The URL can be used to link to this page

2011-2774-Minutes for Meeting March 29,2011 Recorded 5/5/2011DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL g~iipi~;Ainuuuu CLERKDS CJ 2011'2114 05/05/201108:22:36 AM Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2011 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Tony DeBone. Also present were Terri Hansen Payne, Nick Lelack and George Read, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; and approximately twenty other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update. The hearing was held regarding Ordinance No. 2011-003, initiated by the County. Chair Baney read the opening statement at this time. In regard to conflicts of interest, no disclosures were offered by the Commissioners. No challenges were made by the public. Terri Payne gave a PowerPoint presentation on the draft Comprehensive Plan as forwarded by the Planning Commission. The Comprehensive Plan is basically a twenty-year blueprint for land use. The draft is based on 2-1/2 years of input from the Planning Commission and the public, agencies, nonprofits, other governments and various organizations. The first draft was developed in 2009. A second draft was completed in 2010. Three main issues quickly became apparent: The importance of balancing private property rights and community interests. The importance of local plans for unique or distinct areas. The importance of partnerships, coordination and collaboration. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, March 29, 2011 Page 1 of 14 Pages The importance of community values was emphasized by input from citizens. The role of the County was clarified. The County has to deal with the hot topics of water quantity and quality, agriculture and wildlife. Other issues are destination - resorts, community plans and transportation system plans. Three public hearings before the Board are planned in the next week in various locations. Chair Baney said that this issue has not been addressed in its entirety since 1979, so this is a big step, which took a lot of staff work and public input. Brenda Pace of Bend said she is on the board of Central Oregon Landwatch. Her comments were sent to the Board about a week ago. She feels staff has done a marvelous job, but she still has comments. They have broken this into sections and each board member of Central Oregon Landwatch will present one part of it. She was disappointed that most of the action items from the first version were removed and came out as general, if at all. She is addressing agriculture and some of the rural issues. The agricultural section background should be broadened. There is the right to farm law, which is important to protect the farmer so they can keep farming. On the other hand, the Oregon Department of Agriculture has put out literature regarding the difficulties farmers have with the continuity of farming being broken. This needs to be considered. The law requires like and acceptable uses, and those things can be interpreted many different ways. The ODA tells farmers to spend a lot of time talking to and educating their non-farm neighbors. The short growing season makes farming challenging, but the document does not mention a growing food policy council of about fifty members who are trying to farm organically and are excited about farming. This is happening all over the state. There is some legislation in the House to try to connect these groups. The kinds of growth occurring in agriculture are changing things. Following the old ways makes it hard to make a living. Landwatch recommends changes in Goal 3 (as quoted). This considers different and emerging ways to farm. This may need reclassification of some agricultural lands. If only Class 1 and Class 2 lands are to be protected, that doesn't help Deschutes County. The important thing is continuity in farm land. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, March 29, 2011 Page 2 of 14 Pages The policies of this Plan do not assist the agricultural community. In fact, it may fragment the landscape further. One way to help with this is in policy 2.2.8, encouraging small farming practices. The action item is that before disposing of County-owned property, review it to see if it is suitable for economic uses. Farmers need refrigerated areas, a place for mobile slaughter, a place to dispose of excess farming material, and so on. These locations could be within the agricultural landscape. There are other ways to supplement agricultural income, such as agri-tourism and housing for farm workers. They have been added to allow accessory housing for this purpose, by adjusting income or other requirements. They have found that the revenue portion is no longer relevant. Large commercial farmers had gotten together and decided a figure. Some groups have only ten acres, but some of them work as well. A better number across the state is about $30,000, not $80,000. Under rural development, there are no goals or policies listed. It was in the prior draft and should be put back in. This cost element is not talked about elsewhere. Under rural housing, cluster developments should be considered, but only with permanent open space. The rural economy section does not mention farming. It should be recognized as an economic engine. Michele Bayard of Central Oregon Landwatch addressed the revised Plan under public facilities and services. He objects to the Planning Commission's efforts to dilute this by deleting action items. The new ideas are very general. He asked that all the previous items be introduced so the goals and policies are animated by action. The old Plan included community plans including public facility plans. (He read his statement at this time) His concern is the Plan encourages special districts to serve non-existent agencies. He asked if road districts will be created in a rural area, or sewer districts, or water districts. This policy seems to relate to a high overhead and non-existent problem. Commissioner Unger said that SDC's are created through planned growth, and come up with a figure per unit. He likes the idea, but is not sure how they can get there with an SDC system. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, March 29, 2011 Page 3 of 14 Pages Toby Bayard of Central Oregon Landwatch addressed two sections: energy and destination resorts. She feels action items should be reintroduced so the Plan does not just sit on the shelf. The existing Plan recognizes the connection between energy and land use; the proposed Plan removes this connection. Goals 1 and 2 promote energy efficiencies and incentives. She wonders if these are monetary, and whether they would have an impact. She said that Goal 1 should be reworded to reintroduce the language relating to maximizing the conservation of all forms of energy, and recognizing the cost of transportation and roads, and how to offset those costs. Under destination resorts, the Plan does not recognize their impact on rural residents. She objects to new projects. The background section talks about quantifiable revenues and associated costs, but those are not quantified. They need to project both. The County was to fund a more complete study of costs; she asked if this was ever completed. Because of the lack of acceptable information on destination resorts, she wanted to stress that many of these would have been built in cities if rural land had not been available. She hopes that there are alternatives to limit the number of destination resorts in the area. Buffer areas between projects or concentrations should be considered, and others would have to prove there is a need. It should also show that the City of Bend has 100,000 people and additional open space is required. Language should be added to require destination resorts be compatible with existing rural developments, farming and open space. Section 3.9.4 talks about the impacts of traffic volumes, water, wildlife habitat and agricultural interests. They should amend verbiage to work with resort providers, residents and economic experts to revise the destination resort code; and add language to address long-term value from residents. They should poll residents or find other ways to limit the number of destination resorts. The County should provide a process to map destination resorts. Other concerns are changing language to remove `intensive' farming, and dealing with intersections and roadways. Siting to avoid impacts should consider small farms. They should address traffic impacts other than just at intersections. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, March 29, 2011 Page 4 of 14 Pages Tia Lewis spoke about the resort community section, Chapter 4. She requested an amendment previously. The Planning Commission did not include a definition of common area in Title 17, 18, 19 or 23, the Comprehensive Plan. She submitted an e-mail referencing ORS language. Resort communities were formed under the communal form of management, the planned community act. She said that there are inconsistencies in the Sunriver, Black Butte Ranch and 7`h Mountain policies. Ruth Williamson and Jody Barram thanked staff and the Commissioners. They said that the Bend 2030 Plan is a vision adopted in 2005 by the City of Bend, with 250 action items in response to broadest survey in the region, in which one out of seven citizens participated. The document is very important. It has been endorsed by the City, Park & Recreation, the school district, 64 regional businesses and nonprofits, OSU Cascades and COCC. This dream needs to be realized. In January 2010, the group that worked on the 2030 Plan submitted input on the draft Comprehensive Plan, and referenced 11 policies that correlate with the 2010 vision. There is no reference or language in the Plan now that reflects this contribution. They wish to resubmit this vision. It matters because the largest concentration of citizens is in Bend. This voice needs to be incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan update. It is not prescriptive and recognize it is intended to be broad in its scope. The community values reflected in Bend 2030 should help with inspired and visionary land use planning. If appropriate, they would like to see the Board consider amending the Comprehensive Plan language accordingly. Jody Barram said she is impressed by the work put into this and is frustrated when some things are not included. She recognizes the incredible amount of work done. This will lead the region forward for the maximum livability for all citizens. The eleven recommendations address the region, not Bend specific. The Board should be thinking regionally. Commissioner Unger said that the County is more rural specific, but would be happy to view the items that are more than just Bend. Ms. Williamson said that most have to do with the quality of the environment, which is more regional in scope. Paul Dewey of Central Oregon Landwatch thanked Brenda Pace, and staff who did a cutting edge document. The original Plan is really old and they had to start out fresh. He thought the Board would be looking at the original revised Plan and not just what the Planning Commission ended up with. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, March 29, 2011 Page 5 of 14 Pages The action items were eliminated but are important. This reduced the quality. Another key aspect removed is coordination and recognition of other agencies. It has become too generic, calling them all stakeholders. Recognition is just good manners. He addressed water resources, environmental quality and conservation easements. There is a constant theme of going back to the original proposal. Environmental Quality recommendations 2.9.3 in the Plan ignores zoning as a method to protect resources. Zoning is explicit to protect resources. There are a lot of references to incentives instead of regulating, but there are no specifics when they talk about incentives. This is a significant change in theme. The County has regulatory authority and should not have to use incentives. Conservation easements to protect waterways are important, but there is no recognition of how limited that is. And a useable database to tract these easements is non existent. Staff relies on the public to learn about violations. There is no way to know if this is working. Commissioner DeBone referenced action items. He asked if there is a proposed scope. If they went down that path, it could mean working on it for a long time. Mr. Dewey said staff has already developed this and could connect them again. The document is very general so there is a gap between the generalizations and Code. In the past, action items were an essential bridge between goals and policies. Robin Vora of Bend stated that he is reluctant to offer comments, but has some jumbled thoughts. He agrees that the Plan does not have much teeth, with no action items and lots of mays or considerations. Specifically, he is concerned about population goals. A blueprint could guide some of that. Doubling the population in twenty years may not be realistic, along with how much of a driver the projection is in development of the Plan. Deer winter range habitat is largely lost now. Development continues to degrade this. There are caves on private land, and they may need to look at human interaction with the bats in those. This can spread disease to the general bat population. There should be a property tax incentive for people who preserve land for scenic views. This might be an option for wildlife habitat or open space. Some kind of property tax reduction could be put into place, like other states have. Chair Baney explained that the Board just expanded this program. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, March 29, 2011 Page 6 of 14 Pages Mr. Vora stated that the solar code could be extended to maximize solar energy use in new developments. He supports the view that further destination resorts are not needed. They bring about lots of negatives. He encouraged solutions for south County groundwater problems. What happens there goes downstream into the rest of the County. There are opportunities to contain sprawl in La Pine. That might not be the right place for a large city. He would like to see getting people from out of the fringe areas into more areas that are more protected from wildfire, with sewers available. The northeast expansion of Bend is an example where the County should not just let them do what they want. Small community centers with basic services are needed to reduce the need to drive into town. He would like to see bike lanes included when roads are improved. Pam Hardy of Thousand Friends of Oregon said that staff did a great job on the document, with lots of attention to detail, particularly around public participation. She thanked Ms. Payne especially for her work. She thanked Mr. Vora for his remarks about passive solar design and bike lanes. She supports the idea of limiting destination resorts, and resulting traffic impacts, and Ms. Pace's remarks about farming. She applauds the suggestions about recognizing the 2030 Plan. She supports Paul Dewey regarding Goal 5, mapping of conservation easements, and using regulation as a valid form of managing wildlife. There are a lot of different ways to do this on private lands, but regulation should be an available tool. Coordination with other entities is a good idea. She said that the action items need to go back in the Plan, as they are the bridge. She is concerned about changing the Comprehensive Plan again, and asked if there would be more hearings. This is not clear. There have been opportunities to comment on this in the past, so it may not take another year. In regard to agriculture, Goal 1 works to keep farmland and farming, but they left out farmland in large blocks. This is limited by State law, but if the size is cut down, it is easier for that land to get used as residential land. This needs to be controlled. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, March 29, 2011 Page 7 of 14 Pages Ms. Hardy said things are difficult for commercial farmers, but small organic farmers are making a go of it. Some are making it work. Much has to do with soil amendments and selling to a local market so it is more cost effective. It is not so much that farming doesn't work, but a change, a foundational transformation in farming. A new model will shake out that will ultimately be more viable. Policies are needed to encourage farming and they should keep the Code open to support new models. One of the resources protected under Goal 5 is surface mines. Owners don't do a good job of having them reclaimed after they are done. Topsoil is not stockpiled as it should be. These are requirements at the State level, but that is needed at the County level so there can be local enforcement. There need to be stronger goals on surface mining. There need to be updates to the Goal 5 inventory, and should be done every ten years. She encouraged a plan to update inventories on emerging resources more often, like the sage grouse. However, a policy of updating just each 10 years may not be enough. They need to recognize that conditions change and an update might be needed more often. One policy is to create a robust public process on how to manage wildlife. There are some good ideas out there and a lot of people who want to do the right thing. There needs to be a larger vision within the Plan. People think of environmental quality and economic development as opposites. In Deschutes County in the long run, they are interdependent. It's not just fish but scenic views, agricultural viability, and more. They need to keep the natural beauty, which will be a key source of economic prosperity. These should not be framed as being in opposition in the Plan. Commissioner DeBone asked about conserving large parcels of farms. New farming models are not necessarily done on large parcels. Ms. Hardy said that owners can lease out part of these parcels. For example, Dancing Cow Farms leases out parcels to allow people to try different things in different places. They don't lose the large tracts that way. The new model may end up with large pieces. The County has small parcels already, and this should not be broken up further. Commissioner Unger voiced concerns about surface mining. The State does not do a very good job in this regard. He is not sure where the County can go with this issue, but it needs to be tackled. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, March 29, 2011 Page 8 of 14 Pages Derek Staab of Bend said that he appreciates the lawyers in the crowd who pay attention to detail. He is a science teacher/biologist. He tried to think of a phrase that fits, and came up with "leave no county behind". The County needs to set the goal high and put this in the framework. This works for Trout Unlimited. He is a new father, looking at the next 20 years; and a concerned citizen, echoing the idea that the economy and environment are linked. The first Plan from 2009 was predominately from staff and the public was well written and well formatted, and captured the diversity of all. The new draft has changed in structure, has been over simplified, and important goals, policies and action items were edited out. The current draft drops the bar set for the County, and is more like maintaining the status quo and not a new vision. Action items are important to make sure there is accountability. Action items provide a vision and help to show where we want to go and how to work on solutions. He is disappointed in couple of changes. On behalf of Trout Unlimited, he is concerned specifically about water resources. One of the only four goals was removed, and it was important; it had to do with retaining and increasing the population of endangered fish. To remove this brings the bar lower and takes away accountability. Another element that is worrisome is the language changes, putting in "as needed", "where appropriate", and "to be considered". This is flexible but too loose. There is no high standard and no identifiable goals. Its weakened status creates subjectivity and confusion. The original Plan pulled together a lot of resources, charts and graphs. Most of this has been pulled. Visuals helped provide a story, so it is disappointing to see that removed. There seems to be intentional choice of private property rights over the shared resource idea. There is a track record over ten years on collaboration, but this steps it back. He hopes the Board will think about this, and how citizens can help with this vision. The current draft is watered down and needs to be strengthened to enhance quality of life. The new draft has too many general patterns and trends. Commissioner DeBone said that there are two different types of action items. Putting in a traffic light on the main highway in La Pine is one from 1979. This is different than supporting a species of fish in the river. One has to do with dollars and when they are available; the other is open ended. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, March 29, 2011 Page 9 of 14 Pages Mr. Staab stated that ironically a 2009 goal was removed along with the action item. It was a strong measurable goal with action items. It now has a more general goal to maintain and enhance, but has no known measurable accountability. He asked how a change would be recognized. There are only a couple, and they have to be tracked anyway. Commissioner DeBone said that if a goal is not met, there is a concern whether the County going to get sued if it is not met. Mr. Staab asked whether people want to challenge themselves and set the bar high, or be safe and lower it. Commissioner Unger said that vision does come through in other processes. There are federal and state rules, especially regarding fish species. Some are not part of the Comprehensive Plan but have to be addressed for other reasons. They are often there but just not on the Plan. The County is obligated to address those in a different way. Mr. Staab referred to earlier statement about the Bend 2030 statement, which has clear action items. The County needs a document like that, showing strong values. If a diversity of fish species is one of them, this needs to be part of the Plan as well. Chair Baney said that once this is a formal document, items can be referenced, such as maps that can actually be updated without updating the whole document. Bruce White, a Bend attorney, said that he has represented land owners as well as opponents to development, and the County, including working on periodic review in the early 1990's. There is a lot of talk about action items and the role of the Comprehensive Plan. Its role is much different now. The one in 1979 implemented statewide planning goals. During the past 30 years, statutes and administrative rules have been beefed up. There is more of a framework from the State, more than you want, on how goals are to be implemented. So less is required of the Comprehensive Plan with more State prescription. He is not sure they need to go back to where they were. Prescriptive action items will require another public process. He congratulated staff for their achievement of pulling this together. It is hard work to get an integrated product. And it is important to take a big look at these things. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, March 29, 2011 Page 10 of 14 Pages Regarding the agricultural issue, he addressed the conflict of preserving large block agriculture but protecting small scale emerging agriculture. This is not consistent. They had to go to the Supreme Court to get to the smaller size, and it is odd to hear that there is support for smaller scale uses. It seems that if you want to protect smaller uses, you should maybe allow smaller lot sizes. They did a very extensive farm study in the early 90's, and if you go towards protecting an emerging farm economy, you might want to do another study. In 1992, the indicator crop was alfalfa since it seems to be the most stable market crop. Irrigated agriculture was key. If we are going to other aspects of an agriculture market, he is not sure there is a connect between that and the analysis documents on lot sizes. This issue deserves more study but might need to be done as a separate study. A couple of proposed amendments, Section 2.2, gives criteria in Code to clarify how EFU can be converted to other designations. State law is exhaustive regarding exceptions, and he is not sure if more is needed. Is not that clear under State law. He hopes the County is not more restrictive. He supports Section 2.4 if it is clear that this update does not affect the existing ESEEs and inventories under Goal 5. This is not the time to revisit those. Conversation easements are a good idea, but they need to have a better idea of where these are. Someone would have to go through the Clerk's records to do it. Their utility might be somewhat limited post Nolan and Dolan, as the requirements were put in prior to those cases. It may be that this has not been an issue since they are only ten feet wide. Goal 5, mining, is very complex and comes down to the State versus the County in many ways. Commissioner Unger asked if Nolan and Dolan has to do with requirements that extend past the requested land use and mitigation. Mr. White said it is a nebulous topic, but it has to do with making sure with whatever property right you give up is in proportion. He does not think they are that intrusive, but raised the issue when public access was required. The County does not require this anymore. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, March 29, 2011 Page 11 of 14 Pages Mathew Lisignoli of Terrebonne said he is a farmer and derives all of his income from agriculture. There has been a lot of discussion about the size of farms. He was a city kid, and started from zero when he moved here in 1996. He hears a lot of talk about endangered species. That is farmers. He has tried big and small farming, and neither is easy. You have to keep your feet on ground, and try to be innovative to get by. He tried growing quantity crops, but it did not work. He got into agri-tourism, which has developed into a big part of his operation. But EFU is so restrictive it does not give him many options. He has been told he is in violation, but thinks he is in conformance. He doesn't know the answer. He enjoys providing for his family off the land, but in reality the agriculture population is aging and needs new, young people. A few acres of organic farming might do it. He farms 400 acres and generates half of his revenue off 20 acres. He doesn't live fancy but feels good about what he does. There needs to be some method for this to work for everyone. Agri-tainment is very important, since there are fewer people on farms. They host field trips and kids are excited about it, and they need to keep that going. Parents and grandparents had more exposure. They need to maintain farmland and interest in farming, and maybe allow events or other things. He is not saying he wants to do weddings, but the biggest problem with those seems to be noise and traffic. He does not have issues with his neighbors. He doesn't think there should be weddings or events on every five-acre parcel, but maybe within an established size. Some land is designated high value, but he has less than 2 inches of soil, and the rest is rock. Yet is designated high value. Agri-tainment, with provisions for permanent structures for organized food preparation or restaurants, would help. Farmers are such a small percentage of the population, but garden for and maintain the look everyone else wants and enjoys. There needs to be some provision for that, some way to go so they can make a living off the land. Commissioner Unger said that the Planning Commission worked on this issue, but the challenges are within State law, and commercial activities are spelled out. They are trying to look at that issue statewide, but it is difficult. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, March 29, 2011 Page 12 of 14 Pages Mr. Lisignoli stated that the hot topic is the weddings. There is lots of opposition, and he can understand the problems. There could be a size of a farm or location that might be appropriate. One concern is State rules, but there seems to be a lot of variation between counties. Chair Baney noted that there are much different issues here where private citizens sometimes act as watchdogs. This issue is on the work plan, so they are going to take a look at events on EFU land again. Testimony and experience can weight heavily on a good decision. Nick Lelack pointed out that the date for an informational work session on this issue is April 20, at 1:30 p.m. Chair Baney added that there would be hearings and more, because this is a huge issue. Mr. Lisignoli said that he can't lease out the land for much money. As a general rule, he is probably one of the last potato farmer in the area. No one is making money off hay or cattle. It is not that strong of an industry, although important. Mr. Lelack stated that staff appreciates the comments made tonight about staff's efforts to put together the Comprehensive Plan update, but it could not have been done without the Planning Commission and the public. And the Board supported the whole process and pushed it forward. Staff will look to the Board for direction regarding the action items. These have not disappeared. The public will see the draft work plan for the next fiscal year. One of the items is an action plan which will tie to the goals and policies. Is the Board's call whether this is in the Plan or linked otherwise as a stand alone document. Action items would be short-, mid- and long-term. Some will be ongoing, but some will be more time sensitive. Commissioner Unger said that consistency over time is an issue, and they have to figure out how the action plan gets carried out like a Comprehensive Plan that is hard to change. A future Board might look at things differently, and it would lose consistency. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, March 29, 2011 Page 13 of 14 Pages Ms. Payne stated that if you have an action item coordinated with policies, they can be looked at each year. Some could be implemented each year, but that is the choice of the decision-makers. Chair Baney noted that perhaps it would allow for more flexibility on emerging issues. This could be prioritized on an annual basis, and the community could provide input on the work plan. Commissioner DeBone said that it makes sense for the next step to be to have an action plan and work plan, and they can focus on the actions more often. Chair Baney continued the hearing to Thursday, March 31, 6:00 p.m., at the La Pine Senior Center. Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. DATED this 29th Day of March 2011 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Tammy Baney, Chair Tony DeBone, Vice Chair Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, March 29, 2011 Page 14 of 14 Pages 1 3 2 5) Vv- L C~ 0.-1( C inn 7-2)Qyo- r - LJ J (,L,:X VA b~ QAk~-W' 0- VN\ c ~S+CLO- No- "kz~r 4le- - VA ~G~J-ces co o BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: 2~ 1( Name Address 2,-3 hl t^1 R ow+a-.- Phone #s E-mail address cad . vV ❑ In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided M Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? R Yes ~No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ~G~v-r~s co`Z o { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: _ Name irate I,.WOWL Address PQ j 2,c Phone #s `L~i I) A Z_ Z 015 E-mail address h wg(A-v (zo In Favor ] Neutral/Undecided ~ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. JTES c0`2 o { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING MW REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: W2T l( Name it. ~~k 00f'011 Address C- ~ q7-) o ( Phone #s SCE ( 3/6 ~ 6 s- 2_ E-mail address rb i~yov"' 2 c_: j U v f h bfz ¢~den~~ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided F1 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ~U~J-ces eo Z o { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda~jt of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: Z~ /l t Name Address 1 U 'L 4 Phone #s _t~_4 I - q 114 - Q CQ 9% E-mail address tAA6 • o ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F ' _L~-Yes F-] No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary, for the record. JTES C o { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date:. m h~~ ~ Gc~~,LC~amsow Name ,J6dz6 ,&rra,x -74 Address 975 Aj4j eroo&s J-1- Phone #s E-mail address 1-1 In Favor F] Neutral/Undecided Lc V'-e 11 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 9Yes F] No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ~G~JT c~~2 IOU { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING low REOUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: 3I259~, Name ?A -U L C w E Y C. 4 L Address 15 3 5 V w u,,,,- Its 6, e j &.'-a nq .5'i'nI Phone #s 5,q(- 3 +,7- 1,j4 E-mail address d J4 W b. d « << . ~A 1-1 In Favor F;;] Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ZYes F] No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ~0-res C ~U o`2 o { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: 3XZq,1Name Address Phone #s 6V/- q 77 53 q E-mail address In Favor ~ Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? E Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. K. & Z o < BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: a c~ 1- Name t Cam..--Q-~-.~ LS Address Stb Si . 4 CXD Phone #s q CI _ 610 `l q- E-mail address w C"Jt:~'~_ ' C. o ~ In Favor Neutral/Undecided F-1 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? d-es ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary feco d. 3 tt ~G~J-cES C-1, Z o { BOARD OF COMMhSSIONERS' MEETING 1W REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: Name l Q < Address Co Q'7 3 F) L) t l Phone #s - F, = S 0 E-mail address _ 0k YXi C -Cy w ❑ In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F]Yes r-] No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ~~U~v-ces oo`Z~ o { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: 3/'q ~/)'V Name H (\C[~o i P A IA fq~ l Address. S Phone #s 7 7 E-mail address [M n~ 0 1-1 In Favor [7R,Neutral/Undecided 2~Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes F]No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ~j L" k- co`2~ o A BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: 3 Z 9 ail/ Name MA 1 o b 51 N6 L1 f &T,)oy1rc-o Address 2'5D IgLs W i LC ox I~/ IR~~6cm~N~s , OP- ct 7_760 Phone #s J-q l- 5-0+ l g l q E-mail address CrO I M-L_5VMS4 A)L • C>v\ In Favor F] Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F]Yes ZNo If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT - - - Agricultural Lands Background Discussion: The background cites the "Right to Farm" law. However, it should be recognized that farmers are still highly impacted by nonfarm uses around them. In fact, the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODOA) publishes materials to help farmers cope with neighbors. Farmers must continue fear complaints from neighbors that may lead to lawsuits because the definitions of "Right to Farm" have broad exclusions. The ODOA recommends substantial interaction with owners of non-farm houses, a time-consuming necessity to reduce the amount of conflict. The law itself does not reduce the effort that farmers must commit to avoid the substantial expense of defending a lawsuit. The background also comments that the short growing season makes commercial farming challenging. What is not mentioned is that there is a growing local farming community that has organized as the Food Policy Council (http://www.centraloregonfoodnetwork.com/cofpc.html). The Bulletin published an article on March 9, 2011 entitled, "In a new food culture, a young generation of farmers emerges", which describes the goals of a generation o f younger farmers who are investing their time and resources in smaller, local and less commercial farming operations, with a goal of offsetting the negative impacts of the industrial farm industry. Planning policies that reduce farmers' potential by interrupting the continuity of farm land are ignoring this growing economic sector. LandWatch recommends the following changes: Goal 3. Ensure Exclusive Farm Use policies, classifications and codes are consistent with local and emer ing agricultural conditions and markets. Policy 2.2. 10 Identify and retain accurately designated agricultural lands. Policy 2.2.11 Explore new methods of identifying and classifying agricultural lands. a. Apply for grants to review and, if needed, update farmland designations. b. Study County agricultural designations considering elements such as water availability, farm viability and economics, climatic conditions, land use patterns, accepted farm practices, and impacts on public services. e. Lobby for- ehanges te State Statate regarding agr-iettltur-al de initions-speeifiE te Desehutes County that would allow some r-eelassifieation 3f agr-ieultl lands. (Delete existing c.) c. Recognize in any redesignation of agricultural lands, the importance of farm land continuity to the success of the farmer. (Replace with this language.) Goal 3 and in particular, 2.2.11.c., appear to anticipate the passage of proposed legislation, (SB 547), which would allow counties to designate secondary lands for agriculture. As this legislation March 29, 2011 Page 2 _a Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT proposes to only protect Class I and II soils in Exclusive Farm Use zones, virtually the entire County would be open to redesignation. We do not believe the public or, in particular, Deschutes County's new farming contingent supports such a wholesale redesignation. (At the time of this writing, SB 547 has not been scheduled for a hearing.) Thus, we recommend the preceding changes. Policy 2.2.8 Encourage small farming enterprises, such as niche markets, organic farming, farm stands or value added products by planning for suitable locations within the agricultural landscape. Policy 2.2.9 Review County Code and revise as needed or seek legislative assistance to permit alternative and supplemental farm activities that are compatible with farming, such as agritourism or commercial renewable energy projects Add Policy 2.2.10 Review County Code and revise as needed or seek legislative assistance to permit accessory housing or agritourism units within or as additions to existing farm structures potentially by adjusting revenue and acreage requirements. Policies in this Plan do not fundamentally assist the agricultural community. While the Plan relies on generalities such as promotion, support and encouragement, it also anticipates fragmenting the landscape still further. The only practical assistance offered is finding a way to allow agritourism (and even here no specifics are mentioned). Accessory housing for farm workers is another aspect that could be mentioned. Further, there is no mention of how to provide the processing or value- added facilities that support farmers. The changes above are meant to address these needs. Policy 2.2.12 Address land use challenges in the Horse Ridge subzone, specifically: a. The large number- of platted lots not meeting the mini - gei_ b. The need for- „ fafm dwellings an leeat;o„ M°^uir-ef ents for farm WL1V11 1Vlt LM1ll Vlll Vil LU dwellings potentially caused by acreage and revenue requirements needing legislative assistance; The Horse Ridge subzone has been protected in larger parcels since the first Comprehensive Plan was written. There are a number of species that use the zone and are dependent upon these protections. Species recovery plans have not yet been included in this Comprehensive Plan. We know of no need for non-farm housing in the area. Sub Policy (a.) should be deleted since this is condition that is common in the County and cannot be corrected. Also Sub Policy (b.) can potentially be addressed through adjustments to the acreage and revenue requirements possibly with legislative assistance. March 29, 2011 Page 3 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT Rural Development LandWatch recommends the following changes: Add. Goal 1. To Guide the location and design of rural development so as to minimize the public costs of facilities and services to avoid unnecessary expansion of service boundaries, and to preserve and enhance the safety and viability of rural land uses. Policy To Understand the impacts of coun development on county short and long_ term budgets and develop appropriate mitigation. There are no goals or policies under Rural Development in the New Comprehensive Plan. The existing Plan included a goal B that does not appear to be repeated in any other section. We feel that it is particularly important to include a consideration of the cost to Deschutes County of far- flung development such as that above (renumbered to Goal 1). March 29, 2011 Page 13 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT - Rural Housini Goal 1. Maintain the rural character and safety of housing in unincorporated Deschutes County. Policy 3.3.4 Encourage new subdivisions to incorporate alternative development patterns, such as cluster development with permanent open space, that mitigate community and environmental impacts. We support clustering of housing in the rural county but only with the intention of maintaining the 65 percent open space requirement. We are not in favor of clustering, if the intention is to hold the open space for future new development as a destination resort or other type of project. We support the effort to quantify rural potential lots to see if they can be clustered. March 29, 2011 Page 14 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT Rural Economv LandWatch recommends the following changes: Goal 1. Maintain a stable and sustainable rural economy particularly farming, compatible with rural lifestyles and a healthy environment. Policy 3.4.6 Maintain and improve the ability for farmers to operate successfully in their environment. The proposed Plan does not mention farming in the Rural Economy section. While the Agriculture section is concerned in part with farming, it should be recognized as an economic engine in this section. In addition, Deschutes County has a relatively new agricultural sector based partly on small farms. It is evidenced by new groups, such as the Food Policy Council, and new marketing efforts, such as Central Oregon Locovore and others. While some farmers and many real estate industry participants wish to claim that agricultural cannot be successful in this County, these farmers are making a difference. However, they need some cooperation of the type that is common in other states and countries. Cooperation can include a zoning ordinance that allows accessory units and/or agri-tourism units. Such an ordinance does not necessarily mean new structures on farmland but could mean units added to or included within existing farm structures. Farmers also need a location and investment in a facility that provides slaughter (perhaps mobile), includes sufficient refrigeration, and offers a commercial kitchen for packaging and value-added processing. We recommend that the Rural Economy section of the Comprehensive Plan consider specific policies for re-evaluating ordinances concerning accessory units, and agri-tourism units as well consider locations that could support processing and value added efforts this new and important local industry. These policies are proposed in the Agriculture section but would also be appropriate here. They are as follows. Encourage small farming enterprises, such as niche markets, organic farming, farm stands or value added products by planning for suitable locations in commercial or industrial zones within the agricultural landscape. Review County Code and revise as needed or seek legislative assistance to permit alternative and supplemental farm activities that are compatible with farming, such as agritourism or commercial renewable energy projects. Review County Code and revise as needed or seek legislative assistance to permit accessory housing or agritourism units within or as additions to existing farm structures potentially by adjusting revenue and acreage requirements. March 29, 2011 Page 15 March 29, 2011 To: Deschutes County Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger, and Tony DeBone From: Michel Bayard, Treasurer; Central Oregon Landwatch Re: Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - Public Facilities and Services Dear Commissioners Baney, Unger and DeBone: My name is Michel Bayard, and I am on the Board of Central Oregon LandWatch. I am providing feedback on Deschutes County's revised Comprehensive Plan as one of their representatives. My comments concern the Public Facilities and Services element of that Plan. Before I address Public Facilities and Services, I must say that I object to the Planning Commission's effort to dilute the Plan's effectiveness by deleting all action items. The new Plan's goals and policies are very general. The removal of action items results in an alarming lack of substance. With respect to Public Facilities and Services, I ask that all the previous Plan's action items be reintroduced, so that its goals and policies are animated by performance requirements. For each goal or policy, there should be a set of integrated action plans and requirements. For instance, the old Plan included this action item: "Community plans shall include public facility plans". The new Plan lacks such language. This action item and others must be reintroduced. Otherwise, the new Plan will not support the orderly, efficient and cost-effective siting and provision of rural public facilities and services in Deschutes County. Rather it will lead to the haphazard provision of such services, in violation of Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services) of Oregon's Statewide Land Use Planning program. Also, under Goal 1, Policy 3.6.1 encourages improved methods for serving rural development: Encouraging the formation of special service districts to serve rural needs rather than have the County serve those needs if such districts would better serve those needs based upon service standards or cost; • Encouraging the development of System Development Charges (SDCs) to offset the construction of infrastructure for rural development. My concern is that the Plan encourages the formation of special districts to perform rural services but, at the same time, deletes any consideration of SDCs for this purpose. Indeed, the formation of new special districts appears to be a surreptitious attempt to pass the widely scattered facility needs associated with rural development to non-existent agencies. I ask the County: • Do you anticipate creating road districts in the rural areas? • Do you plan to create sewer districts for oversight of septic systems? • Do you plan to create water districts for oversight of wells? This policy, as compared to a policy of considering an SDC system, seems to favor a high-overhead and non-existent solution to a County problem rather than a solution that the County can readily address. I recommend that SDCs also be included in the proposed plan. Thank you in advance for considering my comments regarding the revised Comprehensive Plan. Michel Ba and Treasurer - Central Oregon Land Watch 20555 Bowery Lane, Bend, OR 97701 March 29, 2011 Deschutes County Commissioner Tammy Baney Deschutes County Commissioner Alan Unger Deschutes County Commissioner Tony DeBone SUBJECT: Revised Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - Enerev and Destination Resort Dear Commissioners Baney, Unger and DeBone: My name is Toby Bayard. I serve on the board of Central Oregon LandWatch as Secretary. Land Watch has been involved with Deschutes County's revision of its Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) as have I, as one of their representatives. This letter documents LanclWatch's (and my own) position on two sections of the Plan: Energy and Destination Resorts. Along with several others who have commented on the revised Comp Plan I, too, object to the Planning Commission's decision to remove the action items that were part of the previous Plan. The revised Comp Plan is extremely general and the removal of action items renders it essentially ineffective as a bona fide comprehensive planning document. ENERGY With respect to Energy, the existing Comprehensive Plan recognizes the connection between land use planning and energy use. The proposed Plan removes any reference to this connection. Given the clear relationship, Land Watch cannot understand how a land use planning document can justify neglecting this consideration. Therefore, we recommend that land use become a New Goal 1 with associated policies. Instead, Goal 1 and Goal 2 of the proposed Plan rely on "promotion" of energy efficiency and "incentives" for the use of energy conserving construction of individual structures. If these are monetary incentives, can the County afford them? And, are these policies anticipated to be meaningful and to have an impact? Again, these kinds of policies would be better understood if Action Items were in place. With respect to language and policies, Land Watch offers these suggestions and comments: Please reword Goal 1as follows: To manage land uses to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy. (Language from the existing Comprehensive Plan) Z Please add new policy 2.8.xx worded as follows: Recognize the cost in energy for transportation and road maintenance; Z Please add new policy 2.8.xx: Consider a mitigation program for rural developments that offsets their transportation and road maintenance energy costs. Y i y `Toby Bayard / Central Oregon LanclWatch Testimony: Proposed Deschutes County Comp Plan Revisions DESTINATION RESORTS LanclWatch is concerned that the County has not recognized the overall cumulative impacts of the many Destination Resorts on County residents, particularly its rural residents. Many have strenuously and repeatedly objected to new projects. We believe the new Plan should reflect this opposition. The proposed Comp Plan's background section on Destination Resorts cites the quantifiable revenues of increased property taxes on rural housing (along with costs). :Z The costs were not quantified). If revenues are quantified, so too should be costs. (This section also notes that the County was to fund a more complete study of costs by the University of Oregon. This study was not completed and it is not known whether this work will be resumed.) Given the continued lack of generally accepted information on Destination Resorts, background material should at least mention that many of these rural first and second homes would have been built and taxed in cities if destination resort subdivisions had not been available. County property tax numbers should be netted against additional c t property tax revenue. LanclWatch had hoped that one or more alternatives to limit the number of Destination Resorts might become policy in the proposed Comp Plan. Such policy seems to be in order to avoid the continuous development of resorts as exemplified by such places as Palm Springs and parts of Florida; it would also help to retain a viable and working rural atmosphere. Such alternatives might include: Requiring buffers between projects; Drawing a line around "concentrations" of projects (e.g., Eagle Crest, Sunriver-Caldera Springs- Crosswater). Projects outside these centers must prove the need for additional units. :Z Making the assumption that Bend is a population of 100,000 for siting purposes. Resisting the addition of additional housing to projects without additional open space. We recommend the following changes to the Destination Resort section of the revised Comp Plan: Goal 1. Provide for development of destination resorts in the County consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8 in a manner that will be compatible with farm and forest uses, existing rural development, and which will maintain important natural features, such as habitat of threatened or endangered species, streams, rivers and significant wetlands. Under Goal 1, Policy 3.9.4, we are pleased to see the direct connection made between adverse impacts and mitigation. In addition, we ask that Policy 3.9.4 of the proposed Plan address the following with respect to Destination Resorts: Their impacts on traffic volumes at intersections and on roadways Their impacts on water tables, water quality, water quantity and water recharge Their impacts on intermittent streams Their impacts on wildlife habitat Their impacts on agricultural interests March 29, 2011 Page 2 V T Toby Bayard / Central Oregon LandWatch Testimony- Proposed Deschutes County Comp Plan Revisions Also under Goal 1, Policy 3.9.4, we ask that you add the underlined, bolded verbiage: "Work with resort providers, County residents and economic and environmental experts to determine revisions to the destination resort code that will adequately mitigate concerns over resort impacts. Such impacts may include traffic volumes at intersections and on roadways water tables water quality water guantity, water recharae, intermittent streams, wildlife habitat and agricultural interests." Goal 1, Policy 3.9.6. Please add this language: Address the long-term values of county residents to determine whether an unlimited number of destination resorts should be allowed. :D Add sub-point a: "Consider a poll of residents". :D Add sub-point b: "Consider ways to limit the number of destination resorts" Goal 2. Provide a process for the siting of destination resorts on rural lands that have been mapped by the County as eligible for this purpose. Please change the language on Goal 2, Policy 3.9.6.b, as follows: Location and design of improvements and activities in a manner that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of the resort on uses on surrounding lands, particularly effects on intensive farming operations in the area and on the rural transportation system. In order to adequately assess the effect on the transportation system including intersections and roadways, notice and the opportunity for comment shall be provided to the relevant road authority. Under Goal 2, there are policies concerned with destination resort subdivision siting. ~D In Policy 3.9.6 b, we believe that siting to avoid impacts to adjoining "intensive " agriculture includes small farms, animal husbandry and other agriculturists is warranted. This policy is also concerned with traffic impacts which historically have only applied to intersections. We hope that this policy will lead to an understanding and mitigation for impacts on roadways in the rural area. Sincefely, f Toby Bayard Secretary of the Board - Central Oregon LanclWatch 20555 Bowery Lane, Bend, OR 97701 March 29, 2011 Page 3 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St. Bend, OR 97701 BEND 2030 875 NW Brooks St. Bend, OR 97701 www.bend203O.org Jodle Barram Chairwoman Bend Mayor Pro Tem Dean Wise Vice Chairman Below Grade Brewing Ron Paradis Secretary CocC Mike Riley Treasurer The Environmental Center Andy Anderson Retired Board Liaison Ruth Williamson Past Chairwoman BMPRD Board Member March 29, 2011 RE: Comprehensive Plan Update Dear Board of Commissioners, Bend 2030 supports the efforts underway to update the County's Comprehensive Plan. This important document will lead our region forward with defining policies that manage our landscape for the maximum livability of all residents. Prior to the record opening in October, 2010, Bend 2030 submitted recommendations to the Planning Commission and staff. In a letter dated January 7, 2010, our board outlined some areas where Bend's vision as it relates to the region could be reflected in the Comprehensive Plan Update. We would like to resubmit it now into the record for your consideration. Know that while the Bend 2030 Vision has many elements specific to Bend, the recommendations were on elements that include key leaders in the region and address broad issues that Bend 2030 is involved with. Thank you for considering our comments. Your service representing Deschutes County is much appreciated. Sincerely, Jodie D. Barram Bend 2030 Chairwoman City of Bend, Mayor Pro Tern Attachments: January 7, 2010 Letter Bend 2030 Action Items Ruth Williamson Bend 2030 Past Chairwoman Bend Metro Parks & Recreation Board Member Bruce Abernethy f3Phd (1Pinf1, 5ChOl l?i^,trr'ct Ruth Williamson CHAIR Ben Hinchcliffe VICE CHAIR Jodie Barram SECRETARY Mike Riley TREASURER Stephanie Hicks COMMUNICATIONS Andy Anderson Cassie Giddings Linda Johnson Eric King Douglas Knight Ron Paradis Brian Rankin Robin Gyorgyfalvy Betsy Warriner Matt Shinderman Donna Jacobsen Bruce Abernethy Dean Wise January 7, 2010 Deschutes County Planning Commission Attn: Terri Hansen Payne 117 N.W. Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 Re: Comments on Draft Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update Dear Planning Commissioners: On behalf of the Bend 2030 Board of Directors, please consider these comments on the Draft Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. Overall, we believe that the input from the greater Bend community through the visioning process in 2004-2006, which led to the Bend 2030 Vision and Action Plan, should be considered and reflected in the County Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1.2.5 should recognize Bend 2030 as a stakeholder organization to which communication and outreach is coordinated. We suggest that an additional Action for Policy 1.2.5 be added for review of Comprehensive Plan policies and action items against the Bend 2030 Vision. You may wish to revise Policy 2.3.5 regarding Skyline Forest, and Policies 2.3.6 and 2.3.7 regarding development of forest lands, and include related Actions, to correspond with and support Action items in the Bend 2030 Vision related to Quality Environment (QE 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3). These Action items in the Vision encourage coordination for conservation/acquisition opportunities, engagement of agencies and organizations to create a master vision for open space, parks and natural lands in the Greater Bend region, and establish the Skyline Forest as a model for future open space conservation. With respect to the Policies and Actions in Section 2.5, relating to Water Quality and Quantity, and Section 2.6, relating to Rivers Streams and Fish, we would like to see reference to and support of Action items in the Bend 2030 Vision related to Quality Environment (QE 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4). These Action items in the Vision encourage creation of a basin-wide water management forum to manage water needs, assist riparian landowners, protect river areas of special interest, and coordinate a regional partnership for community outreach and education concerning the Deschutes River. www.bend203O.org PO Box 431, Bend, Oregon 97709 .a They also call for a basin-wide water conservation program for education and outreach, creation of a water conservation track, and promotion of state legislation that requires continuing education on water conservation technologies. Policies and Actions in Section 2.9 concerning Open Space and Scenic View Policies could reference Bend 2030 Action QE 8.2, calling for a collaborative open spaces vision. Importantly, we believe that this section of Comprehensive Plan should include Policies and Actions related to QE I 1 in the Bend 2030 Action Plan, calling for an Interconnected Trail System. QE 11. 1, 11.3 and 11.4 indicate the public's desire to create a regional trail council to oversee a broad county-wide trail system that encompasses urban and regional trails, development of a county-wide trail plan and integrated trail planning. Section 2.10 of the draft plan relates to Energy. There are a number of Action items in the Bend 2030 Vision that could be referenced in the Policies and Actions in the Comprehensive Plan. These include Vibrant Economy (VE), Actions 16.2, 16.3 and 16.4, as well as VE 17.1. The action items call for incentives to attract sustainable energy companies, development of a community energy plan, incentives for energy-efficient transportation options and incentives to attract businesses with an interest in preserving scenic assets and environmental quality through sustainable practices. The Bend 2030 strategies and action items related to QE 12 (energy conservation and alternative energy sources) and QE 16 (green building standards and practices) should also be noted. In addition, QE 13.6 regarding education and outreach for waste prevention is related to the Policies and Actions in Section 2.10 of the draft comprehensive plan. With respect to Section 2.11 relating to Environmental Quality, there is a connection to QE 13.4 (recycled materials marketing), QE 13.6 (waste prevention education campaign), QE 1 (protection of air quality), VE 15 ("green" building leader) and QE 7 (native plants and water conserving landscaping). We are happy to provide you copies of referenced sections of the Bend 2030 Vision. Thank you for considering these comments. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 815-7166. Sincerely, Ruth Williamson, Chair www.bend203O.org PO Box 431, Bend, Oregon 97709 2 a O .1-J U Q O M O N ^C MW W O z O w z IZ co i i y QU Gt1 U ~ > E 0 o C1~ U U o c~ cqs M~ CO ^ 0 O a) C's as ~ ~ 0. 1U~ f~U~ U U to G~ °A U 0 cA W co cl ..o H En r+ W U N 2 U r~ CL b I--I 0 O W C) CO "0 W O J Q. N Q ~ O O ~co) Z 'b Qom. U = ~ o o ril w W En r-- `d 3 ¢ V o0 ` (41 W U) Lij a LL LL ~ a J a~ O LL O U Z ~ cd O W O o z F - LL U o z W --3 'O ccn 0 O ¢ ^ Ii U `O t~ 00 C Rf +r c cu E E Q , ¢ O • O 0. 1 O > U U .N Y ~ U U L U L ° ~ ~ N . L CD i (a ~ iy~ ,ayF . C O cd . t7 'v Cd . U cnGgU ;3 0 ch=U a D 4 t! t+, rn o o O N cu + . U U 0 RS i W ► v i Cd O -a ' cc cu 2!, bo o wCd 4° a O b m • ; w Z L) o ° u Q ~ cd v ~ . Way Q~ mCd E w c V' • CL d0 CD E z h- o > • W O • . J -cs LV on m O . m o W v z -z-- 0 o Z : R5 • Z O ~ 'Q W -d w a cu > t9 m a W a~ N . ~ ~ N M a 0 0 U Q 00 on c •C c bjO 0 Y ro x x 0 0 M 0 N r r .G 3 3 3 C t6 C O U Q O O N m O z O W Z W Q vi • O ~ O c6 C C -cu U (6 0 N czj to T C UCa Q u cl c W 0 w.a S3= rt r_ L~ -L 0 V MU0.LUAAfaU U to (U 0.1 ~0 w «i c O d O E CIO o 0 Q U M U N 0 0 > • • 70 O O C 'O , cd w N • N N • N - O sN. N . • LLLJ cd a'"i v o 0 E • + Z 0O co O 4- w w 'o Z sm. fn + • N ' W 00 ~0 Q O b W O m + + J U O V O C's U o 0 1 • Z N O Z cu Cd co W n Z .0 . co v w m O -d o > on d 4) E- = Cl) 0) 7:1 J O U • LL O C Q N"n 4, o c~ Qc.o Ooh Zwo UN CO Z a=2''o Q (L r~ p ' ' _ c°~n o z cd N 0 Q • m b W 'y o W o Z 0_ a~ Z o ca o O V 0 :3 w <n W Z LL r. UJ 0-0 r: (D 0 CU En I ( W~ vg c g W q. W 45 as 0 m 'N O V .o .0 R v V Q v O W. cqs O ~ • O ~ W N M w w° 0 6 M O N b N ..O 0 3 Q > CO) 0 M im V. N A- .0 -:2. m ~ m m > N ~ O m O Ll w U U a+ L C" - (6 'ty a~ o oU c c ~ ~o O ar- i o c rn N W (D o O E U ch ~UL1a L. 0- > 0 Q1 0 • cd N • (II , Cd a3 L O U 0 d c~ ~ ~ O cA ~ • ~ _ • .O d0~. O Q~ • W cu o M co CA O ca N • ~ bA O ~ O O U) an 40 w C U' Z tom. R bA' O N v 0 = C) M, ' _ .O N O O R. W L) ~ Ce C-. Q W cd 4-4 o w , CA is 0 Im 3 G r Z "i a~ 10 O M '0 • a Z z W ° V -CC3 Z :L • , Z cVV J O 0 0 W Wm}' V °U ca c 2 cd one J r. _ O w Z ~ • ~ Z pC>~ Qo i~ a • Z V N W ' O C ~ • ~ O ctt ~ Q bA ~ _ W. w U) p. W Z o H N M M M O 0 M O N c a~ .o C N O 4-1 U Q O M O N C m V m • O O_ • O v Gi L a I z w 5- z 0 H z w H J Q ~ (V DIM t~ NT M 0 O N b C N .O 3 O L ~ c 0 • V > 0 CD F v N ~ ~ o W Q) ca C 12 _ h p CD 0 3 a OU~c O= O U A fn V a v 2 ° w .70: -0 0 :::a) CO c AR Ufa) o cn p o a.~~ co ~ cc, V ° U A x v a. G4 a~ a~ o chi g Q v2 «t pq u. o o~ i 11U AU~aa Aa~A to a) W c p°= Q O al w t1. o C c • ' cd U LL b to C fi ' , Q 3 Uj Z cm A, cn mO as n W c* ao c L ~ C • . ~ A ~ v o ~ ao i 70 C U ' ' -J ? W o o a G u t a) L J a cd to m . ' O ccd O 00 U Q 53 ► • V a~i W b~ LLj v ZQc Zvi: pq.~ moo- Zo Y - ` 3 Lu W Z y 'W3 Qom VN?~ ~ Z O W LV o o U) V1 0 W Z E. Q o~ i W' a~ c ;Q cc a) Q to ( W C - 3 .5 - Q G _ a) ' a ,'o, ~ 'D to a - Cd (L) a~ CIO Q r~ W~ W O Z WC-- a) rn Oyu ca 0 rIn cn C07, Z V)` (n W v cv 3 o Q I.l.l W e p G O O o Z th'. -CD rn ca _ O c Z ca Pq o Q Q cd 5-4 C 7 c• y o Q "p a) a) C37 m U~ V 3. o W a .r Q O M O e; O M O cYi a a a tn M `o 0 M O b c 3 C R a c c d-. Q C ry, C n Z C Cc F- U.j Y- z O QC H W J Q' V Q~ I ~ .o 0 ~ U 3-i C C's Q.3 A :si y U A H U 0 0 0 a ~ U 3 ~ b Q as as ~ V N y O O P~ cd O ~D U U -b U ' o co a 48 co Q. ~ o o v ~ o P4 5; Za c~U U V 08 o ~ U v ao J U U v) o O~ 0 r^~ ~ Q • CIS :3 En W Z d G LL, C4 N o N G 45 W o N ~ W C* U U C C* O D 44 ~ o . to o Z - Z 0 W aH~ 0 a W w° o o U A4 c ca OO O M O M O M a c a a M co a 0 0 M O N N 3 3 C a. 0 U Q C) M O N C N m I- W G O LL ui Q D a Q > O E U - CDA) cm-"O w ~ O a N C a w q ° F= Cd ~ 0 L Q N o z0. fwd O v d E 15 cu CCl) •.U w • V i m > ~ U U U i d V i cn 0,E 3 ° >0 v 0~ Q Q Ox o ~mW<UQUa M Co CU 'v Q CD LL = C Q ) L - ^L^`` , F7 70 E • ' ' Z is .a I: C 2 O O O3y-~ U 4) • • O ca _ E __i p E • • a 4r N a~ ts. o 5 =3 ri N Z - ~ 03 co -z: 2 cd O ..-L. LV O c = t > u . 4 • V o aQ ~ C to • W 0 0 ry Z R{ Z "O O a m V V 'd O ~ . W O O .O v c W p ° a G c cd Q) ' • o v U W Z CO) t11 cn w O c c . • . O C° n, • o O . Co D 3(D3' U C h ~ C i V W M C ca _O .1..7 u Q O M O N C m W G z O z W Q O' Q i U -1 q wq w z 0 W ~ F ~"'w w O C]wz 0v °~crn O¢.1 ~"3oW~U a. C ^ ¢ aSa~ 70 °yeay m ° u oWOS-U^U oaV)WaU'LC03 0 ? U y 3co n2adx 5 E0 ~=0D.4 00 u y ow > Ow ^ ¢°m ~'W < vww00 g Os -E Ece E o~> 0 i j o y ° E = v a a° ' a w o 0 a vi C O a O w~ U d U d O &05 cd •0 ~ wb 0 a 0 to -a 0 °9awa C) v Z o b U b O o h- C N RS cod I= U C ll Q tJ d o Z~ (U O U c~ 5 .0 - V O W V. 'Cy 0 C's WI ° 0 ~ 0-9- Z to u W Q a p 0~ W C.) O° c V r C.) r U) ` .2 ' W LL o Q p C~0 r- . F. t O C ~4> W E O 4) 0 O 'b W R I- + I- ca Im, w CIS T: ° i~ 4-3 0.- ba O OCtl V ~s e4 W a 0 Won A F U w . (1) CO) N Z y 02 as Z 0.0 Z p V Q E° V V+ o N ° 0 L as Q O ° 0 0 I... O .4 N r o ~ U 4 o a aoo~ U as P . c . rril . O ~O ,O ~O ,O ~O c a a a 00 M x E w O cd 0 w 0 0 0 N r C v .n 3 3 C R) CL c O V O M O '0 C Q) m F_ W z O w W H Q CY Q ui N' c c c N to • C • • ID U _ O (o Q fl ~ f0 Z> OAa U Pw - -a a a~ a~ V o U cU O U 0.0 vi O L~ V] O w ~ O t7-. ~ 0 0 ~ .J G O 7 aC1 .4-....~- O U o F A F F W U h ftI Lq CJ Q tit ~ C C E ..C "E N. Q 4 A ° ca 'L3 A . 0-0: 2-0 L E b y ~~~~s r. U m m M W /r ~ U a ~ a in A t ~A ? Aa v ca . E O Q O 0 . C W CU cm o Cd u. J • m a~ ca y bA a~ Q cu c = ~.:0 . W b ; N in ~ ° ^t7 ~ .a N . • Z> O o co U a' ° cts . N O a . ' eo w o r . Z G J co_~o o o w o-b c 0 55 cts Y • • • O 0 ca . 0 N r U) . • • uj .2 t V~° ~ G c ' _ 0y o. QQ >o v _ 0 Cd 5: CO) w ~ O 'Cod L o CL - a :3 q. cd z -0 w m w z F= -0 In - o. cd C. y rz IL O w 0 . ~ (j) _o ~ o .b ~ Z X v N ' s W O 'c F.- 'd w Z d as Cd W :5 0 U) f:_ r. Zo O 4- . IL u 0 :3 o i. i as G:U)CL'(D - Z~'~ Qo~ O~ W.~ 0~_ t' QOM rA 0 LLB Q V N CO O W F- ° t/1 / W .2 LU o Q. a> CO W U • • ~ O i Q N 4 Z Cd bf [2 :o . t w(1 co 0 q O o-S Y a a~a~ 0000cdX 003 tom 0o O O 00 N O 00 M O 00 Z 'T O 00 ~ ?caw ~ W 'T~ a ~ W a v fs1 a v W a rn en 0 0 0 N C L 3 3 O co C O Z3 u Q 0 M O N .O C co F- W z 0 ~c w r Q ~D V Y Q c. to :ate cn U. . N G L O u yN .p p N R C-. ~ Q O~ v tpp 7 Q O~ .v O 3 N . . > v°i > b S 0] > dD y > O O ~ U •CJ C W N i .0 G' W N y ~ . Cc c E fl. p 4-4 O O O o C~.- • 0 ~ ~ V y V] W "a-C • ~ C) y 9 C3 C* r- ~ VJ y o o ° 'b • o p.Q- 0aoirA,;d tQ ° (D o $ ° O W N ~ • Y .o ~ 3 ~ V1 a a i . cn'0 N W C uo • o ~ 0 cc 0 D to 04 U2 o 0 0 ED cis CL Lj C v O v" J N` V y• R Z o _W (UU oo ~ r- o U) kt -0 N0 . Z • r,d33 uN ui 0 CL - cc • an Crd v; o Cd a a~i Z V • • • W~ 0~ XO 0 W R CL H~ ni t-- _ • o O 0 C9 Z 3 0 ~ 0 W Z o p 'd o W-v v • -41 Q 0 W - y a, moo 05: Ir ono i s C.. • V~ O tz. t9 ~ v V i a O O O O~ O o, m • 0 0 0 M O N b a 3 3 O ro C O 4-1 Q O M O N C Q~ m z w 5" z O~/ LL w r Z) a c_ a> Q U L)0 W a) a~ ca UQ m -c . ca a) ' o p W G.to U C Ow°z c+ m C_ CU _ C. C '43) E _ N CL Q u Q , 'Rf ca .N . -o > N E Ca U PQ 0 .VJ CL ~ 0 to • , m O m a i C V • • O m .b bD m ¢ N • A Co N Q . • W y W a~ o ca 4, w 45 10 UO C L. O as \ O ~ O _ Z. Q U V CU ~ . ig was z ~ ~H Qz Co v> Ch ~~3W N E Cu 0 1/-~ cv o ao ~0 W o r LL N 'a Q v ~ • • V) N ~ tL W • C:j) 11) Ce Z ca . o b0 to z En .0 o 2 Z ct~ Q 4 a~ Ts r~. 0 2U) \ O N X M • G) y ~ a4' ~1 w • a v a 0 Q C .C g .n .e x Cd E 0 w Q Q~ Co W W 0 a a E 0 U X w a 0 a. w ca w° O O O N •O 3 3 C ra a O U 0 t'7 O N C N co F- LU G z O W f~ V Q CU CCS (L- O O CU to :3: . ~ w o 0-0 C oo-- 8. 1 MCA „ 'm°E O U -.(A qE o L _ -40. 0 a O :U O : O' C N N O p C; m O O ~ U cn U? N cn CC a ~ O ` • 1 • ~ Z ai - a~ O cu E _ 1 1 ' 1 CL E N 1 O ~ U • 1 Q • • • • Z p, Va 1' ' Q Ti N Y O 1 , • • d a> ui - m Q. O • • • ' • N • W N L 1 1 w' OU U l6 • 1 . • V/ v O L • (1) cn O • • Z !C U m ; : • 1 ' • Q p a • . • • 1 a~ -00) E , • 1 • , a~ n 0 . -p O Co a Lu CC Y. W 0 , • ' U ..z cc 0 I . • _ .0 1 1 • . • 'Q c d Q;Q U • • m Q C11 N ) .4? U W N ItT t. O 0 0 N V 3 3 c cu a C O z u Q O M O N W F- z cw G z O z W H Q V C C O X Cn Y O d _ W E CO) ~ A ~0~ vq(~~ ~ =ticoUa ~V0.~ N ~U p 0 d •cOC K v t j_ ° d a U OF pp t° OD m A p~ g = y E oo 41 m 0Voff, YO m o V Q v U o in . o d ~a •~oyU~~.Y°_. tY aC UU~v~¢aAa~G]wOE~- ~A O U „a ~ a~ o U A U ~ V N c ~ U ~.l a ~l o 'o .4: o Z a~03 O o > o Q a~ ca o W J ~ Z~ M U oo Z ~ W ~ ° ~ p on'b r Z Q 0 3 ~ ~ CL • o~, v3 Z H J o a, W 'Cd cc$ M ~ a a 0 i M d a O U 0 oq c c 0 x cil 6 W 0 0 R cl w ° LT. 0 0 M O N G N .D 3 3 c C O 4-1 U Q C) M N c a~ m LU z O QC LU Q [D V Q `0 ) U N N ~ . E U N m N . 0 M .r W - F Oc A` C ca 'V U La b O O Ub O To U N cc- ` C cQ • N O O y C 7 C: y U ~(D (n L ~ m N m ~ y y cu cc ) O L7+F F w y.o F a' A c:.Q cc U U A e . o 0 -0 Cfji v. c s c ~ V V . ~ ° V U N E y VJ VJ 0 a) CU--r-- U O N U > co.- E A A A D C N N ` 0) 0 CD rn A Co (n o • • 1 U dQ clyla C: v'a)ooo ~ aCO C* w _ p2.CC= O~ ~.C ~o Q E 5, fn:'~. ' f ► V O z r N y v N: CO)' W O ca v -0 V , J f3. Y o 4) Cc to ' • Q cis J 0 v .z ay ~ Wo"~ • Wa? o co Q co: Z- in ca O co Q • , U co o_ U - W • m V v N`p • w W W ~v o m ,vi.., co «s 'U) • o G al J o 0 w V ° o o o U) a~ ~~ai E- c z Vb3 : (D ~ U tom co O v v V w a>4i . ~ M ct cn en c a a a ~ w c 9 a 0 a~ 4r O ono ..0 y c6 T a~ X E 0 w ai u. 7 0 Y b F c. 0 X E W 0 0 0 0 0 N 'b N .fl C c~ d C O a-J U Q . O M O N C N ~ U b0 W d p o v 0 0 f o = 0 U U) U 4 U U A N Z 3 Ob zCIO W > w Li a~ W y gh o z cw G W o ° ~c 02 ono .12 a do w Z ,0. o cd cd Y Q W Q ~ a a 0 M O N .0 c u .fl 3 3 C M a c 0 4-1 U Q O M O N C m z w 37 z O QC z w Q o~ s Q 0 0 M O N C• 42 .01 3 3 3 C O a-j u Q O M O N C m F- uj 37 z O w J Q :D I V Q • 4. Vl tU+ 2 ~ o N ~ o~n o U ~ o w W U O E -O E c p boo ° " g ~ A co obi > W UWM W > MUWo U N 4 O Cn W O N cn I... U o v o .,r- as 0 Cfj U 0 -Z~ w O O O y N ~ C: N ~ c O b Q a) O O . O O Cn ' cd 0 O Z cd al 0 N a2 W W J CIS C o o OO Cd p ' S D a W a a p 3 C's o d J b~ ~ o Cc) Z z m m~4 m ~ W . W ai - W J b o J~ 0 J m a m ~ m aCd m a -0 z N zv, z - ;R :3 0 lw. R ca I-- Ica ~b N o D N o cd D 3 V1 _ to to d ~ W Q rl ~ --a ~ .--1 a ~ a a 00 0 0 M O N .b G .O 3 c M d C O 4-1 v Q O M O N ..0 C O m z ui z 0 0C H z w J Q ,D V Q rn x w 0 c 0 w° a 0 0 M O N C .O 3 3 3 C M C O 4-J U Q O M O N 'a C W m m . a~ a F~ c ~ W {..L O a J W W CL N L ~ . c.Q . ca C c0 N V co E u 0 CO _ ~•cx U V L u N h Aa~avi~''QO ~ RT UO.P4 U ~ . N y ~ ~ `cnUw Ca ~Ux A°'V ~ Ll-_ wAvi • HOxw~U y C' UwUwAOQA u0 S R CL r O ~ V N C ao W, v w = 'a U v~ Q Aw (D U c= . . (6 Ca (D h C: • i v c w N r , • o E N N • • E .0 N ..C. U ` ' • . a~ ca t6 =1 70. ` C o O + • ' U G CD C a, ~ W _ui . cu O cu ` U ~ c c W ~ ta_ t? a) • V) Q. U.. • • • U N V 2- , ~ z -z.... n . O ca CL,. ~ 0 M 0 0 U) 4R sW W ~ ~ a V E W ;p -p i • z W o W o ca F_ • e VC 2 U to ca W t~ N4~ r-: 0 W) X r~ C 4. 0 a 0 k 0 w a 0 0 0 N .d 3 3 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT Water Resources LandWatch recommends the following changes: Goal 1. Develop regional, comprehensive water management policies that balance the diverse needs of water users. Policy 2.5.1 Participate in Statewide and regional water planning including: New Item c. Review the benefits and costs of establishing metering for rural and exempt wells in order to improve our regional water management plan. How we manage water in Deschutes County is of greater importance than ever before. Not only is surface water over-allocated, but we appear to be entering a period of extreme weather variations. We recommend that the County plan for extreme water years by establishing water priorities. While Goal 1 recommends that the County participate in a comprehensive water management policy, there is no suggestion of how this is to be accomplished. We know a great deal about the flows and use of water except for the flows and uses associated with rural and exempt wells. The individual wells in Deschutes County pump an unknown amount of water. Because we do not require that wells be metered, we have much less information on which to base such a policy. We recommend that the County consider the benefits and costs of installing meters on wells in order to develop a policy of priority water uses. Goal 2. Increase water conservation efforts. New Policy 2.5.7 Consider how to balance the water conservation efforts of communities and those of the rural areas includin seeking eeking a better understanding of "beneficial use" under Oregon law. Additionally, while Goal 2 recommends increasing water conservation efforts, it does not seem to apply to non-farm properties. At present, the state considers pasture for a few animals and even lawns a "beneficial use" for irrigation. Meanwhile all others in the community are exhorted or required to conserve water. We recommend that a priority system of water conservation be investigated to cover all properties including non-farm rural properties. Goal 3. Maintain and enhance a healthy ecosystem in the Deschutes River Basin. Policy 2.5.7 Work with expert government agencies and stakeholders to restore, maintain and/or enhance healthy river and riparian ecosystems and wetlands, including the following: a. Assist meeting Oregon Department Fish and Wildlife goals for water levels in the Deschutes River system; March 19, 2011 Page 6 I~Ei . Central Oregon LanclWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT b. Encourage irrigation districts to address fluctuating water levels in the Deschutes River system; The existing Comprehensive Plan contains (and the new Plan eliminates) goals to meet ODFW's standards for water flows for fish (which are an important component of Central Oregon's economy). Although ODFW has considerable expertise in this area, the agency is apparently only one of many "stakeholders" in the new Plan. There is no mention of coordinating with ODFW in this effort. There is no mention of coordinating with the irrigation districts for the same purpose. We recommend that these deletions from the Old to the new Plan should be reversed. Goal 5. Protect and improve water quality in the Deschutes River Basin. New Policy 2.5.18 Evaluate the benefits and costs of a grading permit process to reduce erosion from graded but unbuilt properties. New Policy 2.5.19 Evaluate the benefits, costs and methods of improving riverbank protection. On the water quality side. there is mention of runoff from agriculture which is appropriate but misses the very large amount of runoff from graded but unbuilt property. Graded but unbuilt properties also create dust and invite weeds. Deschutes County does not have a grading permit process so we recommend considering the benefits and costs of such an ordinance. Further, riverbanks are poorly protected. Conservation easements. while progressive when they were instituted, are just 10 feet of the riverbank and affect relatively few properties. One house with an easement cannot be expected to offset the harm of others without an easement. In addition, a 10 foot easement is insufficient, considering the siltation, chemical runoff and the need for shade along the river's edge for fish. Ten feet is scarcely the width of the canopy of a small-sized Ponderosa. The County does not monitor the easements and still lacks a readily accessible GIS database of those that do exist. As a result, it is very difficult for any neighbor to file a complaint about a violation. Impeding the complaint system eliminates much of the benefit of the easement. The Greenprint summary concluded that most priorities occurred at the edges of the County's rivers. We recommend that the policies include consideration of ways to provide greater protection of our riverbanks. March 19, 2011 Page 7 Central Oregon Land Watch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT Open Spaces and Scenic Views and Sites LandWatch recommends the following changes: Policy 2.7.5 Review County Code and revise as needed to protect open space and scenic views and sites, including: a. m in thevisual -ehafaetef of the a-ea; Discourage the location of structures in forests or view corridors that affect the visual character of the area; b. Work with private property owners to provide ineentives ~a mitigations for protecting visually important areas from development impacts; c. Maintain and revise, if needed, the Landscape Management Combining Zone code to effectively protect scenic views while reducing, if possible, impacts on property owners; d. Review County Code, including sign and cell tower code, to effectively protect scenic views while reducing, if possible, impacts on property and business owners We are concerned about what the incentives might be in Goal I Policy 1.7.5 (a) and (b) that are proposed to protect visual character. It may be that such incentives would be costly to the County and the public. Are these anticipated to be meaningful policies that will have an impact? These kinds of policies would be better understood if Action Items were in place. We're grateful for the recognition of the need for the visual separation of Bend and Redmond and support the continuation of the Landscape Management zone. However, we worry about the changes to the LM zone implied by Goal I Policy 2.7.5.(c). What kind of complaints have been received and would resolving them continue to protect scenic views? We don't believe that "minimizing" impacts implies a fair balance between the public and the applicant and that "reducing" would be more fair. March 19, 2011 Page 10 Central Oregon Land Watch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT Environmental. Quality Background Discussion: The draft Plan leaves out certain items that are in the existing Comprehensive Plan including protecting trees for air quality, zoning to protect resources and working with federal and state agencies. LandWatch recommends the following changes: Goal 1. Maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land. Policy 2.9.3 Where research identifies environmentally sensitive areas, work with agencies and stakeholders to protect those areas or minimize adverse development impacts. (From Existing Comprehensive Plan) Zoning shall remain as a method to protect areas of special interest. New Policy 2.9.5. (From Existing Comprehensive Plan) Because of their slow growth and usefulness as a visual and noise buffer and their relationship to air quality, tree removal from utility lines, sewers, roads and other construction shall be minimized by planning for the continued maintenance of the streets in the development. All development proposals will be reviewed for this factor by the County Planning staff before approval of the applicant's development New Policy 2.9.6 Coordinate with State and Federal Agencies to understand impacts on resource quality. New Policy 2.9.7 Develop an understanding of the impacts of land use and disturbed land on air quality. Policy 2.9.3 in the proposed Plan ignores zoning as a method to protect resources thereby removing one of the County's options. This leaves only "support", and "working with stakeholders". Such a change from the Existing Comprehensive Plan clearly tilts the pendulum toward individual property owners and away from the public. The zoning for protections exists in County Code and we recommend that it continue to be one of the options outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. The County does not have a tree ordinance to help protect trees for either scenic or air quality purposes. The existing Comprehensive Plan was the only protection while under the draft plan there is no protection at all. We recommend reinstatement of some level of tree protection such as 2.9.5 above. As in the Wildlife section, eliminating references to State and Federal agencies and reducing them to stakeholders ignores both existing and future agency regulation and the expertise that these agencies can bring to local issues. We recommend an additional Policy 2.9.6. March 19. 2011 Page 12 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT While this section include air quality, there are no Goals or policies that address this issue. Land use policies can increase traffic and cause pollutants. The lack of a grading ordinance allows unnecessary amount of dust in the air. We recommend a policy such as 2.9.7 to deal with this issue. March 19, 2011 Page 13 534 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 • (503) 497-1000 • fax (503) 223-0073 • www.friends.org 1000 Southern Oregon Office • PO Box 2442 • Grants Pass, OR 97528 • (541) 474-1 155 • fax (541) 474-9389 friends Willamette Valley Office • 220 East 1 l th Avenue, Suite 5 • Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 520-3763 • fax (503) 575-2416 of Oregon Central Oregon Office • 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • (541) 719-8221 • fax (866) 394-3089 March 29, 2011 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 HAND DELIVERY Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendments Dear Board, Thank you for the consideration of public comments on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Please place these comments in the record, and place 1000 Friends on any mailing list related to this matter. 1000 Friends of Oregon is a nonprofit, charitable organization dedicated to working with Oregonians to enhance our quality of life by building livable urban and rural communities, protecting family farms and forests, and conserving natural and scenic areas. Public Participation We commend the Board for directing staff to engage in a robust public outreach effort to determine what issues were most compelling for citizens of Deschutes County. It was clear after listening to many Planning Commission meetings and Board work sessions that the staff was an advocate for the many different perspectives they heard from the public. Overall what I heard is that the citizens of Deschutes County live here because of the astonishing natural beauty and rural lifestyle. I am glad to see that the Comprehensive Plan places those values right up front. Farmland As you are well aware, one of our primary concerns is in the treatment of farmlands. Tom McCall's vision for Oregon was one where urban uses stayed inside cites, and rural areas were left for farming and forestry. I thank you for making the number one goal under resource lands the retention of agricultural lands for agricultural uses. Although we acknowledge the difficulty of farming in central Oregon, we also caution the County against making it too easy to put EFU land to other uses. Despite the difficulty Agriculture in Deschutes County brought in almost $20 million last year.' Although most farms are not revenue 1 Oregon Agripedia, Oregon Department of Agriculture. Celebrating Thirty-five Years of Innovation generating, there are a handful of enthusiastic young organic farmers that are showing that agriculture can be successful in Deschutes County, especially when soil is amended, greenhouses are built, and long term care is given. It may be that farming is simply undergoing a transition from commodity- based to production for local markets where a larger percentage of the profit goes directly to the farmer. It may also be that "hobby farmers" are not terribly concerned about generating substantially more than they put in because of either the "lifestyle" benefits they receive or simply the favorable tax benefits. Hobby farmers with this kind of financial flexibility can be an asset in that they have the luxury of experimenting with crops and marketing ideas that are not yet tried and tested. In either case, we applaud the obvious support you have included for these young, creative farmers. It will be a long term challenge to determine which supplemental activities which "supplemental farm activities" are "compatible with farming." We look forward to a productive dialogue on this topic in the future as you work out code amendments to conform to your new policy goals. Goal 5 Keeping Goal 5 resource maps up to date is a significant challenge. We understand the financial limitations of the County on this matter. Nonetheless we believe that there is an opportunity here for stronger leadership on these matters, even if the policies can't be implemented immediately. For example, surface mines are a Goal 5 resource. We need a stronger policy of requiring preservation and stockpiling of top soil, and clean up and mitigation after the surface mine is no longer in use. This is already state policy, so this should not be seen as a significant hardship to surface mining interests. Such a policy would simply provide more opportunity for local enforcement if the state finds that it has other higher priorities when we have a problem to be solved. Additionally, the County should have a policy of updating its Goal 5 inventories whenever a significant new natural resource is discovered - not just every 10 years. The almost-listing of the sage grouse on the federal Endangered Species List is a case in point. When a significant event like this happens it should be county policy to respond to it in a timely manner. We commend the County for its policy of creating a public process to revise Goal 5 inventories in light of the Interagency report. Hopefully this will be a robust process that reaches out to numerous stakeholders. We also commend the County for its policy of aggressively supporting creative ways to promote healthy wildlife habitats on private lands. Conclusion Some people believe that economic and environmental health are in conflict with each other, and need to be balanced. This is a false dichotomy in the long run - especially given the importance that residents placed on the natural beauty of our county, and the quality rural lifestyle. Here, in Deschutes County, economic prosperity and environmental health are interdependent on each other. People come here for the beautiful natural surroundings, and healthy environment. It will be in our long term best interests to continue to keep those interests first and foremost in our goals and policies. 1000 Central Oregon Office • 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 friends (541) 719-8221 • fax (866) 394-3089 of Oregnrt Page 2 t ~ Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. We look forward to working with you to guide our county forward to future of natural beauty, environmental health and economic prosperity. Best Pam Staff Oregon Advocate 1000 Friends of Oregon 1000 Central Oregon Office • 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 friends (541) 719-8221 • fax (866) 394-3089 Ash~+ of Oregrn Page 3 A,A Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner MEMO DATE: March 21, 2011 MEETING DATES: March 29, March 31 and April 5, 2011 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Update BACKGROUND Deschutes County is revising its Comprehensive Plan, the document that guides land use in the unincorporated areas of the County over a 20-year timeframe. The draft Plan reflects 2'h years of public input and Planning Commission (Commission) review. It includes goals and policies based on local values and existing conditions and trends. Upon adoption, the draft Plan will continue implementing the Statewide Planning Goals. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1979 and acknowledged by the State in 1981, as complying with Statewide Planning Goals. Between 1988 and 2003 the Plan underwent Periodic Review, a State-mandated process that included revisions to sections of the Plan to keep it current with changing statutes, administrative rules and local conditions. Over time, numerous staff-initiated and applicant-initiated amendments were incorporated into the Plan. Together the revisions led to a disjointed Plan that no longer provided the most effective land use policy document. Consequently, in 2008 the Board of County Commissioners (Board) initiated a major update of the Plan. Unlike the last formal revision, this draft Plan update was not done under the Periodic Review because the Oregon Legislature removed those obligations for counties in 2003. The update started with informal community listening sessions in locations around the County. The Commission spent a year reviewing State planning program requirements and the existing Comprehensive Plan. During that review the Commission also identified issues needing further attention. A draft Plan was prepared by staff in September 2009. After taking comments from the public, the Commission spent another year reviewing and amending the draft Plan over a series of informal work sessions. A formal, legislative version of the Plan was released one year later. Throughout this process widespread outreach to stakeholders and the community continued, including presentations, flyers with public meeting dates mailed with tax bills, a booth at the spring and fall Home and Garden Shows, open houses and more. The formal process to adopt the draft Plan began when the required 45-day notice was presented to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on October 4, 2010. The Commission held public hearings on the draft Plan on November 18, December 2 and Quality Services Performed zvith Pride --r- Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update December 9, 2010. The hearing was continued until December 16 and then closed. The Commission deliberated on January 6 and 13 and voted to recommend the Board adopt the draft Plan. A revised draft dated January 13, 2011 contains the final Commission recommendations. In February and March the Board held four work sessions to review the draft Plan. During the work sessions and through staff review, potential minor amendments were identified (Attachment 1). KEYISSUES Associated Projects There are a few Comprehensive Plan sections that were, or will be, adopted separately and incorporated into this Plan. These projects, while important pieces of the Comprehensive Plan, are not part of this update. • The Transportation System Plan is a separate project, with hearings anticipated later this year. • Destination resort remapping (amended approval criteria already adopted and incorporated into the draft Plan) will be considered by the Board later this spring. In 2008, the Board raised concerns over land uses in Terrebonne, Tumalo and Deschutes Junction. Initially these areas were being reviewed as part of this Plan update, but to give adequate attention to those communities, they were spun off as separate projects. For Terrebonne and Tumalo, public outreach led to community plans that were adopted by the Board in 2010. For Deschutes Junction, there was little consensus on the need for a community plan and specific policies for that area are still under discussion. Themes Three themes emerged from community discussions to guide Plan policies. 1. Balance private property rights with community interests, such as preserving wildlife habitat. Many residents hold strong beliefs, some favoring property rights and others favoring protecting community resources. The Plan is crafted to reflect a balanced approach to land use. The vision statement and numerous plan policies embrace this sentiment. 2. Address area-specific issues through area-specific community plans or policies. Residents around the County have expressed interest in community plans or policies for their respective areas, similar to the Tumalo and Terrebonne Community Plans. 3. Seek partnerships and cooperation between public, private and non-profit organizations. Many of the issues that were raised in the Plan update can not be adequately addressed solely through land use regulations and therefore, are better addressed through policies that underscore partnerships. For example, residents expressed interest in retaining water levels in creeks and rivers to promote a healthy ecosystem and strong fish populations. While land use regulations can assist in that effort, partnering with other agencies and organizations with expertise in river systems will ensure the best results. Additionally, residents noted that forest and range lands owned by the federal government contribute to their quality of life. Since the federal government owns nearly 77% of the land in the county, it is important that Deschutes County collaborate with the appropriate agencies regarding resource management. 2 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update Goals and Policies The Plan consists of background text and goals and policies. The text highlights current conditions and trends and is the basis for many of the goals and policies. The goals and policies: • Identify what the County hopes to achieve over the life of the Plan; • Provide guidance for land use decisions, including changes to Zoning Code; • Provide a basis for public programs and budgets; • Identify needed actions, such as code changes; • Support local organizations and agencies when they apply for grant funding; • Are not intended to be used in evaluating specific development projects. PUBLIC HEARINGS To make it easier for the public to comment, three public hearings before the Board are scheduled as shown below. At the public hearings, staff will do a brief presentation to assist the public in understanding the process. The Board will then take public input. If there are a significant number of people who wish to testify, the Board Chairperson may choose to set a time limit. March 29 Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall, Bend 6 p.m. March 31 La Pine Senior Center 16450 Victory Way 6 p.m. April 5 Sisters City Hall 520 E Cascade Ave 6 p.m. MORE INFORMATION Due to the size of the January 13, 2011 draft Plan and findings, those documents are not attached to this staff report. There will be three copies of the draft Plan available for public review at the Board public hearings. Additionally, a copy of the draft Plan, as well as the findings, written testimony and other background materials can be found at www.deschutes.org/cdd under Comprehensive Plan Update. A hard copy can be reviewed at the Community Development Department office and with 24 hours notice, can be purchased for $10. Other formats may be available upon request. NEXT STEPS After listening to the public, the Board could continue or close the hearing. Once the hearing is closed, the Board will deliberate and vote on the adoption of Ordinance 2011-003 (Attachments 2 and 3) updating the Comprehensive Plan. Attachments 1. Potential Amendments Table 2. Draft Ordinance 2011-003 3. Exhibit A to draft Ordinance 2011-003 (Exhibits B and C can be found on the website listed above.) 3 DRAFT DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARINGS Deschutes County is pleased to announce the Board of County Commissioners will conduct public hearings on the draft Comprehensive Plan beginning on March 29, 2011. The Planning Commission recommended the new Comprehensive Plan to the Board of Commissioners on January 13, 2011 following 2'/ years of public input. It incorporates local values, State regulations and existing conditions and trends. The draft Plan includes goals and policies that will guide land use in unincorporated Deschutes County over the next 20 years. A copy is available on our website at www.deschutes.org/cdd and click on Comprehensive Plan Update. Deschutes County invites you to participate in the public hearings. You are welcome to share your thoughts and opinions in person by speaking to the Board or by submitting your comments in writing. If you are not able to attend a public hearing, please send your comments to the County Commissioners at board -co.desch utes.or. us. Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing Schedule Bend Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall March 29, 2011 6 p.m. La Pine Senior Center 16450 Victory Way March 31, 2011 6 p.m. Sisters City Hall 520 E Cascade Ave. April 5, 2011 6 p.m. For More Information see Web site: www.deschutes.orq/cdd and click on Comprehensive Plan Update rc ~•Gh9Vh EHEN~,I V.E i PL«~+ t P~•A7~- REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL ding Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTTS COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Repealing and Adding Certain Chapters of Deschutes County Code Title 23, the * O RDINAN C E xO. 2011-003 County Comprehensive Plan. * N WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") requested an extensi%e update of the County Comprehensive Plan ("Plan'), which was written in 1971) and updated in periodic revicw between 1988 and 2003; and WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, public hearings were held before the Planning Commission on November 18, 2010 in Bend, December 2. 2010 in Sisters, December 9, 2010 in La Pine and December 16, 2010 in Bend, to consider the revised draft County Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2011 the Plannin Commission forwarded to the Board a recommendation of approval to adopt changes to the Comprehensive Plan: and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissiomers considered this matter after duly noticed public hearings on March 29, 2011 ' in [lend. Nlarch 31, 2011 in l,a Pine and April 5 in Sisters and concluded that the public will benefit frogi changes to the Comprehensive Plan: anal WHEREAS, the koard linds it M the public intcrest to adopt the updated Comprehensive Plan; now, therefore, , ]_1 IE BOARD Ot COl_1NTl' CO%1h11SSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follo\i s:' Section 1_. REPEAL. The ibllowing Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Title 23, Chapters are hereby repealed; 23.04 Preface 23.08 Introduction 23.12 Definitions 23.16 Existing Conditions and Trends 23.20 Comprehensive Planning Process 23.24 Rural Development 23.40 Unincorporated Communities, *except 23.40.030 Terrebonne and Tumalo Community Plans 23.44 Regional Problem Solving for south Deschutes County 23.48 Urbanization 23.52 Economy 23.56 Housing 23.68 Public Facilities and Services 23.72 Recreation 23.76 Energy PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2011-003 23.80 Natural Hazards 23.84 Destination Resorts 23.88 Agricultural Lands 23.92 Forest Lands 23.96 Open Spaces, Areas of Special Concern, and Environmental Quality 23.100 Surface Mining 23.104 Fish and Wildlife 23.108 Historic and Cultural 23.112 Water Resources 23.116 Deschutes River Corridor 23.120 Goal Exception Statement 23.124 Citizen Involvement 23.128 Plan Flexibility and Updating 23.132 Things Yet to be Done 23.136 Implementation 23.140 Concluding Remarks. A Section 2. ADD. Chapter 23.01.010 is added t6 theDe~chutes County Code as described in Exhibit "A," attached and incorporated by reference herein. Section 3. ADOPTION. The Board hereby adopts the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by reference herein. Section 4. FINDINGS. The Board adopts is its findings Exhibit -c:- attached and incorporated by reference herein. Dated this of , 2011 i ATTES'l Cat )AIL OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTL S COUNTY, OREGON P TALI vIY BANEY, Chair Recording Secretary ALAN UNGER, Commissioner Date of 1st Reading: - &v v of 12011. Date of 2nd Reading Commissioner Tammy Baney Tony DeBone Alan Unger Effective date day of , 2011. S Record of Adoption Vote: Yes No Abstained Excused day of 52011. TONY DEBONE, Vice-Chair PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2011-003 Chapter 23.01. 010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 23.01.010. Intro. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-003 is incorporated by reference herein. (Ord.2011-003 §3, 2011) PAGE 1 OF i - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2011-003 1 February 25, 2011 Deschutes County Commissioners Tammy Baney Alan Unger Tony DeBone 1300 NW Wall Street Suite 200 Bend OR 97701 Re: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update Dear Commissioners, The attached document was provided to the Deschutes County Planning Staff in March 2010, at its request, after a meeting with them attended by residents of Boones Borough and Starwood. Comments had been provided to the Policy Statement prior to this as part of the established Public Comment Period. While the meeting seemed to provide some indication that the provided language would be used to correct problem pointed out to the Staff, it appears that nothing was changed. Clearly, contacts in person, attending public meetings, sending emails, and providing written comments and testimony at Planning Commission meetings has just been an exercise in giving the public "a good listening to" and then proceeding with: 1) What the County Planning Staff thinks, or has been instructed to think, as to the correct outcome for the public process or 2) What the County Planning Commission thinks the Planning Staff or Commissioners want the outcome to be. It is important to note that throughout this year's long public process, as wording gets changed, it is picked up in the next set of documents and/or is used to support another set of documents. Cases in point are the three documents currently being shoved through the system: the Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan, the Deschutes Junction Transportation Plan and Land Use Policies, and the 19"' Street (PA 09-2 January 28 2010) issue. As wording is changed in one document, that wording is then used to support a County wanted or needed outcome in another document: Example: Public wants safer travel in and around Deschutes Junction. Planning Staff and Commissioners push through 19th Street. Example: Public wants Deschutes Junction rural character protected by not changing zoning. Planning Staff and Planning Commission changed that to: Deschutes County will protect neighborhoods in the area. Example: Planning Commission closes Public Comment and discussions on Deschutes Junction Transportation and Land use Policies (TA-10-6) and rewrites this document as it sees Page I 1 fit, without allowing further public comments, and submits the rewrite to the County Commissioners as a Public document that is OK with the public (TA-10-06 Proposed Transportation and Land Use Policies for Deschutes Junction, January 2011). Additional issues: Please note that Deschutes Junction has a long history that relates to its present appearance. The Planning Staff should provide you with all of that information as you work on this issue. The current information provided to the County Commissioners from the Planning Staff and Planning Commission appears to be biased toward a predetermined outcome for Deschutes Junction regardless of the data developed from the public processes. I ask that all public comments developed for 19a' Street (PA-09-2) Deschutes County Transportation System Plan, the Deschutes Junction Proposed Transportation and Land Use Policies, and the Declaratory Ruling, DR-10-3 (the pink building on NW corner of Deschutes Junction) be added to the Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update documentation. These may not be the exact titles for these documents, and I may have missed some. However, please combine all public comments from the previous commented upon aspects of the various Deschutes Junction issues into the Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update. Understand that there is only one person who wants the current zone, EFU, to be changed. It appears that this request is based upon a poor business decision and lack of substantial due diligence before the purchase of property at Deschutes Junction. This effort to "up zone" and to leave the surrounding property owners "holding the bag" only benefits one individual. There are over 300 tax lots in the area of Deschutes Junction. Of the property owners who commented on these issues, a large majority does not want rezoning to occur. The Deschutes Board of County Commissioners should, at the very least, try to protect property values (currently down 60 percent), not create urban blight and law enforcement issues that will drive down property values further. The attached narrative and Policy Statements need to be placed into the appropriate sections of the Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan. This will better represent what actually occurred and the Public involvement in developing these documents. Thank you. ~ 2 o ) ca-e Henry a Carol Keesling Starwood Resident Cc: Starwood Board of Directors Mr. Paul Dewey, Central Oregon LandWatch Mr. Jeff Boyer, Boones Borough Page 12 Mr. Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner, Deschutes County Page 3 ATTACHMENT (As requested for the Deschutes Junction Policy Statement Draft February 2010.) History Deschutes Junction, as the name implies, is a crossroads about five miles north of Bend and eight miles south of Redmond on U. S. Highway 97 (U. S. 97). The rural community of Tumalo is approximately three miles west. Historically, the general area around the junction has included some commercial, light industrial, agricultural, and residential uses. Deschutes County adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1979. It referred to the area as a Rural Service Center but no policies were applied. In 1994 the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) created a new Oregon Administrative Rule, OAR 660-22, to define and regulate rural areas with existing residential development as well as commercial, industrial or public uses. The intent was to support the Oregon land use system that promotes growth in urban areas while protecting rural lands for rural uses. The new "unincorporated communities" rule defined four types of unincorporated communities and required counties to review existing Rural Service Centers and similar areas for compliance with the new rule. When the County reviewed Deschutes Junction in 2002, it was determined that the Junction did not fit into any of the new unincorporated community categories. Consequently, immediate areas of Deschutes Junction were designated as Rural Commercial for a small area on the northwest quadrant of U. S. 97 and as Rural Industrial on the northeast and southeast quadrants. As part of the current Deschutes Junction Plan Update community discussions in 2008 and 2009, some residents whose lands were zoned for farming (EFU) questioned the viability of that use. Discussions ensued about whether or not the area had been appropriately classified in 2002. After researching the issue and discussing it with LCDC, county staff determined Deschutes Junction had been classified correctly, and would not meet the criteria as an unincorporated community, such as Tumalo, or as a Rural Service Center. Deschutes Junction Community Process In 2008 the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners directed staff to engage Deschutes Junction area residents and businesses in a closer look at land use in the area. Changes to the transportation patterns, including a grade-separated interchange at U.S. 97 and Tumalo/Deschutes Market roads, had impacted the area. Based on the recent and expected changes affecting the immediate and surrounding areas, the County initiated a public conversation about creating a Deschutes Junction community plan. The intent was to determine how the County should plan for the future of this important area. Page 4 Communitv Public Meetings In 2009 Deschutes County held three community meetings in Deschutes Junction: February 10, October 29, and December 16. The initial meeting was for staff to listen to local residents, property owners, and business owners in order to understand their land use values and what they would like to see changed or remain the same as well as to answer questions and explain the Comprehensive Plan process. At the second community meeting, attendees voted on options for future land use, transportation improvements, a boundary to define the area of Deschutes Junction, and other land use issues. This vote has been referred to as the "green dot vote". The third community meeting was held to discuss a community plan which included goals and policies based on the input from the previous two community meetings and a "stakeholder group" (see below) input. Stakeholder Meetings Following the 1" community meeting, as part of this effort, a stakeholders committee was informally created June 2009 to assist County staff in conducting public outreach, and to identify and define the key land use policy issues in the area. Four stakeholder meetings were held. Additional Data Collected Tools used to assess community input included County questionnaires and surveys. Numerous letters and email comments were received. Informal conversations were initiated by various interested parties and groups with County staff. Results of the Public Input A considerable diversity of opinions emerged regarding the future of Deschutes Junction. Basically, they can be characterized as 1) a large number of participants wanting to see the Junction remain "as is" and 2) a few others who want to change the current zoning and character of the Junction. A discussion to clarify Deschutes Junction boundaries, i.e., how much physical geographic area it should include, was problematic initially. However, after working on the plan for more than a year, it now appears that the Junction can be defined as portions of Tumalo road and Deschutes Market Road, the U.S. 97 Overpass, U.S.97, Morrell Road, and residential areas including Boones Borough, Starwood, Whispering Pines and other immediate areas. These areas are of considerable concern and are the focus for the Comprehensive Plan Update. Page 15 A draft set of goals and policies was created and distributed based on the public input received for the second public community meeting (October 29, 2009) in order to achieve more clarity and direction for the planning process. The public attendees were invited to vote on these policies and goals, the "green dot vote". Approximately 130 attendees opposed any changes to the existing rural characteristics of the area. Approximately 50 attendees voted for a rural service center and/or zoning changes to allow commercial uses. (These figures need to be checked.) An approximate 3 to 1 ratio against changing the current rural characteristics and zoning at Deschutes Junction was demonstrated. In order to understand the difficult nature of quantifying area residents' desires for the Junction area, it appears that while very well attended this first community meeting raised opposing issues directed at commercial development versus leaving the area as rural as possible. The subsequent public and stakeholder meetings resulted in many more people attending with these separate views. Moving past these opposing views was difficult at best. The community planning meetings and the stakeholder meetings, while informative for the staff, were flawed in that guidance to educate the public in the process was ineffective. In retrospect, it may have been better to have a few more community meetings and not have informal stakeholder meetings. The additional community meetings could have been oriented to specific goals and policies development. This approach would have allowed for a better focus on the Junction issues. Following the community public meetings, the stakeholders meeting held on February 24, 2010, again raised the two opposing issues, i.e., no change or change for the area. To that end, the main topic was whether or not to proceed and, if so, how. Three broad approaches were discussed. Simply end the process and continue with the current language in the comprehensive plan and zoning code. 2. Add language to the comprehensive plan to revisit the planning issues for Deschutes Junction as conditions and state regulations change. 3. Continue to develop a detailed community plan for Deschutes Junction. After considerable discussion, the stakeholders and staff agreed on Option 2. This is represented as Policy 1.3.X. Further, it was decided that additional statements specific to Deschutes Junction needed to be added to the overall draft Comprehensive Plan. The discussion related to potential impacts on the horizon which need to be taken into consideration and planned for in the Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update. These are: ➢ The City of Bend's Juniper Ridge Urban development which lies between Highway 97, Deschutes Market Road and Cooley Road, especially the third phase as it abuts Deschutes Page 16 Junction. This discussion also included current and future proposals, e.g., a regional soccer field immediately south of the Junction on Bend's Juniper Ridge urban development lands. ➢ The Urban development of Department of State Lands Property of approximately 900 acres just south of the City of Redmond. ➢ The potential future construction of the City of Redmond Urban 19th Street to Deschutes Junction. These potential changes to the Deschutes Junction area might argue for developing a more specific plan for the area now. However, that does not seem to be what the local residents want at this time. A strong majority of local residents expressed emphatically that they want the Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Update to state that they have expressed that they do not want to lose the rural character of either the Junction or the adjacent residential areas. Expressed also was serious concern about impacts to local traffic if additional development, especially commercial development, were permitted in the area. This potential development included 19th Street being constructed from the City of Redmond to Deschutes Junction. Again, the local residents want the current rural character of the area maintained as is and, as much as possible, improved. Issues regarding Bend's Juniper Ridge and regional soccer field issues relate to urban city issues that will be handled by the Deschutes County and the City of Bend using the appropriate planning and public input. Whatever is developed will take into account the Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update so that this area will maintain its rural characteristics. The City of Redmond, and other urban traffic planning within the City of Redmond including urban traffic issues at the Yew Street intersection, focused on the solution being the Quarry Road area just south of Redmond. The Department of State Lands also focused on the Quarry Road area as being the solution. The City of Redmond's 19th Street being extended south to Deschutes Junction would not be in keeping with maintaining the current rural character of the Junction, considering the resulting traffic impacts and urban blight. Construction of 19th Street to Deschutes Junction is not supported by the majority of local residents who also have also attended the 19th Street Transportation System Plan (TSP) update meetings. Through public comments provided to both County planning efforts, they find no merit for this new road construction and they require a strong statement in the Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update against new roads. There is considerable overlap between Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update and the TSP update regarding 19th Street. The overlap is the reason local residents want a stronger and clearer statement regarding potential issues on the horizon that may impact the Deschutes Junction area. Page 17 N Interestingly, the one area where most participants agreed was the need for transportation design changes to improve traffic safety in the area. In general, the need for traffic safety improvements was raised at every community and stakeholders committee meeting. Specific discussions related to a frontage road on the west side of U. S. 97, potential upgrades in the area, as well as a better designed (safer) on and off access for U.S. 97. Oregon Department of Transportation indicated that these concepts are already in the mix for when U. S. 97 is funded for such upgrades. To recognize the recent and potential changes in the area, as well as the concerns of the residential communities, four policies have been proposed for the Deschutes Junction area. They can be incorporated into Section 1.3 Land use, of the draft Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1.3.X Maintain the rural character of Deschutes Junction and improve upon it when possible. When affecting Deschutes Junction, proposed activities related to U.S. 97, urban areas of Bend, Redmond and Deschutes County, always shall take into account the rural character of Deschutes Junction and not compromise those qualities. For example, the current Transportation System Plan (TSP) update to include the City ofRedmond's 19'h Street construction, or any new road construction into Deschutes Junction, is not in keeping with the rural character of the Deschutes Junction area. Policy 1.3.X Support safe and efficient travel within Deschutes Junction, including design upgrades to U. S. 97, Tumalo Road, Deschutes Market Road, and adjacent roads. See 1 above. Policy 1.3.X Support a review of the Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan when state regulations change that affect this area. Policy]. 3.X Review policies X-X above as needed or based upon state regulation changes and consider creating a Deschutes Junction Master Plan. Page 18 CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH 623 NW HILL ST. #1 BEND, OR 97701 PHONE: (541) 647-1567 rotecting Central Oregon's natural environment Ind working for sustainable communities. March 25, 2011 To: Deschutes County Commissioners From: Central Oregon Landwatch Re: Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Dear Commissioners Baney, Unger and DeBone: Central Oregon LandWatch asks that Commissioners consider the following comments concerning the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) as presented by the Deschutes County Planning Commission. We have both general and specific concerns about the development of the Deschutes County the Plan, as follows: • In general, we disagree with the effort by the Deschutes County Planning Commission to downgrade the effectiveness of the Plan by deleting all Action Items. Without further action, the Plan has no particular impact on planning in the County. Though we recognize that the County Planning Staff will do what they can to develop Action Items separately from the Plan, the duplication of effort is much less efficient. • In addition, while there are many admirable goals and policies in the Plan, they are often too general to have much meaning. The inclusion of Action Items gives these goals and policies clarity and substance, thus assuring the public that there will be real efforts to achieve them. .ocument Hquow to Use this D lrn4r Central Oregon LandWatch has summarized each section of the Plan on a separate page in order to improve readability, using the following approach: • In most cases, the recommended change is first; the explanation follows. • In some specific cases, background materials are discussed before the explanation of LandWatch's position; these background materials directly follow the Section heading. • Goals and policies are presented in a larger font. • Deletions are struck out. • Additions are underlined. Thank you for your consideration. Paul Dewey Attorney and Executive Director Central Oregon Landwatch Board of Directors Land Use Planning Policies Retain Policy 1.3.xx (staff recommendation) Support implementation of the Bend 2030 Plan and incorporate, as appropriate, elements from the Bend 2030 Plan into this Plan. We agree that this policy is a necessary recognition of the city of Bend's plan for the future and better describes the County's intent to coordinate with city partners. For that reason, we urge the Commission to retain this staff recommendation. Retain Policy 1.3.12d (staff recommendation) Support projects that identify County riverfront properties or County properties with significant Goal 5 resources that could be appropriate for public acquisition. We agree that leaving options open for County land to fulfill a Goal 5 resource needs is appropriate, particularly as the Goal 5 inventory has not yet been revised. Therefore, we urge the Commission to retain this staff recommendation. LandWatch Recommends the Following Policy Addition New Policy 1.3.12e Support projects that identify County properties that assist the development of the rural economy particularly the agricultural economy. We believe that some County lands may be appropriate for support of the rural economy and that the County should be open to those options. In particular, we think that commercial or industrial uses that help to support the agricultural economy may be suitable in some locations. Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT Agricultural Lands Background Discussion: The background cites the "Right to Farm" law. However, it should be recognized that farmers are still highly impacted by nonfarm uses around them. In fact, the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODOA) publishes materials to help farmers cope with neighbors. Farmers must continue fear complaints from neighbors that may lead to lawsuits because the definitions of "Right to Farm" have broad exclusions. The ODOA recommends substantial interaction with owners of non-farm houses, a time-consuming necessity to reduce the amount of conflict. The law itself does not reduce the effort that farmers must commit to avoid the substantial expense of defending a lawsuit. The background also comments that the short growing season makes commercial farming challenging. What is not mentioned is that there is a growing local farming community that has organized as the Food Policy Council (http://www.centraloregonfoodnetwork.com/cofpc.html). The Bulletin published an article on March 9, 2011 entitled, "In a new food culture, a young generation of farmers emerges", which describes the goals of a generation o f younger farmers who are investing their time and resources in smaller, local and less commercial farming operations, with a goal of offsetting the negative impacts of the industrial farm industry. Planning policies that reduce farmers' potential by interrupting the continuity of farm land are ignoring this growing economic sector. LandWatch recommends the following changes: Goal 3. Ensure Exclusive Farm Use policies, classifications and codes are consistent with local and emerging agricultural conditions and markets. Policy 2.2. 10 Identify and retain accurately designated agricultural lands. Policy 2.2.11 Explore new methods of identifying and classifying agricultural lands. a. Apply for grants to review and, if needed, update farmland designations. b. Study County agricultural designations considering elements such as water availability, farm viability and economics, climatic conditions, land use patterns, accepted farm practices, and impacts on public services. n T obby for- ehanges to State Statute regarding agrietth tr_il definitions speeifie te Deseh ten Cou ty that we it allow some reelassi fie tie of ag •ieu turn~ lands. (Delete existing c.) c. Recognize in any redesignation of agricultural lands, the importance of farm land continuity to the success of the farmer. (Replace with this language.) Goal 3 and in particular, 2.2.11.c., appear to anticipate the passage of proposed legislation, (SB 547), which would allow counties to designate secondary lands for agriculture. As this legislation March 25, 2011 Page 3 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT proposes to only protect Class I and II soils in Exclusive Farm Use zones, virtually the entire County would be open to redesignation. We do not believe the public or, in particular, Deschutes County's new farming contingent supports such a wholesale redesignation. (At the time of this writing, SB 547 has not been scheduled for a hearing.) Thus, we recommend the preceding changes. Policy 2.2.8 Encourage small farming enterprises, such as niche markets, organic farming, farm stands or value added products by planning for suitable locations within the agricultural landscape. Policy 2.2.9 Review County Code and revise as needed or seek legislative assistance to permit alternative and supplemental farm activities that are compatible with farming, such as agritourism or commercial renewable energy projects Add Policy 2.2. 10 Review County Code and revise as needed or seek legislative assistance to permit accessory housing or agritourism units within or as additions to existing farm structures potentially by adjusting revenue and acreage requirements. Policies in this Plan do not fundamentally assist the agricultural community. While the Plan relies on generalities such as promotion, support and encouragement, it also anticipates fragmenting the landscape still further. The only practical assistance offered is finding a way to allow agritourism (and even here no specifics are mentioned). Accessory housing for farm workers is another aspect that could be mentioned. Further, there is no mention of how to provide the processing or value- added facilities that support farmers. The changes above are meant to address these needs. Policy 2.2.12 Address land use challenges in the Horse Ridge subzone, specifically: The largo number of plat4e lots not mooting the minin+im aer-ea g-,, b. The need for- non fi-+Fm dwellings and leeation fe"ir-ements for farm dwellings potentially caused by acreage and revenue requirements needing legislative assistance; The Horse Ridge subzone has been protected in larger parcels since the first Comprehensive Plan was written. There are a number of species that use the zone and are dependent upon these protections. Species recovery plans have not yet been included in this Comprehensive Plan. We know of no need for non-farm housing in the area. Sub Policy (a.) should be deleted since this is condition that is common in the County and cannot be corrected. Also Sub Policy (b.) can potentially be addressed through adjustments to the acreage and revenue requirements possibly with legislative assistance. March 25, 2011 Page 4 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT Goal 5 Inventory We do not see where the Goal 5 Wildlife Inventory or the Deschutes County Greenprint affects any aspect of planning in the Comprehensive Plan. These reports were completed to assist planning and by only listing them, the Comprehensive Plan is substantially ignoring their content. March 25, 2011 Page 5 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT Water Resources LandWatch recommends the following changes: Goal 1. Develop regional, comprehensive water management policies that balance the diverse needs of water users. Policy 2.5.1 Participate in Statewide and regional water planning including: New Item c. Review the benefits and costs of establishing metering for rural and exempt wells in order to improve our regional water management plan. How we manage water in Deschutes County is of greater importance than ever before. Not only is surface water over-allocated, but we appear to be entering a period of extreme weather variations. We recommend that the County plan for extreme water years by establishing water priorities. While Goal 1 recommends that the County participate in a comprehensive water management policy, there is no suggestion of how this is to be accomplished. We know a great deal about the flows and use of water except for the flows and uses associated with rural and exempt wells. The individual wells in Deschutes County pump an unknown amount of water. Because we do not require that wells be metered, we have much less information on which to base such a policy. We recommend that the County consider the benefits and costs of installing meters on wells in order to develop a policy of priority water uses. Goal 2. Increase water conservation efforts. New Policy 2.5.7 Consider how to balance the water conservation efforts of communities and those of the rural areas including seeking a better understanding of "beneficial use" under Oregon law. Additionally, while Goal 2 recommends increasing water conservation efforts, it does not seem to apply to non-farm properties. At present, the state considers pasture for a few animals and even lawns a "beneficial use" for irrigation. Meanwhile all others in the community are exhorted or required to conserve water. We recommend that a priority system of water conservation be investigated to cover all properties including non-farm rural properties. Goal 3. Maintain and enhance a healthy ecosystem in the Deschutes River Basin. Policy 2.5.7 Work with expert government agencies and stakeholders to restore, maintain and/or enhance healthy river and riparian ecosystems and wetlands, including the following: a. Assist meeting Oregon Department Fish and Wildlife goals for water levels in the Deschutes River system; March 25, 2011 Page 6 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT b. Encourage irrigation districts to address fluctuating water levels in the Deschutes River system; The existing Comprehensive Plan contains (and the new Plan eliminates) goals to meet ODFW's standards for water flows for fish (which are an important component of Central Oregon's economy). Although ODFW has considerable expertise in this area, the agency is apparently only one of many "stakeholders" in the new Plan. There is no mention of coordinating with ODFW in this effort. There is no mention of coordinating with the irrigation districts for the same purpose. We recommend that these deletions from the Old to the new Plan should be reversed. Goal 5. Protect and improve water quality in the Deschutes River Basin. New Policy 2.5.18 Evaluate the benefits and costs of a raiding permit process to reduce erosion from graded but unbuilt properties. New Policy 2.5.19 Evaluate the benefits, costs and methods of improving riverbank protection. On the water quality side, there is mention of runoff from agriculture which is appropriate but misses the very large amount of runoff from graded but unbuilt property. Graded but unbuilt properties also create dust and invite weeds. Deschutes County does not have a grading permit process so we recommend considering the benefits and costs of such an ordinance. Further, riverbanks are poorly protected. Conservation easements, while progressive when they were instituted, are just 10 feet of the riverbank and affect relatively few properties. One house with an easement cannot be expected to offset the harm of others without an easement. In addition, a 10 foot easement is insufficient, considering the siltation, chemical runoff and the need for shade along the river's edge for fish. Ten feet is scarcely the width of the canopy of a small-sized Ponderosa. The County does not monitor the easements and still lacks a readily accessible GIS database of those that do exist. As a result, it is very difficult for any neighbor to file a complaint about a violation. Impeding the complaint system eliminates much of the benefit of the easement. The Greenprint summary concluded that most priorities occurred at the edges of the County's rivers. We recommend that the policies include consideration of ways to provide greater protection of our riverbanks. March 25, 2011 Page 7 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT Wildlife LandWatch recommends the following changes: Goal 1. Maintain and enhance a diversity of wildlife and habitats. Policy 2.6.1 Promote stewardship of wildlife habitats and corridors, particularly those with significant biological, ecological, aesthetic and recreational value as described in the 2009 InteragencyRReport, Oregon Conservation Strategy and the Greenprint report. Policy 2.6.2 Initiate a public process to an update of Goal 5 wildlife inventories based on data from the 2009 Interagency Report, the Oregon Conservation Strategy and the Greenprint report. Policy 2.6.4 Support incentives for restoring and/or preserving significant wildlife habitat by traditional means such as zoning or innovative means, including land swaps, conservation easements, transfer of development rights and purchase by public or non-profit agencies. New Policy 2.6.7 Coordinate with expert agencies such as Oregon Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to achieve this Goal. Goal 3. Support retaining populations of Federal and State protected endangered species. Policy 2.6. 10 Develop local approaches in coordination with Federal and State agencies for protecting State or Federally Threatened, of Endangered or Species of Concern. It is disappointing that reports which have been available for some time were not utilized to develop the new Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.6.1 should at least make it clear that these sources will be put to good use in the near future. We urge the County to make this a priority item. The existing Comprehensive Plan, (Open Space, Areas of Special Concern and Environmental Quality, Policy 12) makes it clear that zoning can be used to protect special areas. Zoning has not been mentioned as a protection method in this Plan, yet it exists in County Code. We recommend that zoning continues to be one of the options outlined in the Comprehensive Plan in Policy 2.6.4. Policies in the Wildlife section do not mention the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife as they did in the Old Plan. The ODFW is not merely another stakeholder but a knowledgeable contributor to Deschutes County's ecology and economy. For instance, Goal 3 Policy 2.6.11 March 25, 2011 Page 8 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT says to "Develop local approaches for protecting Federally Threatened or Endangered species". Such a policy not only leaves out Oregon listed species but also the contribution to these programs provided by state and federal wildlife agencies. We recommend that policies calling for cooperation with wildlife agencies be reinstituted as shown in Goal 3 and Policy 2.6.10. March 25, 2011 Page 9 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT Open Spaces and Scenic Views and Sites LandWatch recommends the following changes: Policy 2.7.5 Review County Code and revise as needed to protect open space and scenic views and sites, including: a. Provide + the vista ehar-aeter oft4e .,m ; Discourage the location of structures in forests or view corridors that affect the visual character of the area; b. Work with private property owners to provide ineentives n„a mitigations for protecting visually important areas from development impacts; c. Maintain and revise, if needed, the Landscape Management Combining Zone code to effectively protect scenic views while reducin , if possible, impacts on property owners; d. Review County Code, including sign and cell tower code, to effectively protect scenic views while reducing, if possible, impacts on property and business owners We are concerned about what the incentives might be in Goal 1 Policy 1.7.5 (a) and (b) that are proposed to protect visual character. It may be that such incentives would be costly to the County and the public. Are these anticipated to be meaningful policies that will have an impact? These kinds of policies would be better understood if Action Items were in place. We're grateful for the recognition of the need for the visual separation of Bend and Redmond and support the continuation of the Landscape Management zone. However, we worry about the changes to the LM zone implied by Goal 1 Policy 2.7.5.(c). What kind of complaints have been received and would resolving them continue to protect scenic views? We don't believe that "minimizing" impacts implies a fair balance between the public and the applicant and that "reducing" would be more fair. March 25, 2011 Page 10 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT Energy LandWatch recommends the following changes: New Goal 1. To manage land uses to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy. (Language from the existing Comprehensive Plan) New Policy 2.8.xx Recognize the cost in energy for transportation and road maintenance; New Policy 2.8.xx Consider a mitigation program for rural developments that offsets their transportation and road maintenance energy costs. The existing Comprehensive Plan recognizes the connection between land planning and energy use. The proposed Plan removes any reference to this connection. Given the clear relationship, we do not understand how a land planning document can neglect this consideration. Therefore, we recommend that land use become a New Goal 1 with associated policies. Instead, Goal 1 and Goal 2 of the proposed Plan relies on "promotion" of energy efficiency and "incentives" for the use of energy conserving construction of individual structures. If these are monetary incentives, can the County afford them? Are these policies anticipated to be meaningful and to have an impact? Again, these kinds of policies would be better understood if Action Items were in place. March 25, 2011 Page 11 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT Environmental Quality Background Discussion: The draft Plan leaves out certain items that are in the existing Comprehensive Plan including protecting trees for air quality, zoning to protect resources and working with federal and state agencies. LandWatch recommends the following changes: Goal 1. Maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land. Policy 2.9.3 Where research identifies environmentally sensitive areas, work with agencies and stakeholders to protect those areas or minimize adverse development impacts. (From Existing Comprehensive Plan) Zoning shall remain as a method to protect areas of special interest. New Policy 2.9.5. (From Existing _Comprehensive Plan) Because of their slow growth and usefulness as a visual and noise buffer and their relationship to air quality, tree removal from utility lines, sewers, roads and other construction shall be minimized by planning for the continued maintenance of the streets in the development. All development proposals will be reviewed for this factor by the County Planning staff before approval of the applicant's development. New Policy 2.9.6 Coordinate with State and Federal Agencies to understand impacts on resource quality. New Policy 2.9.7 Develop an understanding of the impacts of land use and disturbed land on air quality. Policy 2.9.3 in the proposed Plan ignores zoning as a method to protect resources thereby removing one of the County's options. This leaves only "support", and "working with stakeholders". Such a change from the Existing Comprehensive Plan clearly tilts the pendulum toward individual property owners and away from the public. The zoning for protections exists in County Code and we recommend that it continue to be one of the options outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. The County does not have a tree ordinance to help protect trees for either scenic or air quality purposes. The existing Comprehensive Plan was the only protection while under the draft plan there is no protection at all. We recommend reinstatement of some level of tree protection such as 2.9.5 above. As in the Wildlife section, eliminating references to State and Federal agencies and reducing them to stakeholders ignores both existing and future agency regulation and the expertise that these agencies can bring to local issues. We recommend an additional Policy 2.9.6. March 25, 2011 Page 12 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT While this section include air quality, there are no Goals or policies that address this issue. Land use policies can increase traffic and cause pollutants. The lack of a grading ordinance allows unnecessary amount of dust in the air. We recommend a policy such as 2.9.7 to deal with this issue. March 25, 2011 Page 13 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT Rural Housing Goal 1. Maintain the rural character and safety of housing in unincorporated Deschutes County. Policy 3.3.4 Encourage new subdivisions to incorporate alternative development patterns, such as cluster development with permanent open space, that mitigate community and environmental impacts. We support clustering of housing in the rural county but only with the intention of maintaining the 65 percent open space requirement. We are not in favor of clustering, if the intention is to hold the open space for future new development as a destination resort or other type of project. We support the effort to quantify rural potential lots to see if they can be clustered. March 25, 2011 Page 15 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT Rural Economy LandWatch recommends the following changes: Goal 1. Maintain a stable and sustainable rural economy particularly farming, compatible with rural lifestyles and a healthy environment. Policy 3 .4.6 Maintain and improve the ability for farmers to operate successfully in their environment. The proposed Plan does not mention farming in the Rural Economy section. While the Agriculture section is concerned in part with farming, it should be recognized as an economic engine in this section. In addition, Deschutes County has a relatively new agricultural sector based partly on small farms. It is evidenced by new groups, such as the Food Policy Council, and new marketing efforts, such as Central Oregon Locovore and others. While some farmers and many real estate industry participants wish to claim that agricultural cannot be successful in this County, these farmers are making a difference. However, they need some cooperation of the type that is common in other states and countries. Cooperation can include a zoning ordinance that allows accessory units and/or agri-tourism units. Such an ordinance does not necessarily mean new structures on farmland but could mean units added to or included within existing farm structures. Farmers also need a location and investment in a facility that provides slaughter (perhaps mobile), includes sufficient refrigeration, and offers a commercial kitchen for packaging and value-added processing. We recommend that the Rural Economy section of the Comprehensive Plan consider specific policies for re-evaluating ordinances concerning accessory units, and agri-tourism units as well consider locations that could support processing and value added efforts this new and important local industry. These policies are proposed in the Agriculture section but would also be appropriate here. They are as follows. Encourage small farming enterprises, such as niche markets, organic farming, farm stands or value added products by planning for suitable locations in commercial or industrial zones within the agricultural landscape. Review County Code and revise as needed or seek legislative assistance to permit alternative and supplemental farm activities that are compatible with farming, such as agritourism or commercial renewable energy projects. Review County Code and revise as needed or seek legislative assistance to permit accessory housing or agritourism units within or as additions to existing farm structures potentially by adjusting revenue and acreage requirements. March 25, 2011 Page 16 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT Public Facilities and Services LandWatch recommends the following changes: Goal 1. Support the orderly, efficient and cost-effective siting and provision of rural public facilities and services. Policy 3.6.1 Encourage improved methods for serving rural development such as: a. Encourage the formation of special service districts to serve rural needs rather than have the County serve these needs if such districts would better serve those needs based upon service standards or cost and: b. Encourage the development of System Development Charges to offset the construction of infrastructure for rural development. Under Goal 1, Policy 3.6.1 encourages the formation of special districts to perform rural services. At the same time, the Plan has deleted any consideration of System Development Charges for this purpose. Forming new special districts appears to be a sleight-of-hand passing increasing and widely scattered facility needs to non-existent agencies. Does the County anticipate creating road districts in the rural areas? Or sewer districts for oversight of septic systems or water districts for oversight of wells? This policy as compared to a policy of considering an SDC system seems to favor a high-overhead and non-existent solution to a County problem rather than a solution that the County can readily address. We recommend that SDCs also be included in the proposed plan. March 25, 2011 Page 17 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT Rural Recreation We are encouraged to see incorporation of a trail system into the Transportation Plan. March 25, 2011 Page 18 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT Destination Resorts Background Discussion: The background for destination resort subdivisions cites the quantifiable revenues of increased property taxes on rural housing as well as the costs though the latter were not quantified. As mentioned in the background, the County was to fund a more complete study of costs by the University of Oregon but it was not completed and it is not known whether this work will be resumed. Given the continued lack of generally accepted information on this subject, the background material should at least mention that many of these rural first and second homes would have been built and taxed in cities if destination resort subdivisions had not been available. At the very least, the property tax numbers should be netted against additional city property tax revenue. LandWatch recommends the following changes: Goal 1. Provide for development of destination resorts in the County consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8 in a manner that will be compatible with farm and forest uses, existing rural development, and in a manner that will maintain important natural features, such as habitat of threatened or endangered species, streams, rivers and significant wetlands. Policy 3.9.4 Work with resort providers, County residents and economic and environmental experts to determine revisions to the destination resort code that will adequately mitigate concerns over resort impacts. Such impacts may include traffic volumes at intersections and on roadways, water tables, water quality, water quantity, water recharge, intermittent streams, wildlife habitat and agricultural interests. Policy 3.9.6 Address the long-term values of county residents to determine whether an unlimited number of destination resorts should be allowed. a. Consider a poll of residents. b. Consider was to limit the number of destination resorts. Landwatch is concerned that Deschutes County has not recognized the overall cumulative impacts of having so many destination resorts on the County's residents, particularly the rural residents. County residents have objected strenuously and repeatedly to new projects. We had hoped that any one of a number of alternatives to limit the number of resorts might be considered as a policy. Such a policy would seem to be in order to avoid the continuous development of resorts exemplified by such places as Palm Springs and parts of Florida and to retain a viable and working rural atmosphere. Some alternatives might include: March 25, 2011 Page 19 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT • Requiring buffers between projects; • Drawing a line around "concentrations" of projects like Eagle Crest, Sunriver-Caldera Springs-Crosswater. Projects outside these centers would have to prove the need for additional units. • Assume Bend is a population of 100,000 for siting purposes. • Resist adding additional housing to projects without additional open space. Goal 2. Provide a process for the siting of destination resorts on rural lands that have been mapped by Deschutes County as eligible for this purpose. Policy 3.9.6.b. Location and design of improvements and activities in a manner that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of the resort on uses on surrounding lands, particularly effects on inteasiv ~ farming operations in the area and on the rural transportation system. In order to adequately assess the effect on the transportation system including intersections and roadways, notice and the opportunity for comment shall be provided to the relevant road authority. Under Goal 1, Policy 3.9.4, we are pleased to see the direct connection made between adverse impacts and mitigation. We are hoping that traffic volumes at intersections and on roadways, water tables, water quality, water quantity, water recharge, intermittent streams, wildlife habitat and agricultural interests will be considered. Under Goal 2, there are policies concerned with destination resort subdivision siting. In Policy 3.9.6 b, we wonder if siting to avoid impacts to adjoining "intensive " agriculture includes small farms, animal husbandry and other agriculturists. This policy is also concerned with traffic impacts which historically have only applied to intersections. We hope that this policy will lead to an understanding and mitigation for impacts on roadways in the rural area. March 25, 2011 Page 20 Central Oregon LandWatch: Input to Deschutes County's Revised Comprehensive Plan: DRAFT Urbanization LandWatch recommends the following changes: Goal 1. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders to support urban growth boundaries and urban reserve areas that provide an orderly and efficient transition between urban and rural lands. Policy 4.2.3 Review the idea of using rural reserves to provide buffers around urban reserve areas. Policy 4.2.3 (a) Review the idea of using rural reserves to provide buffers around public lands such as Forest Service and BLM lands. We appreciate the inclusion of rural reserves as a consideration though we recognize the difficulties in effecting them. There are places where they could be very useful. For instance, buffers to public lands such as the National Forests would help to protect their character and the visitor experience. Since development impacts continue well within the borders of natural lands such as the National Forests and Grasslands, we recommend that Rural Reserves be considered as buffers to these public places. Such buffers would reduce the cost of managing public lands and save tax dollars. March 25, 2011 Page 21 i ph: 541-389-1058 61396 South Highway 97, Suite 203 i~ fax: 541-389-1545 Bend, OR 97702 Bxddf~ (*.cnxmasaRC.ar. www.coba.org March 29, 2011 Deschutes County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St Bend, OR 97701 Dear Commissioners, On behalf of the 000 plus members of the Central Oregon Builders Association (COBA), we would like to thank you for following the public process. We would like the commissioners to consider adopting a policy of no net loss of developable land„ I would propose the language to read as follows: Policy 1.3.1: Ensure the protection of private property rights and mitigate the economic impacts to property owners and the community when creating and revising land use policies and regulations. a. To ensure that there is no net loss of developable land, when the county imposes new regulations on private property that reduce its development potential or otherwise designates a specific area for public protection, the county shall identify and provide an equivalent amount of land within 10 miles of the affected property with the same development potential that existed prior to the new regulatory action on the affected property. We believe a policy like this is necessary because a majority of Deschutes County is owned by a public entity and is protected by Oregon State Land Use laws such as farm and forest land. A policy like this will ensure that the limited lands that are left in the county will be protected for future needs for growth in the county. If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call at 541-389-1058. Regards Andy High Central Oregon Builders Association SVP of Government Affairs