51 102,210 SD 4,150 LF 1,000 *Total 2.51 107,360 improvement Values FB $ R.M.V. ELT %GD 153 295,000 1995 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Room Grid for. 153 Total. SoFt: 2534 - R O 0 M S - - - - - - - LR K DR FAt, BD BATH OTH FP UTL Sq Ft: 1913 1st F1 1 1. 1. 1 1\1 1 1 1 420 2nd Fl 2 1 1 201 Attic 1 2101 Garage Values shown below, are as of the Assessment Bate, January t of each year PROPERTY 1 http://www.deschutes.org-/i-ndex.efin?objectId=65Fl 110A-BDBD-57C1-91D726DBA942... 11/10/2010 Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Page 1 of 3 Enttanelnq tht fivut ef.titixens by delivering cluatitY services in a m.gffectivve manner Ueschides &V6 - Mnty hot nev;s! be informed Pr5t! ) help , site map ( location contact t€s ) En espa-`irt HOTNEW31 LIVING HERE BUSINESS VISITING GOVERNMENT ESERVICES 6oinformed Etratt Living in Deschutes County; von tx=:h :nsi~e r,zfo rnt9 ion fcr rt.: ideriis o Oes,^4lutes County. I You are here: Government » Departments -Assessor's Office.- DIAL Search Results Standard DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Information on the Deschutes County Computer is not guaranteed to be accurate and may contain errors and omissions. Deschutes County provides NO WARRANTY AS TO THE MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE FOR ANY INFORMATION. Original records may differ from computer entries. If reliance upon computer record is intended, verification of information on source documents is required. User expressly acknowledges and agrees that the use of any information appearing on the Deschutes County Computer is at User's sole risk. Deschutes County shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages caused by mistakes, omissions, deletions, errors, defects, in any information, or any failure or delays in receiving information. The following property tax assessment data is updated nightly. Account.: 163061 Map/TL: R 2-004 141223 CO 00500 HOLCOMB,RAY HOLCOMB,DORIS 8035 NW GRUBSTAKE WAY REDMOND OR 97756 Site Address: 8035 NW GRUBSTAKE WAY REDMO14D 97756 Assessor Property Description ODIN FALLS RANCH PHASE ONE Lot: 5 Block: 2 Prop C1s:401 MA:2 VA:13 NH 000 Vol-Page: 2005-1-1505 Asmt Zone:MUA CDD Zone:SBMH (SENSITIVE BIRD & MAW,1AL HABITAT COMBINING) :MUA10 (MULTIPLE USE AGRICULTURAL 10 ACRE MIN) " :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) Land Values Asmt type Acres R.M.V, RURAL LOT 2.49 72,670 LA 3,000 SD 4,150 *Total 2.49 79,820 Improvement Values FB $ R.M.V. BLT %OD 151 205,380 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Room Grid for 151 Total SgFt: 1970 - - R 0 0 M S - - - - - - - LR K DR FAM BD BATH 0TH FP UTL Sq Ft: 1970 1st F1 1 1 1 3 2\1 1 1 1152 Garage *****Values shown below are as of the Assessment Date, January 1 of each year --------2010 --------2009-------- ---------2008-------- Total Taxable Total Taxable Total Taxable RMV A. V. RMV A. V. RMV A. V. LNDx 79,820 144,270 172,360 PROPERTY J http://www.deschutes.orglindex.cfim?objectld=65F 11 l OA-BDBD-57C 1-91 D726DBA942... 11/16/2010 Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Page 1 of 4 Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering qua'ity services in a cost-effective manner Deschutes County Itct news' to informed firth i tte(p (site rraf' I location i contact us I En espanal LfViNG HERE BUSINESS VfS{TING GOVERNMENT ESERVICES HOT NEtiVW ea tniarmodFlrsti Living in Deschutes County: Comfsrehens.ve Inloiriat;gn for resident; it Descmmns County. You are here: Government Departments H Assessor, Office DIAL Search Results Standard DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Information on the Deschutes County Computer is not guaranteed to be accurate and may contain errors and omissions. Deschutes County provides NO WARRANTY AS TO THE KERCHM TABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR P-RPOSE FOR ANY INFOR,'w1ATION. Original records may differ from computer entries. If reliance upon computer record is intended, verification of info mation on source documents is required. User expressly acknowledges and agrees that the use of any information appearing on the Deschutes County Computer is at User's sole risk. Deschutes County shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages caused by mistakes, omissions, deletions, errors, defects, in any information, or any failure or delays in receiving information. The following property tax assessment data is updated nightly. Account: 163067 Map/TL: R 2-004 141223 CO 01000 HAYES,DAVID M HAYES,SUZETTE M 4750 NE 17TH ST REDMOND OR 97756 THRU: WASHINGTON MUTUAL AGENT: CLG (P) Site Address: 8030 NW GRUBSTAKE WAY REDDIOND 97756 Assessor Property Description ODIN FALLS RANCH PHASE ONE Lot: 31 Block: 1 Prop C1s:415 MA:2 VA:13 NH 000 Vol-Page: 2007-30914 Asrrt Zone.:WUA CDD Zone:SBI*i (SENSITIVE BIRD & MA10L4L HABITAT COMBINING) " :MUA10 (MULTIPLE USE AGRICULTURAL 10 ACRE MIN) :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING 'LONE) Land Values Asmt type Acres R.M.V. RURAL LOT 2.44 100,190 SD 8,300 LA 3,000 *Total 2.44 111,490 Improvement Values FB $ R.A!.V. BLT %GD 153 236,740 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Room Grid for 153 Total SgFt: 3329 - - - - - R 0 0 M S - - - - - - - LR K DR FAM 8D BATH OTH FP UTL Sq Ft: 2048 1st F1. 1 1 2 2 1 1 1281 2nd F1 2 1 904 Garage Values shown below are as of the Assessment Date, January 1 of each year PROPERTY K http:l/www.deschutes.org/index.efin?objectld=65F I 1 l0A-BDBD-57C 1-91 D726DBA942... 11/10/2010 Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Pagel of 3 Enhan1:11, the lives of citizens by delivering quality SCYVICes in a cost-effective manner Deschutes County hot news! be infom?ed first! I help i site map I location I contaCt us I En espano€ NEW LIVING HERE BUSINESS ViSITING GOVERNMENT ESERVICES eemao rn od diets Living in Deschutes County: Cony~reP siv intatmatinn for residents of escllutes courm/, You are here: Govemtren » Dft ar renLj - Hssessar's 01fjce, . DIAL Search Results Standard DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Information on the Deschutes County Computer is not guaranteed to be accurate and may contain errors and omissions. Deschutes County provides NO :JA2RANTY AS TO THE MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE FOR ANY INFORMATION. Original records may differ from computer entries. If reliance upon computer record is intended, verification of information on source documents is required. User expressly acknowledges and agrees that the use of any information appearing on the Deschutes County Computer is at User's sole risk. Deschutes County shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages caused by mistakes, omissions, deletions, errors, defects, in any information, or any failure or delays in receiving information. The following property tax assessment data is updated nightly, Account: 163065 Map/TL: R 2-004 141223 CO 00900 'ACKF=4, DON MCY,EOWIN, MARGARET 8040 hW GRUBSTAKE WAY REDMOND OR 97756 Site Address: 8040 Nth' GRUBSTAKE WAY REDMOND 97756 Assessor Property Description, ODIN FALLS RANCH PHASE ONE Lot: 32 Block: 1 Prop C1s:416 MA:2 VA:13 NH 000 Vol-Page: 2002-41896 Asmt Zone:MUA CDD Zone:SBMH (SENSITIVE BIRD & MADOIAL HABITAT COMBINING) :MUA10 (MULTIPLE USE AGRICULTURAL 10 ACRE MIN) " :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) Land Values Asmt type Acres R.M.V. RURAL LOT 3,24 118,260 SD 4,500 LA 3,500 *Total 3,24 126,260 Improvement Values FB $ R.M.V. BLT %GD 141 176,430 2002 Room Grid for 141. Total. SgFt: 2679 - - - - R O 0 M S - . - - - - - LR K DR FAY BD BATH OTH FP UTL Sq Ft: 2679 lst F1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1096 Garage *****Values shown below areas of the Assessment Date, January 1 of each year***** Total Taxable RMV A.V. I=: 126,260 http://www.deschutes.org/ind ----___-2009-------- Total Taxable RbIV A.V. 231,140 ex.cfin?ob.ectld=65F l l ---------2008-------- Total Taxable RMV A.V. 276,840 PROPERTY L l 0A-BDBD-57C 1-91 D726DBA942... 11/10/2010 Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Page 1 of 3 Enhancing the fives of citizens by delivering qua littyserviices in a cost-effective manner " Deschutes County hot net;:s! be informed first! i heft I site trap E location i contact us i En esparol LIVING HERE BUSINESS VISITING GOVERNMENT ESERVICES e8 n°:a.meeFirstr Living in Deschutes County snz,rn:trcns'l.s.iniorra6ont<xrsadc:r,ts iDtsc!l.tesCounty. You are here: Government , Deoadvients » AssPLsso;'s Oiftcs DIAL Search Results Standard r.ISCLAI ZR. AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Information on the Deschutes County Computer is not guaranteed to be accurate and may contain errors and omissions. Deschutes County provides NO WARRANTY AS TO THE MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE FOR ANY INFORMATION. Original records may differ from computer entries. If reliance upon computer record is intended, verification of information on source documents is required. User expressly acknowledges and agrees that the use of any information appearing on the. Deschutes County Computer is at User's sole risk. Deschutes County shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages caused by mistakes, omissions, deletions, errors, defects, in any information, or any failure or delays in recei:v'ng in`ormati.on. The following property tax assessment data is updated nightly. Account: 163062 Map/TL- R 2-004 141223 CO 00600 WEDEL,ALAN G tvv"EDEL, RUBY L 8045 '94 GRUBSTAKE WAY REDMOND OR 97756 Site Address: 8045 NW GRUBSTAKE WAY REDMOND 97756 Assessor Property Description ODIN FALLS RANCH PHASE ONE Lot: 6 Black: 2 Prop C1s:401 MA;2 VA:13 NH 000 Vol-Page: 2002-61951 Asmt Zone:MUA CDD Zone:SBMH (SENSITIVE BIRD k MAMMAL HABITAT COMBINING) :MUA10 (MULTIPLE USE AGRICULTURAL 10 ACRE MIN) " :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) Land Values Ascot type Acres R.M.V. RURAL LOT 2.54 81,080 LA 3,500 SD 4,150 *Total 2.54 88,730 Improvement Values FB $ R.M.V. BLT RGD 153 184,440 1999 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Room Grid for 153 Total SgFt: 2263 R O O M S - - - - - - - LR K DR FAM BD BATH OTH FP UTL Sq Ft: 1612 1st Fl 1 1 1 2 2 1 651 2nd F1 2 1 1672 Garage Values shown below are as ofthe Assessment Date, January 1 of each year --------2010-------- --------2009-------- ---------2008-------- Total Taxable Total Taxable Total Taxable FM A.V. RMV A. V. RMV A.V. PROPERTY M http://www.deschutes.org/iiidex.cfin?objectld=65FI I I0A-BDBD-57C1-91D726DBA942... 11/16/2010 Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Page 1 of 4 Enhancing the lives of cititens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective mmannneerr3r Deschutes County hot needs! be Informed first! I help 1 1t^ mai> { lcratinn 1 corrtact us 1 En esoa6oi . _ ..NOTNEWS! . FLIVING HERE BUSINESS VISITING GOVERNMENT ESERVICES BehdomwdFlrsu Living in Deschutes County: Comprehensive inlonriation for residents of Deschutes County. You are here: Government » Departments a Assessor's Office » DIAL Search Results Standard DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Information on the Deschutes County Computer is not guaranteed to be accurate and may contain errors and omissions. Deschutes county provides NO WARPT14TY AS TO THE MERCHANTABILITY OR FITDJESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE FOR ANY INFORMATION. Original records may differ from computer entries. If reliance upon computer record is intended, verification of information on source documents is required. User expressly acknowledges and agrees that the use of any information appearing on the Deschutes County Computer is at User's sole risk. Deschutes County shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages caused by mistakes, omissions, deletions, errors, defects, in any information. or any failure or delays in receiving information. The following property tax assessment data is updated nightly. Account:: 188150 Map/TL; R 2-004 141223 00 00601 RINWE,A KEITH RINNE,DELLA L 8046 NrN GRUBSTAKE WAY REDMOND OR 97756 NOTATION Type: BOPTA CHANGE 309.120 Site Address: 8046 N-W GRUBSTAKE WAY REDMOND 97756 Assessor Property Description Lot: Block, Prop C1s:416 NA:2 VA-13 NH 000 Vol-Page: 2005-62108 Asmt Zone:MUA CDD Zone:FP (FLOOD PLAIN) " :SBMH (SENSITIVE BIRD & MAMMAL HABITAT COMBINING) :MUA10 (MULTIPLE USE, AGRICULTURAL 10 ACRE MIN) :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) Land Values Asmt type Acres R.M.V. RURAL LOT 12.72 310,940 LA 5,000 SD 16,000 *Total 12.72 331,940 Improvement Values **'x FB $ R.M.V. BLT %GD 162 459,890 1998 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Room Grid for 162 Total SgFt: 4947 - - - - R 0 0 M S - - - - - - - LR K DR FAM BD BATH OTH FP UTL Sq Ft: 3962 1st F1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1. 1 985 Basemt 1 748 Garage Values shown below are as of the Assessment Date, January 1 of each year PROPERTY N http://www.deschutes.org/index.cftn?objectld=65Fl 110A-BDBD-57C1-91D726DBA942... 11/10/2010 Proposed Conditions of Approval 5. The Applicant will work with County planning staff and, if necessary, the County GIS department to determine which sheds are located within the SBMHzone. 11. The Applicant/Owner shall provide the Redmond Fire Department with copies of the construction plans and building permit application for its review and comment. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of The Redmond Fire Department after such consultation. ::ODMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\737978\ 1 ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION BALD EAGLE HABITAT SITES DE0035-00 and DE0035-01 1. Inventory. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified two bald eagle nests in Township 15S, Range 10E, Section 23, Tax Lot 1400. The ODFW identifiers for these sites are DE0035-00 and DE0035-01. The sites are also known as Cloverdale. The sites are described in the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region Administrative Report No. 93-1. The sensitive habitat area is identified as the area east of Highway 20 that is within a 1/4 mile radius of each nest site. The nest sites and the sensitive habitat area are mapped on Exhibit "A". 2. Sensitive Habitat Area Site Characteristics. The nests are alternate nests sites for a single pair of birds. The nest sites and the sensitive habitat area in section 23 is under U.S. Forest Service jurisdiction. The sensitive habitat area in sections 13, 14, and 24 is located on private land and is the subject of this ESEE analysis. There are portions of three ownerships within the sensitive habitat area: 15-10-00-1400 federal 15-10-14-700 Squaw Creek Irrigation District 15-10-24-200 private Both nest sites are located in large ponderosa pine trees. A large irrigation pond is located on private land north of the nests and within the sensitive habitat area. The Squaw Creek Irrigation Canal runs through the sensitive habitat area. The habitat site contains land zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFUTRB, EFUSC) and Forest (F1). Portions of the sensitive habitat site are also zoned Landscape Management Combining Zone (LM) and Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone (SMIA). The combining zones are overlays on the underlying base zones. The uses permitted in base zone are also permitted in the SMIA and LM combining zones. The minimum lot sizes in the EFU zone will maintain a lot size of at least 20 acres for nonfarm lots and require a parcel containing at least 23 acres of irrigation for farm parcels. ESEE Findings and Decision - Site DE0035-00 and DE0035-01 Page 1 r - G 3. Conflicts Identification Potentially Conflicting Uses With Habitat Site. Zone Permitted Use Conditional Use EFU -Farm use -Forest use -Exploration for minerals -Farm accessory building -Some road construction -Single family dwelling -Residential homes -Private park, campground -Personal use airstrip -Home occupation -Process forest products -Solid waste disposal site -Storage, crushing, processing of aggregate -Church or school -Certain road projects -Bed and breakfast F1 -Same as EFU -Parks and campgrounds -Distribution lines -Fire station -Portable processing forest products The nesting season ranges from January 15 through August 1. Conflicting uses occuring during this time period could cause disturbance of the birds leading to nest failure or abandonment of the site. Disturbance and harassment by the public has been a conflict prior to 1992 when the U.S. Forest Service placed an administrative closure on the Forest Service lands adjacent to the nest sites. Construction or use of buildings if conducted during the nesting season could interfere with nesting. A residence, agricultural building, church or school located within the sensitive habitat area could increase disturbance and cause a loss of solitude. Expansion of the highway could cause disturbances to the nest site. Any of the conditional uses could cause disturbance to the nesting birds if conducted during the nesting period. Although agricultural and or forest practices could alter foraging areas or disturb the birds, these uses are not regulated by the County. The county has no authority to regulate commercial forest practices. Forest practices are regulated by the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODOF). The State Forest Practices Act establishes a procedure for notification of forest operations which requires a management plan for forest operations within one half mile of eagle nests. 4. Economic, Social. Environmental and Energy Consequences Analysis. (A) Economic Consequences ESEE Findings and Decision - Site DE0035-00 and DE0035-01 Page 2 The economic consequence of restricting highway expansion or relocation could be an increased public cost for transportation facilities. Construction costs could increase if building activity is restricted during the nesting season. Limiting the development of parks or campgrounds would have a negligible economic consequence as there are numerous private and public recreational facilities throughout the county. (B) Social Consequences The social consequence of allowing unregulated conflicting uses could be the abandonment of the nest site which would be be a loss to the segment of society that enjoys viewing wildlife. Restricting development options for individual property owners could have a negative social consequence. However, the two private ownerships with land in the sensitive habitat area already have dwellings on their lots which are outside of the habitat area. structural development within the sensitive habitat area could be prohibited with minor economic, or social consequence as owners have the potential to place structures outside of the sensitive habitat area. Farming activity may occur within the sensitive habitat area. The positive social consequences of limiting conflicting uses would be continuing opportunities for naturalists and bird watchers to study and enjoy the birds. (C) Environmental Consequences The environmental consequences of allowing unregulated conflicting uses could be the failure of nesting, abandonment of the nest site, or alteration of foraging- area. Highway noise and activity could cause nest abandonment, if the highway is moved or widened closer to the sites. There are no identified negative environmental consequences of prohibiting conflicting uses. (D) Energy Consequences There could be an increased energy use if Highway 20 is relocated or redesigned to accommodate the eagle nest sites. 5. Program To Meet Goal 5. The Board of County Commissioners finds that, based on ESEE Findings and Decision - Site DE0035-00 and DE0035-01 Page 3 the ESEE consequences, both the resource site and the conflicting uses are important relative to each other and that the ESEE consequences should be balanced to allow conflicting uses in a limited way (OAR 660-16-010(3)). In order to protect both the nest site and sensitive habitat area and allow limited conflicting uses, the following restrictions shall apply in the sensitive habitat area: 1. The county shall require site plan review in conformance with the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Combining zone for all land uses within the sensitive habitat area requiring a land use permit. 2. Structural development within sensitive habitat area shall be there are alternate locations outside of the sensitive habitat 3. Agricultural and forest practice the nesting period. The county these activities. the quarter mile prohibited because for structures area. s may occur during does not regulate 4. The U.S. Forest Service has placed an administrative closure restricting public access on the Federal lands within the site. 5. The Oregon Department of Transportation must coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any project near the nest site in order to comply with the Federal Endangered Species Act. 6. The State Forest Practices Act establishes a procedure for notification of forest operations. A a management plan for forest operations is required for certain forest practices within one half mile of bald eagle nests. ESEE Findings and Decision - Site DE0035-00 and DE0035-01 Page 4 J2~ 4 ~7 aA I' a1 ! a A. ~i,3l3 n Gya~el Pits x 14 L \ g. 16 =a. ( ravel Pit 0 d p~A c:n ,C), H "I G 23 z i z 03 A F 4 6 = I z Qp 1'\ Z~ M I 9 1 0 0,.. eM M I ~ 1 o X3093 Cloverdale 0e6 I: 0 I I l' I 1 !7 1 I O ~ a % I i ~ ~~r~scmmancmasmn~cm~ f i 1 a ' s* i J ``fA „o 19~,.a. 31 J Exhibit "A-1" Bald Eagle DE-0035-00/DE-0035-03 15-10-23/NWNE/NENE ox -W M Z It Si •^t% -as ((S OfOtl O liltOtl3A07J w t t9 0 t A y CL Q Q tc) W W 1 ?M- W < W W W Z (/7 4 in VJ A to .'rA \ • to o vow N • ) - :'^sR • a d tl 'x, t ~c'~7' : 'it~3fii~uv'n"" i~ 'tea- ••C~C'••••• Q ~ Q C n L • • • .f' C C • • y N • C ~?f G ♦f1 t•1 • M_ ~•w i f o M a_o W • • • W l IyJ ~ , •T?» LA- o a o i '0 1 0. 000, ~ • , W W N ,Wj, Yf W .f• • t 1, I N i N z~ W 1 - r (n O o n ~ • rr~ • ~ LA- WO ~L6. N O - W N N w. ~3~ • ` .1 F-Ln a. Yi • t~• ) f 141 PANNua i ~ ~ ' x.. f~i4F .V 1~• ~ 's++w ;912 t`I til. b_~r~i ,~~~•■R • `t ,~'r ~dri 335 ~ •_s! ~s•.~t T~ m ` M (n a ~O Qo La-9 C\j IN , bar C\., \Q9 to 4 - l r. W \ • • ~i In * - - - T---f--T---T--7--T--'--T--T--T- - 'T--'I l _a I 1 1 a I a l I It. ! i t na I fa t 1 • l t , • , -e I ti= t ni I fa -a ( •..S t • I s -i 1 n• I a I a • t Na I ` • • i °ew say ~ U313wolol 6 SI Z L 0 133 OOOV 0003 0 0004 Exhibit "A-2" 0008V : l 31VDS Bald Eagle - ' ' DE-0035-00/DE-0035-01 15-10-23/NWNE/NENE f„ • • r• v V V Too sy 702 MUA10 SSVITA,,,, &-6 EFU EFUTRB~''~ Sal • . FP a ~ a ~ • ry W / J , •t Ap~ 10 a EfUSC z EFUTR9 LOT V.-Siff A 23 2 r.• zoo ioo {r~ \L w•S.. LOT ] i s i \ 1 I 300 A~oo3S-0~ IA i/ TOO a° f q •••••M♦ s~ 900 600 SAM 23 24 Exhibit "A-3" Bald Eagle DE-0035-00/DE-0035-01 15-10-23/NWNE/NENE ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION GOLDEN EAGLE SITE JDE0012-00 and DE0012-01 1. Inventory. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified two nest sites: DE0012-00 (map number 15-11-00-800) and DE0012-01 (14-11-00-6200). The sites are located on the rim of in Deep Canyon. The sensitive habitat area includes the area within a 1/4 mile (1320 feet) radius of each nest site. The habitat sites and sensitive habitat area are designated on maps attached as Exhibit "A". Site DE0012-01 and the sensitive habitat area are located on federal land (Bureau of Land Management) and is therefore not subject to this ESEE analysis and decision. The site is included on the inventory of golden eagle sites on federal land. 2. Site Characteristics. Site DE0012-00 and DE0012-01 are alternate nest sites for a pair of golden eagles. Site DE0012-00, Upper Deep Canyon, is located in an old growth ponderosa pine tree approximately one quarter mile north of Highway 126. Approximately 10 acres of a 99 acre, privately owned, undeveloped parcel is located within the sensitive habitat area (15-11-00-900). The remainder of the sensitive habitat area is federal land. The sensitive habitat area is zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFUSC). 3. Conflicts Identification. Potentially Conflicting Uses With Habitat Site Zone Permitted Use Conditional Use EFU -Farm use -Forest use -Exploration for minerals -Farm accessory building -Some road construction -Single family dwelling -Residential homes -Private park, campground -Personal use airstrip -Home occupation -Process forest products -Solid waste disposal site -Storage, crushing, processing of aggregate -Church or school -Certain road projects -Bed and breakfast RR-10 -Single family dwelling -Utility facility -Farm Use -Public park, playground -Dude ranch -Home occupation -Personal Use landing strip ESEE Findings and Decision - Sites DE0012-00 and DE0012-01 Page 1 -Recreation Facility -Bed and breakfast inn The conflicting uses would be any structure or activity which would cause disturbance, including noise or human activity, within 1320 feet of the nest site during the nesting period from February 1 through August 1. Dwelling location is restricted by the Wildlife Area Combining zone to the area within 300 feet of an existing road. Noise from construction activities, machinery operation, vehicles, loud music, voices or human activity within the sensitive habitat area could disturb the birds during the nesting period. Disturbance could interfere with establishment of the nest or cause the adults to temporarily abandon the nest leaving the eggs or young birds vulnerable to cold, heat, or predation. Forest practices are not a conflicting use because there is no commercial forest land within the sensitive habitat area. Farm use in the sensitive habitat area is limited to grazing which is not a conflicting use. 4. Economic. Social, Environmental and Enerav Consequences Analysis. (A) Economic Consequences Construction costs could increase if building activity is restricted during the nesting season. Restricting structural development within the sensitive habitat area for the privately owned parcel would not preclude development of this parcel and therefore the value of the property would not be significantly reduced. Maintaining nest sites will help assure that the species does not become a federally threatened and endangered species. Should this happen, the protection criteria would be much more restrictive around the remaining nest sites. Limiting the development of parks or campgrounds would have a negligible economic consequence as there are numerous private and public recreational facilities throughout the county. (B) Social Consequences The social consequence of allowing unregulated conflicting uses could be the abandonment of the nest site which would be be a loss to the segment of society that enjoys viewing wildlife. The positive social consequences of limiting conflicting uses would be continuing opportunities for naturalists and bird ESEE Findings and Decision - Sites DE0012-00 and DE0012-01 Page 2 watchers to study and enjoy the birds. Structural development within the sensitive habitat area could be prohibited with little social consequence because only approximately 10 acres of the 93 acre privately owned parcel are within the sensitive habitat area. (C) Environmental Consequences Golden eagles, consume considerable numbers of rabbits, ground squirrels and other small prey. Farmers are constantly trying to control these small mammal populations. Loss of raptors could mean a higher use of chemical pesticides which can affect many other mammals, insects and birds. The environmental consequences of allowing unregulated conflicting uses could be the failure of nesting, abandonment of the nest site, or alteration of foraging area. There are no identified negative environmental consequences of prohibiting conflicting uses. (D) Energy Consequences There are no identified significant energy consequences from either permitting or limiting conflicting uses. 5. Program To Meet Goal 5. The Board of County Commissioners finds that, based on the ESEE consequences, both the resource site and the conflicting uses are important relative to each other and that the ESEE consequences should be balanced to allow conflicting uses in a limited way (OAR 660-16-010(3)). In order to protect both the nest site and sensitive habitat area and allow limited conflicting uses, the following restrictions shall apply: 1. The county shall require site plan review under the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Combining zone for all land uses within the sensitive habitat area requiring a land use permit. 2. Partitions creating a residential building site within the sensitive habitat area shall be prohibited. 3. Structural development within the quarter mile sensitive habitat area shall be prohibited on the following properties because they are federal land or there are alternate locations for structures ESEE Findings and Decision - Sites DE0012-00 and DE0012-01 Page 3 outside of the sensitive habitat area. 15-11-00-502 15-11-00-900 15-11-00-800 15-11-00-6200 ESEE Findings and Decision - Sites DE0012-00 and DE0012-01 Page 4 14-11-35/SWNW un-vviL-VV/un-UUIZ-Ul 15-11-03/NWNE . I ri I t 14- let. . Vt. 63 , y IVf 00 } 2025 17 I6. SEE 14• 0411 15 2-3 6-13A ! 6.23 is . 2004 -f s~-100 ---'Q'ta ~dt _.-~..:16 40, 200 "P EFUSC EFULB A ~ i SEE MAP 21 JB SEE aP e •r' ' ~ D 46001' zfW Wil i ttn" Pr ~ ~ e > ti }4600 44ou X6.22 j 3601 EF E crsc~ M~3i SEE MAP QP SSE Q•p E y~B EP 28 iwt 6400 Ci 5100 . 5001 nX •wr• 2-3 6000 746 i 600E {\j 620C 5200 6502 I 1 6700 i!! ~i SEE AID tSEE, MAP~c~/~-._. r` i 59 ~..«.~.~g... r.,o.. ....,•.•3 34 3s•-.-•-. 36 5300 cca DE0011-0 • 2 6 ` o ' ao I y ao = I y I '00 = 00 SEE MAP SEE MAP wo 2 600 400 400 300 5 4 - KC KEWE = sox fOC 02 soy 4000 SEE MAP SEE 1 ~S~E MAPS s +'"9e m I1 1% / 2500 I g 04% 404 14 1 2403 2500 6-1 2500 1600 x600 400 2 2500 - 2500 502 1600 1600 502 SEE MAP X754001, 1402 2500 sox 2500 . ' .-0- ti~6 ! ! I 13 S 6-23 2.3 EFUSC 1.00 ] t 1" 2~.~OC~ • _ _ ` .e4 14oi _ 2700 - - - 2500 f Exhibit "A-2" Golden Eagle DE-0012-00/DE-0012-01 14-11-03/NWNE 14-11-35/SWNW ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION PRAIRIE FALCON SITE# DE0016-00 1. Inventory. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified a prairie falcon nest site in Township 22S, Range 16E, Section 12 (map number 22-16-00-100). The ODFW identifier for the site is DE0016-00. The site is known as Dickerson Flat. The sensitive habitat area includes the area within a 1/4 mile radius of the nest site. The habitat site and sensitive habitat area are designated on maps attached as Exhibit "A". 2. Site Characteristics. The nest has been active since it was first observed in 1970. The nest is located on a private 959 acre parcel zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and Wildlife Area Combining Zone (WA). The wildlife combining zone is for antelope habitat. The minimum lot size for the area is 320 acres. 3. Conflicts Identification. Potentially Conflicting Uses With Habitat Site Zone Permitted Use Conditional Use EFU -Farm use -Single family dwelling -Forest use -Residential homes -Exploration for -Private park, minerals -Farm accessory building -Some road construction campground -Personal use airstrip -Home occupation -Process forest products -Solid waste disposal site -Storage, crushing, processing of aggregate -Church or school -Certain road projects -Bed and breakfast The conflicting uses would be any structure or activity which would cause disturbance within 1320 feet of the nest site during the nesting period from March 1 through August I. Noise from construction activities, machinery operation, vehicles, loud music, voices or human activity within the sensitive habitat area could disturb the birds ESEE Findings and Decision - Site DE0016-00 Page 1 during the nesting period. Disturbance could interfere with establishment of the nest or cause the adults to temporarily abandon the nest leaving the eggs or young birds vulnerable to cold, heat, or predation. Because the property is remote, it is unlikely that a church or school would be sited within the sensitive habitat area. A farm or nonfarm dwelling, if approved as a conditional use, could be located more than 1320 feet from the nest sites as the property is 635 acres and there is land outside of the sensitive habitat area where a residence could be located. 4. Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy Consequences Analysis. (A) Economic Consequences Construction costs could increase if building activity is restricted during the nesting season. Restricting structural development within one quarter mile of the nest site would have a negligible economic effect because there is land available outside of the sensitive habitat area for residences or other structural development. Limiting the development of parks or campgrounds would have a negligible economic consequence as there are numerous private and public recreational facilities throughout the county. (B) Social Consequences The social consequence of allowing unregulated conflicting uses could be the abandonment of the nest site which would be be a loss to the segment of society that enjoys viewing wildlife. Structural development within the sensitive habitat area could be prohibited with little social consequence as owners have the potential to develop their properties outside of the quarter mile sensitive habitat area. The positive social consequences of limiting conflicting uses would be continuing opportunities for naturalists and bird watchers to studv and eniov the birds. (C) Environmental Consequences The environmental consequences of allowing unregulated conflicting uses could be the failure of nesting, abandonment of the nest site, or alteration of foraging area. There are no identified negative environmental consequences of prohibiting conflicting uses. ESEE Findings and Decision - Site DE0016-00 Page 2 r (D) Energy Consequences There are no identified significant energy consequences from either permitting or limiting conflicting uses. 5. Program To Meet Goal 5. The Board of County Commissioners finds that, based on the ESEE consequences, both the resource site and the conflicting uses are important relative to each other and that the ESEE consequences should be balanced to allow conflicting uses in a limited way (OAR 660-16-010(3)). In order to protect both the lek and the sensitive habitat area and allow limited conflicting uses, the following restrictions shall apply: 1. Site plan review under the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Combining zone shall be required for all land uses within the sensitive habitat area requiring a land use permit. 2. Structural development within the quarter mile sensitive habitat area shall be prohibited because there are alternative locations for structures outside of the sensitive habitat area. 3. Partitions creating a residential building site within the sensitive habitat area shall be prohibited. ESEE Findings and Decision - Site DE0016-00 Page 3 1 FL IFL _x-.48Z 5 TT ~ ~ i ~ ` ~ i~~•~~•~'' '~J B 902•x. t ~ FL\ ` _-`'ti'yl` r 1/: - , v jj'f/~~ BMp L Z.72 ~L 1 at? S 1 83 7 ll~1j89` ` 49 97-x le` x====- _ -==482, 6M 17 4816 0 461- ck, ter: t t { t ti, •r r•~-~,~,,,~,~ j'tt~ } AXBm I6 ,SM~ I 'x F Whiskey ` = \ ~ PI ~ Rock 1 Exhibit "A-1" Prairie Falcon DE-0016-00 22-16-12/SWNE . See Map 22 IS I Y ' r 1 1 • i I --14--- 's-`tea-'! It'^ ==="=e L o %C 7 ~ S f I I ~ N :6 N o < <c C3 ( O 40 7i• - ==a 4 Q) iR FEET 0 2 KILOMETER rr • Ir 1 it V 1~ IY la ~Y 1~ T j0 P 1}' ~ . 1 1a CO ( II 1 I n I 1 I I I N '.1`1r~~ ~y = W is U •r w 1 el Cr II 1 ~ of I I , 1 10 N SI N ~G _ w f ;E 1 P*7 ~ 1 ' C I . e~ ~ ~ •NO ~1 0 See MYO 22 17 0 r d r! 1 ry rl ,Y. rY M Ie 0 1r t rq N IY r-..= iy IY •-n I.a N Exhibit "A-111 Prairie Falcon DE-0016-00 22-16-00-100 -1 :o Y a• yca yo i Y •1• 4 la n N "0 1 - 'a m o Y Y V -4 v ,r N 1• Ir--• la 11j M - Y /s . Y o jr • F~ - N Y P ~r u le V 1Y 1 N IY Ir V 1' qr _ a• Y 1j • r--- IY 1~ V I Ir ~ Y N re 01Y _ is Fh ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION SAGE GROUSE SITE - DE 0994-01 Circle F Reservoir 1. Inventory. In 1992, the Bureau of Land Management identified a sage grouse lek in Township 20S, Range 18E, Section 5 SW (map number 20-18-00-700). The ODFW identifier for the site is DE 0994-01. The site is also known as Circle F Reservoir. The sensitive habitat area includes the area within a 1/4 mile radius of the lek site. The quarter mile sensitive habitat area is necessary to buffer the lek site and protect the habitat used by the birds for day roosting and cover during the mating season. The habitat site and sensitive habitat area are designated on a map attached as Exhibit "A". Sage grouse inhabit the sagebrush-grass areas in the eastern portion of the County. The population of sage grouse has shown considerable fluctuation over the years. The Bureau of Land Management estimates that the current population of adult birds in Deschutes County is 275. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in a 1992 report estimated the population as 775. Areas of particular concern for the sage grouse are the strutting grounds, known as leks. Strutting grounds are flat areas with vegetation less than six inches high on which the males exhibit a breeding display called strutting to attract the females. 2. Site Characteristics. The lek site is used by the sage grouse for strutting display and mating grouse from February 1 through April 30 with the peak of activity in March and April. The site is located on a seasonal reservoir. The area the birds use for display moves depending on the level of the water in the reservoir. The lek is located on a 1,358 acre tax lot zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), Flood Plain (FP) and Wildlife Area Combining Zone (WA). The wildlife combining zone is for antelope habitat. The minimum lot size for the area is 320 acres. 3. Conflicts Identification. Potentially Conflicting Uses With Habitat Site Zone Permitted Use Conditional Use EFU -Farm use -Forest use -Exploration for minerals -Some road construction -Single family dwelling -Residential homes -Private park, campground -Personal use airstrip -Home occupation ESEE Findings and Decision - DE 0994-01 Page 1 -Process forest products -Solid waste disposal site -Storage, crushing, processing of aggregate -Church or school -Certain road projects -Bed and breakfast Zone Permitted Use Conditional Use FP -Farm use (no structure) -Forest management -Road or bridge -Single family dwelling -Agricultural accessory buildings -Recreation Uses Conflicts with sage grouse habitat are reduced by the limitations on uses in the exclusive farm use and flood plain zone, by the 320 acre minimum lot size, and by the predominance of Bureau of Land Management land throughout their range. However, because of their sensitivity and importance, the sage grouse leks or strutting grounds need additional protection. Uses conflicting with the leks are activities or development which would disturb birds during the breeding season, disturb or occupy the ground in the lek area which could displace the birds, or destroy the vegetation within the sensitive habitat area the birds use for roosting and cover. These activities could include road construction, surface mining, or any construction activity, structural development and associated use of structures within 1320 feet of the lek. surface mining is not a conflicting use as none of the sensitive habitat area is zoned for surface mining. New road construction through the habitat area is unlikely as the roads in the area are established public or ranch roads with no anticipated need for relocation or expansion. Because the lek and sensitive habitat area are remote, it is unlikely that a church or school would be sited within the sensitive habitat area. Additional structural development on the ranch could occur outside of the sensitive habitat area and would not be a conflict. ESEE Findings and Decision - DE 0994-01 Page 2 Agriculture is a permitted use in the exclusive farm use zone. Grazing is the principal agricultural use in the sensitive habitat area. Grazing during the mating season can disrupt the breeding cycle. The Bureau of Land Management works with the grazing permitees to minimize the grazing conflicts with the sage grouse leks during the breeding season. Another potential conflicting use is recreational off-road vehicle use because it fragments habitat and can disrupt the birds during the breeding season. off-road vehicle use in the area is regulated by the BLM. A private park or campground would be a conflicting use because it would attract people and vehicles and alter the landscape. 4. Economic Social Environmental and Energy Consequences Analysis. (A) Economic Consequences Restricting structural development within one quarter mile of the lek would have a negligible economic effect because there is land available outside of the sensitive habitat area for residences or other structural development. Limiting the development of parks or campgrounds would have a negligible economic consequence as there are numerous private and public recreational facilities throughout the county. Maintaining lek sites will help assure that the species does not become a federally threatened and endangered species. Should this happen, the protection criteria would be much more restrictive around the remaining nest sites. (B) Social Consequences The social consequence of allowing unregulated conflicting uses could be the abandonment of the lek site which would be be a loss to the segment of society that enjoys viewing wildlife. The positive social consequences of limiting conflicting uses would be continuing opportunities for naturalists and bird watchers to study and enjoy the birds. However, because the site is on private land, access to the public may not be available. Structural development within the sensitive habitat area could be prohibited with little social consequence as ESEE Findings and Decision - DE 0994-01 Page 3 owners have the potential to develop their properties outside of the quarter mile sensitive habitat area. (C) Environmental Consequences The environmental consequences of allowing unregulated conflicting uses could be the destruction of the characteristics which make the lek and the sensitive habitat area desireable to the birds which could cause abandonment of the site, failure of breeding and reduction in the sage grouse population. There are no identified negative environmental consequences of prohibiting conflicting uses. (D) Energy Consequences There are no identified significant energy consequences from either permitting or limiting conflicting uses. 5. Program To Meet Goal 5. The Board of County Commissioners finds that, based on the ESEE consequences, both the resource site and the conflicting uses are important relative to each other and that the ESEE consequences should be balanced to allow conflicting uses in a limited way (OAR 660-16-010(3)). In order to protect both the lek and the sensitive habitat area and allow limited conflicting uses, the following restrictions shall apply: 1. Site plan review under the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Combining zone shall be required for all land uses within the sensitive habitat area requiring a conditional use permit. 2. Structural development within the quarter mile sensitive habitat area shall be prohibited because there are alternative locations for structures outside of the sensitive habitat area. 3. Partitions creating a residential building site within the sensitive habitat area shall be prohibited. In addition the Bureau of Land Management is working with private property owners to develop grazing management plans to minimize grazing conflict with the lek site. ESEE Findings and Decision - DE 0994-01 Page 4 . '4 `<J v v 6 >«s36 /~I n t<A6 I N sit wt5I3 ~ ' ` ~s/ t~ _ D ~ i River- fS , I ` •r u I p yiw~ t Cg0 '.tea VV ~ .ice a0, t • ~,~.~'1 _ i ~ ~ wa.anw sw.wawwa. tsn j 0 y N t ! 1 / ~ ~ <Si/ tl 4~Onnmsaaa>: p •t I J ~ :~l 71 rt573 \ p / Exhibit "A-1" Sage Grouse Lek DE-0994-01 20-18-05/SWSE , . (tN 1~ :ta ~S iS 1 N W 1 z 4I O Q n Mo,~ w JpO MAP 20 17 'N t Y+ ICY 1~N 1~ ¢A I=a 0 i h~ t p I o G ~p t"t _WT1O 1•L° tft 1 r. 8 N ~O I 1"~t / ~ 1 % 1 . •t ~ N. ~ m• N , ~t pm/ 1 r o! I I y W: N I N I 1 le* • I I i►. rn 1 I''t t •'v w S.•• Moo ZD 19 1 1 G (3) h - - Tt I •N O t ~ I O_ V 8 , 1 ID?;~ I ' .y. Aft 0 Ig ~ A a ~ 13 y 8 a - pp Ii rNftl a ~ Z I' C i ~ _ ~ -mac 1 , , w ca 1 S k , 1 : N r I ~ 4 a _ x I i 1e IIa • I=y a Qi ~ N t _ 4 } 1 ~i ~S - a !r8, ~ O~. of N rp-W 9 f - , I2 " W 1= O Exhibit "A-2" A Sage Grouse Lek u u DE-0994-01 m m 20-18-05/SWSE 77 /"'~----z L Prf 888N Y l ~k to I•R I• KILOMETER t r i. ~ 1 8 =og t a= 14 o ° 0 ra I O oti 8. R04-- I ~j CD ! t j November 22, 2010 Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon Re: Appeal ofNCU-10-3 & SP-10-7 Order No. 2010-058 The following is our response to the appeal made by Outward Bounds counsel regarding this matter. We are addressing the specific issues raised by the applicant's attorney in his appeal. We are also asking the County Board of Commissioners to refer to previous materials including pictures, letters, and verbal testimony submitted by the opponents to this application before rendering your decision. 1. A. Hearings Officer's Interpretation is Incorrect as a Matter of Law Outward Bound states that "no additional structural development" cited in Section 5 (1) does not apply to any additional structural development, only to single family dwellings and prohibits only new residential construction in the OB property. This clearly was not the intent of the ESEE as they acknowledge each lot as separate entities (by ownership) under Section 2 of the analysis where they clearly define ownership of the OB property as 14-22-12-22-DO-500, Zone EFUTE, 46 ac, Outward Bound. In Section 5 (1), the Board of Commissioners refer to the OB property by the correct tax ID number and with the restrictions of "no additional structural development within the SBMH area." Every other tax lot is identified by the correct tax ID number with requirements & limitations applied to each lot on a lot to lot basis. The second and third arguments used by the OB attorney are factually incorrect as the County Board of Commissioners addressed those issues in Section 5 (4) of the ESEE which states for "construction activities for expansion, maintenance, replacement of existing structures or construction of new structures requiring a building permit from the Deschutes County Community Development Dept or septic installation requiring a permit from the Environmental Health Div. "shall be prohibited during the nesting season from Feb 1 through Aug. 1. Maintenance and repair of existing structures not requiring a construction permit, permitted work conducted within a closed structure, or repair of a failing septic system are exempt from this requirement. Construction activity subject to a construction permit from the Community Dev. Dept. or a septic installation permit form EHD may occur after May 1, if ODFW determines in writing that the nest site is not active or that the young birds have fledged." Residential lot owners do have restrictions and limitations as identified by lot number and proximity to the nesting site. These limitations and restrictions are based on the ESEE analysis as well as conditions of approval by the Community Development Dept. when applying for permits. It is only common sense that in different zones, there would be different requirements. The assertion that "all" property owners within the SMBH "should be treated the same" and that we "can do anything we please" is not only offensive, it's absurd. The word "structure" as defined by Deschutes County as a matter of public record is "anything constructed or built, any edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, which required location on the ground or is attached to something having a location on the ground, including swimming and wading pools and covered patios, excepting outdoor areas such as paved areas, driveways, walks and fences." Again, according to the Deschutes County published definitions guide, "structural alteration" means any changes in the supporting members of a building, such as a bearing wall, column, beam or girder, floor or ceiling joist, roof rafters, roof diaphragms, foundations, piles or retaining walls or similar components." Under these definitions, we argue that all the cabins in the SBMH zone do constitute new structural development and should be taken down as they are in violation of the ESEE's and were constructed without the proper permits. B. The Hearings Officer's Interpretation Violates Equal Protection Clause We couldn't agree more. Our rights under the Fourteenth Amendment have been violated in this case and several other instances over the last few years when OB has had dealings with the Deschutes County Planning Dept. The applicant's assertion that their rights have been violated under the Fourteenth Amendment are completely unfounded, as we addressed in our argument under Section "A" comments outlined above. To suggest we can make alterations, additions, or construct new buildings on our properties at will, is preposterous. Again, we refer you back to the ESEE Plan as well as the pertinent building codes in Deschutes County for our type of zoning. The requirements are quite different for land zoned for residential use as compared to land zoned for agricultural use. In 2004 a dining hall was approved and built because the Planning Dept did not perform its due diligence when issuing permits and completely missed the fact that this should have been reviewed under the non-conforming use standards as set out in Chapter 18.120 of the Deschutes County Code. We were denied due process because of their negligence thereby violating our Fourteenth Amendment rights. It seems now, more then ever, the County and OB have a particularly cozy relationship as evidenced by the numerous emails going back and forth between Paul Blikstad and Henry Morse, the OB representative during this appeal. Is it common practice for the County Planner to take it upon himself to email Mr. Morse (unsolicited) with the comments "I received this letter from some of the neighbors. Can you send me a response to their questions as soon as possible? I don't necessarily want to send this one to a public hearing." This certainly seems inappropriate at best and possibly unethical. Is it the County's policy to deny a citizen's right to a fair and equal opportunity to argue their case in a situation like this, particularly in light of the fact that there was an enormous amount of interest from nearby property owners? Paul and Henry continued to exchange emails for the next several weeks. At one point Henry asks Paul if the platforms in the SBMH are "going to be a problem?" Another time, Henry asks "Can you tell me anything about the Hearings Officer?" Paul continues to forward internal emails to Henry from the ODWF and Building Code people throughout this whole process. The County Planner appears to be "coaching" Mr. Morse as to how to present his case in order for him to achieve his desired result. We find that a violation of our Fourteenth Amendment Rights as the applicant was given information in real time, via email, that we were not privy to. It is obvious that Mr. Morse was not only given preferential treatment, he received information that was beneficial to his point of view. C. Appeal of Conditions of Approval (1) Site Plan We have no objection with allowing the Applicant to work with the County to determine which cabins are in the SBMH. Having said that, we reassert our position that all the cabins should be removed. We would also like to have input into the final determination as we are not comfortable with the way the County has handled this situation to date. (2.) Fire Department Comments The comments by the Fire Department that they are "unable to provide accurate comments, not enough information provided" should not preclude the applicant from complying with the conditions or potential conditions as set out by the Fire Department. Is it the County Planners who did not give enough information to the Fire Department or the Applicant? If more information is needed by the Fire Department, it should be provided by the appropriate parties. 2. Reasons the Board of County Commissioners Should Review Decision A. Economic Hardship The Applicant has provided no proof they have endured any kind of economic hardship. No receipts have been supplied to the Hearings Officer or the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners to substantiate that claim. In fact, in oral testimony before the Hearings Officer on July 6, 2010, Henry Morse of Outward Bound states that in constructing the cabins, volunteer labor was used, materials (recycled and new) were either donated or paid for through fundraising efforts of alumni and past and present staff members. It should be noted that any economic hardship caused by the construction of these cabins falls solely on the Applicant. Had they followed the proper procedures as required by the County, we would not be having this discussion. The cabins in the SBMH area were built after the certified letter sent by the County Code Enforcement Officer was received by the Outward Bound organization, by Outward Bounds own admission. They stated in both written and oral testimony they continued to build because they felt they were not in violation of any County rules and regulations. Finally a Stop Work Order was issued. Outward Bound has retained one of Central Oregon's premier land use attorneys to represent them on this matter and they seem to have no problem paying his fees. All of this could have been avoided had they acted in good faith from the beginning. They should not now be rewarded for acting in bad faith and ignoring the rules and regulations the rest of us have to follow. Finally, it should be noted that in the most recent Annual Report that can be found on the internet, Outward Bound USA is not the poor non-profit their counsel is trying to portray in his appeal. In fact, in 2008 they showed net assets of $38,742,000 with $3,515,000 of that amount being held as cash and cash equivalents. This is not your typical cash-strapped non-profit organization that doesn't know how they are going to make payroll or continue to provide services. This is an organization that has a vast reservoir of resources at its disposal and can certainly afford to pay the fees and fines associated with their latest project. We find the implied threat by Outward Bound's counsel and representatives to "build a new superstructure" or put "blue tarps" over the tent frames if this appeal is not successful, are just additional reminders that the Outward Bound representatives and their counsel do not have the best interest of the neighbors, the wildlife, or the river in their thought process. Pure and simple the word that comes to mind is "Bully". Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, -2~ Suzanne Michaels Karen Petit 8000 NW Grubstake Way Redmond, OR 97756 November 22, 2010 Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon Re: Appeal to File No. NCU-10-3/SP-10-7 Order No. 2010-058 Outward Bound West 6400 NW 83`d Street Redmond, Oregon Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter is in response to the appeal submitted by Outward Bound West (OB) for the September 29, 2010, Hearings Officer's written decision on NCU-1 0-3/SP-1 0-7. We previously submitted an August 4, 2010 letter to the Hearings Officer to express our initial comments to both the June 25, 2010 staff report and the testimonies provided at the July 6, 2010 hearing. In this letter, we will discuss two issues: Are the proposed cabins in accordance with property's original 1987 Conditional Use Permit (CUP)? If so, the cabins should be constructed in accordance with existing County and State Building Codes as a "habitable" structure. 2. Removal of the existing cabins located within the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat (SBMH) zone as designated by the 1992 ESEE. 1. Condition Use Permit CU-87-58: In the original CUP, the permit was based on a proposed development consisting of an administration building for part-time training of instructors, a year-round storage shop and a lodging area for part-time overnight stay of instructors. Overnight facilities for the instructors will initially consist of the 12 canvas tents on wooden tent platforms. A future bunkhouse was stated, but would not increase the total number of overnight users. In several of letters from OB, the OB attorney, the June 25th Staff Report and emails, there were explanations describing the typical OB instructor's schedule and length of stay at the OB property. Based on our observations, we generally agree with their description. However, in past years, we also witnessed instructors staying in the northern set of tents for several weeks at a time. One instructor would return to the 1 of 6 site on a regular basis about 11:30 pm evening. We would joke that this person must work elsewhere on a swing shift position. This person also had two large dogs that would at times continually bark when the owner was not present. The county sheriff was called once to handle the situation. In the August 10, 2010 letter from the OB attorney, it states "The original CUP did not limit the use of the platforms to tent structures." It's like your mom tells you not to through rocks at glass windows, but she didn't say I couldn't throw rocks at the house. Also, OB stated that one of the cabins have electricity and heating. Did they file for a building permit and get final approval for this "habitable" cabin? This kind of behavior makes us nervous in wondering what can happen in the future without going through proper permitting procedures prior to construction. Cabin Use and Classification: There have been so many different terms or names used in the last seven months by all parties for these newly constructed 4-sided, wood-framed "buildings" with door and window openings; that had been constructed on wooden tent platforms built prior to 1992; that have a wood-framed roof. This inconsistent designation of the cabins has made this permitting process quite challenging for all. For instance, between July 6th and 9th, there were numerous email communications to accurately clarify to the building department the cabins' proposed usage. And in the handful of letters from OB and their attorneys, permit applications, numerous email communications between planning and building staff and OB, the June 25th staff report, letters from OB neighbors, the July 6th public hearing, it was evident that a consistent "term" for the buildings was not used, and therefore, confusion. Terms used to date include, and are not limited to, the following: Tents, wall tents, wall tent platforms, tent structures, temporary cabins, wood cabins, wooden cabins, habitable sheds, utility sheds, storage sheds, utility storage sheds, sleeping cabins, cabins will remain on the platforms on a semi-permanent basis, semi-permanent cabins, and lastly, structures. Please note that in the original May 11 th permit application, Item 7, Request: handwritten in, was "Erect shed/cabins on existing platforms". Furthermore, to qualify their opinions and further clarify, define and describe the buildings, the various parties would resort to different sources. In this letter, we will use terms for these buildings as typically defined by the current Oregon state and federal building codes. I would expect both the Deschutes Co. Public Works and Bldg Dept. to reference these Codes when making their decisions for this case. 2 of 6 Here are definitions, as stated by the Code, of the most commonly used terms used in this case. Source: Section R202 of the OR Residential Specialty Code, and Chapter 2 of the OR Structural Specialty Code, both titled Definitions" STRUCTURE: That which is built or constructed. BUIDLING: Building shall mean any low-rise residential dwelling or portion thereof, including townhouses and row-houses, that is used, or designed or intended to be used for human habitation, for living, sleeping, cooking or eating purposes, or any combination thereof, and shall include accessory structures thereto. HABITABLE SPACE: A space in a building for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not considered habitable spaces. TENT: A structure, enclosure or shelter, with or without sidewalls or drops, constructed of fabric or pliable material supported in any manner except by air or the contents it protects. Note: The tents would not be able to meet building code requirements for a "structure", i.e. wind, snow and seismic loading calculations) After much confusion describing the cabin usage to date, it was summarized in Paul Blickstad's Memorandum, dated October 13, 2010, regarding the appeal of Hearings Officer's decision at the top of page 2, it states, "The cabins are to be used for the same purpose as the tents were - to provide sleeping quarters and storage of personal items for OB instructors." We witnessed that these cabins are being used for sleeping, (cots in the cabins were observed, too) both during weekends and longer durations as previously mentioned, and should be classified, per bldg code definition, as a "habitable" space. Permits: Per Code, permitting of the cabins are as follows: Per Chapter 1, Administration, of the Oregon Resident Specialty Code, Section R105, Permits, Section R105.1 Required. Any owner who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, 3 of 6 alter, repair... any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Section R105.2 Work exempt from permit. "...Permits shall not be required for the following: Item 1. Non-habitable, one-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the floor are does not exceed 200 sq. ft. and a height of 10 feet measured from the finished floor level to the average height of the roof surface." We all agree the floor area of the cabins do not exceed 200 sq. ft., but their occupancy classification is clearly "habitable". Instructors are sleeping in the cabins. Therefore, per Code, building permits, in addition to fire permits, are required to be filed prior to any further construction. Also, since the cabins are used for sleeping purposes, per Chapter 3: Use and Occupancy Classification of the 2010 Oregon Structural Specialty Code, it is likely the cabins will fall under Section 310.1 Residential Group R, "Residential Group R includes, among others, the use of a building or structure, or a portion thereof, for sleeping purposes..." 2. ESEE: We, as homeowners in the Odin Falls and Lower Bridge subdivision, have taken great efforts and hardships to construct our residence within the ESEE. We did not request or were given any special preferences or variances from the ESEE requirements. The several single-family dwellings that are within the ESEE have had to abide by the existing, country accepted, ESEE requirements, and we would expect OB to abide by of the 1992 ESEE requirements for their specific tax lot. ESEE's Program 5 includes a table that designates restrictions for each individual tax lot. For the OB tax lot, Lot 500, the ESEE states "no additional structural development within sensitive habitat areas". Based on the ODFW letters dated May 20, and July 7, 2010 and conversations with Steven George, we understand that since OB had such a large sized property and several structures were in place in 1992, the County agreed and accepted the ESEE criteria for the OB property, knowing that if they were to add future buildings, there was plenty room to build elsewhere on their property other than in the SBMH zone. We understand the tent platforms were already in-place at the time of the ESEE approval. As for the single- family dwellings in the ESEE, we had to comply with the requirements specific to our tax lot. The reason that ODFW used to come to the conclusion of providing different requirements for single-family dwellings tax lots versus OB's tax lot, is presented in Section 4(B) of the ESEE. It states, "Prohibiting residential development on the parcels within the sensitive habitat area would have significant social impact, as property owners would be unable to develop their property." 4 of 6 As we've heard from every different angle coming from several different parties involved to date, " no additional structural development" has be interpreted as tents, cabins, and/or sheds. It is very clear in ODFW's first response letter to Paul, dated May 20, "Our recommendations would be to prohibit any of the structures described in the application within this area. Furthermore, any of the existing tent platforms in this area should be removed." ODFW had to further clarify their stance in the second July 7th, letter, "A cabin is a structure that will house people.... Cabins will do nothing but promote increased use thus increasing human disturbance." This foresight was expressed in Section 3, "Conflicts Identification", page 3 of the ESEE, "...Intensification of recreational or training activities on the OB property during the nesting period could cause significant conflict with the birds." In summary, we respectively request that OB abide by and follow through with the requirements as stated by ODFW's 1992 ESEE and Karen Green's findings and require that the cabins and associated wood tent platforms located within the ESEE radius be entirely removed. Revised Site Plan for SBMH: Section C(1) Site Plan: We agree the accurate location of the eagle's nest should be determined by a licensed or registered third-party land surveyor to determine the perimeter of the SBMH area and the exact locations and number of cabins that are within the OB property. This would be the only, non-biased professional procedure that should be used to clarify the issue. Thank you for your time and consideration in this OB case. Respectfully Submitted, Larry Kruckenberg Dawn Kruckenberg 8010 NW Grubstake Way Redmond, OR 97756 5of6 Reference Documents: • Findings and Decisions, CU-87-58/SP-87-32, mailed August 1987. • Land Use Application for NCU-1 0-3/Sp-1 0-7, submitted by Outward Bound, dated May 7, 2010. • Staff Report, dated June 25, 2010, for NCU-10-3/SP-10-7 • Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife letters to Deschutes Co, dated May 20 and July 7, 2010. • Outward Bound letter to neighbors in Odin Falls Estates, undated, received July 10, 2010. • Kruckenberg letter to Deschutes Co. Hearings Officer, dated August 4, 2010. • Ball Janik, LLP letters to Deschutes County Hearings Officer, dated August 10, 17 and 24, 2010. • Decision of Deschutes County Hearings Officer, dated September 29, 2010. • Appeal Memorandum from Paul Blickstad, dated October 13, 2010, Appeal Application and attachments. • Audio recording of July 6, 2010 Hearing • 1992 ESEE Findings and Decisions, Golden Eagle Site #DE0009-00 • Numerous emails between County staff, ODFW staff, and Outward Bound representatives 6of6 Outward Bound - Events, West Coast and Pacific http://alumni.outwardbound,org/NetCommunity/Page.espx?.,. EVENTS Events Calendar Become an Ambassador Invitational Expeditions Service OB QUICK LINKS OUTWARD BOUND ©U T W A R D Find a Course expeditions At-Risk Youth Expeditions ' B ©U N © Search ■ Custom Programs My Outward Bound Centers In Your Community HOME ALUMNI I ALUMNI COMMUNITY I EVENTS I SERVICE I AFTER YOUR COURSE I DONATE I JOBS I ABOUT i CONTACT Outward Bound Events Calendar You can see events for regions of your choice by clicking Show Event Filter below and checking only the boxes next to the areas you want. K you'd like to see events across the country, see our National Events Calendar. West Coast Outward Bound Events Event Details Service Weekend at Odin Falls, Oregon Sat, 11 Sep, 2010 - Sun, 12 Sep, 2010 0 Calendar View 0 List View ig Print View L Export as iCalends Come join a weekend at the Odin Falls Base Camp to help make some improvements. Some of our service jobs will be to add a new layer of cinders to some of the paths around base, to remove an old student platform, while saving the materials to re install the roof structure to serve as a shady area for the pigs in our pig pen. Spend the night in the new cabins recently erected on site. And 4 we have enough time after lunch on Sunday, do a little rock climbing on a couple of routes in the Oeschutes River canyon just below base. Car pools from Portland will be put together to provide transportation, departing between 7 and 6 AM on Saturday, and returning between 5 and 6 PM on Sunday. The cost for the weekend is $15 to help defray the cost of meals. a you are interested, contact Henry Morse at hmorsejr@comcast.net to sign up or for questions, or call 503 699 1145. Location: Outward Bound - 70,000 NW 83rd, Redmond, OR 97756 Fees: TBD Contact: Henry Morse, hmorsejr@comcasl.net. Calendar: Pacific Northwest Events Catt~e~~gory: Service Events J12 J Q HOME I ALUMNI ALUMNI COMMUNITY EVENTS I SERVICE I AFTER YOUR COURSE I DONATE I JOBS I ABOUT CONTACT Copyright 012009 Outward Bound Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) 1 of 1 11/17/2010 5:05 PM view or sunset over Smnn Hock State Park from the Odin Falls Base Camp November 22, 2010 Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon Re: Order No. 2010-058 Dear Board of Commissioners: We live across the river from Outward Bound West in the Odin Falls community. Having completed the building of our home in 2006, we followed the guidelines and permit process set by Deschutes County in building our home. Our main concern is that the staff and board of Outward Bound have displayed a blatant disregard for the building rules and regulations of our County, in addition to not being truthful about the true use of the proj ect. The bottom line of the issues before you this morning is that if Outward Bound would have followed the building process you wouldn't need to waste your time and county funds to hear this complaint. We believe the County should approve the Hearings Officer's Decision regarding this project. Sincere , Joe and Cindi Farmer 7985 NW Grubstake Way Redmond, OR 97756 541-306-767 '~=,a Scanner@gracelenterrace.com mats: November 19, 2010 2:57:44 PM PST spencek@bendbroadband.com, Danielle Selleck <selleck_d@yahoo.com> 1 Attachment, 66.4 KB Save This E-mail was sent from "ricohc4500" (Aficio MP C3500). Scan Date: 11.19.2010 17:57:43 (-0500) Queries to: Scanner@gracelenterrace.com November 19, 2010 Community Development Department Planning Division - Building Safety Division/Environmental Health Division File Numbers: NCU-10-3, SP-1007 (A-10-5) Location: 6400 NW 83' Street Redmond; County Assessor's Map 14-12, 22D, Tax Lot 500 To Whom It May Concern: I again wish to offer written testimony and opinion regarding the above mentioned file and location prior to the future hearing for same. I have previously voiced on paper my views regarding the Outward Bound West applicant and my objections to their application based on three particular points. My points in fact are: 1. Any one person, organization, business or project though independently or as a whole, that willfully disregards current rules and established expectations should be viewed with a certain level of skeptism in all future requests. Character and willful disregard should be a consideration whereas the past performance will speak for potential present and future outcomes. Building without permits and creating projects without the well being of all potentially affected, as done in the past by Outward Bound, should raise the question of character and willful disregard. 2. It has not yet been established that sanitation will not be an issue. This not only affects the environment but the health and infection control welfare of all those surrounding this property to include the properties across the river to said property. A collection of little wooden buildings that do not have plumbing or toilet facilities at a minimum open up the possibility of improper land use. Where in an urgent need, or at night, the occupants will not be walking distances in rough country to use an established restroom. People will revert back to primitive methods and too many people will absolutely create a hazard in time. Odors can drift far and wide in our spacious surrounding areas as aided by our frequent winds. 3. Huts that can be accessed and entered during times when there is no Outward Bound management on the property creates a security risk to adjacent properties, a risk of squatters and a no invested interest potential whereby the property can be misused with sanitation, fires, vandalism and other mischievous behavior. With this in mind, there needs to be strict written guidelines and a monitoring system in place to assure that any allowed alterations regarding the tent platforms with wooden cabins will not be a prelude to abuse/misuse under a sanctioned permit. Again I am concerned for all of the environmental issues as might affect Central Oregon as well as "we" the neighbors and invested homeowners who enjoy and preserve its assets without question thereby eliminating such abuses on our own properties with conscientiousness and preservation in mind. I trust that your decision will be rendered with compassion for the environment, it's wildlife, the investors of such surrounding properties and the future of Central Oregon. History proves that when one abuse is allowed, others will surely follow. Sincerek _09) o o 0-1 44Z-7t4A~% Linda M. Pickering, Homestead Ancestor 7950 NE Grubbstake