Loading...
2011-2796-Minutes for Meeting April 05,2011 Recorded 5/13/2011COUNTY NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKS COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 0511312011 09:15:23 AM 111111 11 ~11111111111111111 21122711 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page - 6 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, APRIL 5, 2011 SISTERS CITY HALL, SISTERS, OREGON This hearing was held to continue accepting public testimony on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan update, as proposed by the Planning Commission. 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; media representative Devin Williams of The Bulletin; and about a dozen other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 6: 00 p.m. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update. Terri Payne gave a brief PowerPoint presentation explaining the history and function of the Comprehensive Plan, and the work done to develop the Comprehensive Plan update during recent years. Chair Baney said the Board has not begun deliberations, and there will be at least one more hearing after input has been reviewed. This has been a long, intense process but is vitally important to the future of Deschutes County. Paul Dewey, representing Central Oregon LandWatch, commented on an issue discussed previously, which is the "action items" issue. The question is how to keep consistency over time, and the potential for redundancy. If there is too much time before action items are addressed, it will be like starting over. Therefore, doing those action items should occur quickly. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, April 5, 2011 Page 1 of 9 Pages In particular, he wanted to talk about forestlands. Three changes are being recommended by LandWatch. (He provided a document for reference) One has to do with the Skyline Forest and its maintenance. Another policy would have to do with notification of agencies regarding development that could impact publicly- owned forestlands. Another recommendation is minimizing impacts on forest lands while maintaining long-term forest health. Goal 5 should include wording, "on adoption of this plan". He feels there needs to be a starting date on this activity, which affects Goal 5 inventories. Regarding surface mining, mitigation of impacts needs to be considered. This is particularly necessary when the ESEE was done decades ago, because there have been a lot of changes over the years. DOGAMI at the State level does not necessarily do a great job, and there is a gap in what is addressed. Regarding natural hazards, he feels it looks good, but there is a reference to the natural hazards mitigation plan, which itself is 100 pages. What is lacking in it is detail. The analysis is good, including the threat of wildfire, but there is a lot more out there that can be done. For instance, is there is a west Bend fuel break to address fires going towards Bend so they can be slowed. It is not a question of if, but of when. Bend is a very at-risk community for wildfire. The Ponderosa pine forest is a fire dependent species. The west Bend fuel break is on County-zoned land, but this is not even acknowledged in the Plan. He encouraged more detail on the mitigation plan and what is adopted in this regard, including the fuel break. Zoning should be a part of this process. Commissioner Unger said the Forest Service is going through a restoration plan at this time. He asked if this should be recognized in the Plan as well. Chair Baney said there is a community wildfire protection plan for many areas of the County as well. Mr. Dewey noted that Joe Stutter, Forester, is doing a great job. John Morter said that in this age of political correctness, the word transparency is important. The preamble talks about property rights. He wondered if this means more than just large developers. There is no definition page for this. Talk radio usually has these discussions focus on large developers. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, April 5, 2011 Page 2 of 9 Pages Chapter 3, 3.9.12, destination resorts, talks about resorts located within 24 air miles of a UGB with a population of 100,000 or more. He said you might as well just say Bend. Chair Baney replied that this is a State designation and State wording. On 3.9.15, item e, cluster developments, he asked why not just say the Cyrus' property instead of beating around the bush. Commission Unger stated that they have to look at the whole county and he is not sure that is the only place this would apply. Mr. Morter said that Congress does that all the time. You might as well be up front and say what you mean. Chair Baney said that there is more than one property that meets this designation. Karen Lillebo of Central Oregon Landwatch wanted to talk about wildlife and environmental quality. Comments have been submitted. The action items being left out is an issue. It is hard to evaluate the comprehensive plan without the action items, because the broad goals and policies are not descriptive enough. They are too general. Ms. Lillebo provided a handout of the current language and the language LandWatch would like to have included. There are reports that should be referenced to make it more specific. Tree removal should be minimized and this should be reviewed regularly. The County does not have a tree ordinance to protect trees, the environment and scenic views. Trees should not be cut down for trivial reasons. This would be a new policy. Eliminating references to State and Federal entities and merely calling them stakeholders is not enough. Connie Cyrus said that private property rights is a huge issue, and there are so many restrictions already, this plan should not make more. Many people do not realize how much land in the County is government owned, all but less than 20%. Fish and Wildlife would like to add more restrictions. She said they take good care of their animals. and there should not be more restrictions added to what is already there. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, April 5, 2011 Page 3 of 9 Pages Matt Cyrus presented documents and gave general comments. He liked the agricultural changes, allowing more opportunities for farmers to make a living. However, the wildlife section takes those options away, such as restrictions on farm plans and so on. There are too many inconsistencies. The water section has a lot of traps in it. Language pretends to protect cold water springs, but in the extreme you would stop all withdrawal of water from these waters, theoretically. Water quality and quantity issues are already highly regulated by State agencies. Wildlife preservation is not constitutionally protected but property rights are. If agencies take better care of wildlife on public lands, then they can look at the privately owned land. There is probably healthier wildlife in the populated areas. More general language and incentivizing as well as education is important in this regard. People tend to eliminate the wildlife if there are too many regulations. Education and incentives will help people to do the right thing. In regard to destination resorts, probably of the different Goals, this is the most detailed. You may paint yourself into a corner because it is not flexible. This area of law tends to get changed by the State regularly. There should be flexibility to adapt when this happens. Complying with State statute may be enough. There need to be incentives, property rights and getting away from too much detail. References to reports could be a problem, and could conflict with what is in the Plan. The report was not included as part of the comprehensive plan, so maybe the specific language should be included or referenced separately as an exhibit. If the language is appropriate, put the language in. Chair Baney said when property rights are discussed, there are many ideas of what that is. We do not have a definition of this. In the Deschutes Junction area, there is a property that is rural commercial. The owner decided to open a gentlemen's club in a pink building. It is technically private property, but everyone in the area felt this was an improper use. To some who claim private property rights are king, this did not apply anymore. The difficult question is, what does private property rights mean. Mr. Cyrus said some could try to purchase the property and change its use. As long as it does not create a health hazard, not allowing uses encroaches on rights. This is the basis of this country. You lessen this by not allowing uses. That property has owned the property for many years and has a right to use it. Everyone who is objecting probably came in after he owned it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, April 5, 2011 Page 4 of 9 Pages Chair Baney stated that we get the NIMBY's (not in my backyard), and also the NOTEs (not over there, either). So, but where. Brenda Pace provided a handout. She is with Central Oregon Landwatch, and wished to speak about water resources. Goal 1 says there has to be a regional, comprehensive water management policy. They are suggesting a new item, establishing metering for rural and exempt wells. There is no way to develop a good plan regarding subsurface water flows. The water table is declining in the County, but the Watermaster does not know why. It could be due to piping the irrigation canals or even too many wells. Some consideration of how much water is being drawn out of wells needs to be done. They would like a better definition of `beneficial use' of water. City and community water users are often asked to lessen their water use. In rural areas, in the irrigation district, water can and has to be used to maintain the water right, and it could mean just watering lawns. The Deschutes River Basin needs to be addressed with the help of expert government agencies, including the Department of Fish & Wildlife. Goals are not being met, but that is no reason to take this out, as it is measurable. Graded but unbuilt properties need to be addressed. This causes degradation of the land and the river, as well as causing dust and attracting weeds. Open spaces, scenic views and sites need to be protected. Incentives should not be given, but uses in those areas should be discouraged. The landscape management combining zone is important. Changing policies c and d, minimizing impacts on property owners, is unfair. Impacts should be reduced. Chair Baney asked what Ms. Pace feels is meant by private property rights. Ms. Pace said that property owners need to understand the need for public benefit. Society should be benefited. If I own property, I need to consider how it affects my neighbors. There can be a battle and neither side is always right. There should be moderation. Kristin Kovalic of the Trust for Public Lands referred to section 2.4 of Goal 5, Greenprint results that will be reviewed and incorporated. She feels the data and community values also should be included. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, April 5, 2011 Page 5 of 9 Pages In regard to the future of wildlife habitat, the Trust for Public Lands feels the Greenprint can help identify specific areas in need of protection. It does include more than 45 stakeholders and conservation values were identified. The Greenprint had a lot of involvement in its development. Under 2.7, open spaces, scenic views and sites, there is additional information on this in the Greenprint regarding all kinds of land and water quality. Kathi Miller says there are so many things to consider. Someone changed the rules along the way and many of her generation notice that there is a lot of talk and a lot less done. If you have 40 acres, you might be able to build something for the hired hand. Most 40 acre plots are not exactly that big. The guy who built a hay barn down the road wanted a bathroom included but was required to have a new septic system. The son moved in and the owner was fined a huge amount. There are too many people involved to do anything. She said she has a small farm with rescued horses, cattle and pigs, and turkeys. What is the definition of property rights? She said she is a good neighbor, but there is so much to consider. She had a well and then Brasada Ranch went in, and her well had to be deepened. Water is going to be the next battle. It is difficult to farm over here, and it is a big industry in this State. When you think of sustainability to keep our water and lands safe, you might think about security. Small farmers need to be supported. She was here when LCDC came in and a lot of people put in small lots while they could. Farmers are trying to make a living. Everyone needs to have more common sense. No one should do something to harm someone else or the wildlife. That is property rights. Laurie Craghead clarified that the fine for a Code violation is $720 and it all goes to the Courts, none to Deschutes County. Chair Baney said that when incentives are considered, what does it mean to a small farmer. She would like to know what could be done to benefit the farmers. Ms. Miller said that if someone wants to raise cows and run a dairy, he can, but if he wants to improve the property to be able to process the milk on site, he can't. All of the vegetable growers have special requirements, but if they want to process their own vegetables, that is a commercial use that they can't do. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, April 5, 2011 Page 6 of 9 Pages There are regulations from all types of agencies and each one charges a lot of money if you want to do something different. This does not help the farmers function. Even vegetable stands are being banned. No one knows when there needs to be an event permit if you have visitors on the land. It is hard enough just getting the crops to grow. No one wants to have to find ways around regulations; it is too complicated. Chair Baney stated that it helps to hear from someone who is actually living that lifestyle. Tom Keeton stated that he wants to address property rights specifically. This is a County issue, but not a federal issue. They have to go back to the Declaration of Independence. The comprehensive plan is trying to fit into it, but everyone has a different idea of what that is. This country is about the first place that let this happen. Most places have laws that restrict what the government can do. Democracy or republic. The federal government should have the least say. The bottom line is that property rights are the most sacred thing in the country. The world has gone crazy. You can't legislate good neighbors. Some of the goals in the comprehensive plan are to keep the "community feel". It is not the same as it used to be, especially in the urban areas. People used to work out problems without hiring a lawyer. The least you can do to give a foothold for litigation is the most protection for property rights. The farmers are the original ecologists. They don't want to hurt the environment. Deschutes County could be progressive. Deschutes County restricted the height of barns for scenic reasons. He does not advocate restricting people's enjoyment of scenic areas, but the County should give more latitude to the property owners because these rights are sacred. Brenda Pace said that the farm infrastructure, to have a place with refrigeration and commercial kitchens, is being addressed at the Food Council, and COIC is planning on a grant to do a feasibility study of just such a thing. If the County could include this in a work plan, it would be a good thing. No other testimony was offered. Commissioner Unger suggested continuing the hearing to a business meeting so a date certain can be given, and discussions and testimony could be considered. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, April 5, 2011 Page 7 of 9 Pages Commissioner DeBone said that some items will be clear while others won't. Ms. Craghead said a date needs to be far enough out to allow some time to put together some of the information, and allow for notice purposes. Ms. Payne said that May 4 or May 11 might work for a business meeting. The work session could help provide direction, and a hearing could be held on what is considered at the work session. Ms. Craghead feels that the public needs a couple of weeks to consider the changes that are made. Commissioner DeBone said that two work sessions might be a good idea. April 18 and 27 could work for work sessions. Commissioner Unger stated that he does not want to be in a hurry. He wants to give this process the necessary time to be done right. The hearing was continued until May 11, with the understanding that it is unlikely a final document would be ready at that meeting. The hearings could continue after the fiscal year budget process has been completed. Nick Lelack stated that a work session would help the Board dive into the suggested changes, and another to refine the questions that remain. More details could be considered after June. At this time, the hearing was continued to May 11, 2011 at 10: 00, to allow time for the Board to review proposed changes, plan work session, and to move towards the development of a final document. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, April 5, 2011 Page 8 of 9 Pages DATED this Day of 2011 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: (Smt4,~ Recording Secretary Tammy Baney, Chair Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair Ll,~L a~tu~- Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, April 5, 2011 Page 9 of 9 Pages c I tt ~ Z - ~L- e- _C I r -S LA_ C~____.__.___._~-----------------------_-_ ~J-es BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o < REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: Named Address 15,3q aN L\f < l~ low, a Au E Q Q /~z 4`1 ~ Q ( Phone #s q(- - i l~9 3 E-mail address ,Qdg_jt~j-x e bC, d ce_1b I E - caA, In Favor 2 Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? zYes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o < REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: 4A-11 Name Address e rd Phone #s SW / - (~/o _ ~a 7 ~3 E-mail address ❑ In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1:1 Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. G~v-ces co` o % BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK i Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: Name Address Phone #s 7 7 r E-mail address 1-1 In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record: v~J-ces ~C, u~' Za BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o ~ REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda ZItf Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: S Name LF) Address C)", 0 ~ 3 Phone #s E-mail address PI -S In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 10/yes F-] No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. v~JCES u~ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: 4/2 Name A/6 Address 2,~! 9.25 Zr,, ~ Z VY ke Phone #s E-mail address ❑ In Favor F~ Neutral/Undecided 1-1 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 0 Yes F] No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. U~v-cES 40' BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: Name 'q" Address ~oL-22 3 8 U~ 1 Phone #s Y (A c' ~J E-mail address C,~`~ ~LSZ Cc_ ❑ In Favor F Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes F No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. G~J-res c pf. t Z{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING ' REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: Name V' IA (Z-Vj'"c e t: . Address ` 10 Ca Phone #s E-mail address d/ C'j 0 In Favor F] Neutral/Undecided 1:1 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? e Yes F] No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. o GZ~ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: -4- = 1 Name Address Phone #s E-mail address F1 In Favor Neutral/Undecided F~ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes 7R~No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. v~J-ces co` BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o < REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: y - 55, Name:: Address l O? [7 Phone #s 5111. 1~1 ~ I i I l E-mail address ~~~~K ~~r&-' /<''~i~✓~, C~ ❑ In Favor 0 Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F-] Yes M No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. 7t CCU i14 A 0 0 (410) an c~ O N LO CL Q i NCJ W ~ W Z ~ t Q w z O ~ a ocoz n. cd A-~ v y a~ 0 U m X o~ c~ c ( E ♦ V O C7 _ C Q s2 L O 0) N 4 (D J > -+-a o "0 0 1 ! C: Co C: 0 x C: C- O N E Ct3 ~ O Z3 O O O ~ 0 co 'I C: a C L 0 O L O E E S._ . ~ >I 1 -0 a) O r N U ca. 5.~. T C~ O C: E m c: cn J lC% U) 0 _ C3 i... N d 0 co E 0 0 4 4-j :3 W ~ t t LY] n a o a o 0 ■ ■ rr~ U) a) L Jc C: r r L E o a) 00 E U 0_ o C: 4- U M 0 -tf o N E U ~ , (D CD ~ O O L L O U) _o 4-4 4- o ~ U C, -0 tCS 0 CZ E a).Cr r~ "MMr t: 4-- o~ U ~ Ct3 0 CL E s I- m m 0 o U a~ U) C) Cl~ ~ 4o CT3 4- o U 0 U) 4-a cr E .0. 0 E F w 0 U a) 0 o E " U.. a) < <o I- uj a a o 0 U) A-a 0 a~ ~Q) c~ cu -0 >1 M 'E cn :D . E E m 0 4-1 U c co 0 71 F-I r Am U O c~ M 0 (40~ V14 ca rmw~ pm~ 0 U U) 0) U 0 W t~U tCS U O U If O Q E 0 C: U C: - ~ to a) -0 O - -0 CD C: aD o ~ cu > -0 C: U O _0 O ~ U . . > M o 1 O ~ 5 U U o ■ ■ m 0 -0 cn C: C: m .O m c U a: m 0 O N . m a) E cm "o ~ m E 0 = O to 0 C: U cu C~ 0 0 C 0 ca D ■ U O H 0 x co U) /71 4-a ~y 4-a CL L 4-1 cn E 4-a o 0) S Q 0 o 0 0 k C16. c~ L cu L. O cn co E E O U 4" O O cu O co ■ 0 0 0 U) cn O cr) 4) CY) = O (I 0 a ■ Forest Lands LandWatch Recommends the Following Changes: 1. Policy 2.3.5 in the current draft states: "Support the maintenance of the Skyline Forest through the Community Forest Authority." Please replace this policy language with the original draft recommended by the Staff: "Coordinate with the Deschutes Land Trust, or another land trust, to ensure the Skyline Forest is preserved as a community forest." Explanation: The reason why the Staff language is preferable to the current draft is that the central issue for the Skyline Forest is to preserve it as a community forest which includes both its creation and its maintenance. The current draft policy could be interpreted as assuming that the Skyline Forest has already been created, which is not the case. 2. New Policy 2.3. under Goal I Policies: "Minimize development impacts on forest lands, while maintaining and approving long-term forest health." Explanation: We recommend inserting this policy which was included by the Staff but apparently deleted by the Planning Commission. The policy of minimizing development impacts on forest lands is consistent with the existing DCC 23.92.030(5) which provides: "Except as identified in this plan non-forest uses shall be discouraged in existing forested areas." It is also consistent with your current draft's discussion of "Future of Forest Uses" which states that the County recognizes "that fragmenting forests decreases their value as productive forests" and the "challenge posed by residential fragmentation of forests is the danger posed by wildfire." 3. New Policy 2.3. under Goal I Policies: "Notify affected agencies when approving development that could impact Federal or State forest lands." Explanation: This Staff policy should be reinserted into the draft plan. It is not clear why the Planning Commission decided to delete it. It is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan, DCC 23.92.030(7), which calls for better coordination and cooperation between the US Forest Service and Deschutes County. The current draft of the Planning Commission merely calls for coordination and cooperation with the federal agencies regarding management on "public forest lands." There is no reason why coordination and cooperation shouldn't apply to all forest lands. Goal 5 LandWatch recommends the following changes: Policy 2.4.1: "On adoption of this Plan, initiate a review of all Goal 5 inventories and protection programs." Explanation: The reason for the recommended change is that the original recommended language is more specific in terms of identifying when a review of the Goal 5 inventories will occur. Given that everyone acknowledges that a substantial amount of the inventories are outdated, it is appropriate that a review begin on adoption of this Plan. Surface Mining LandWatch recommends the following changes: Policy 2.10.3: The current draft states: "Review surface mining codes and revise as needed to consider especially mitigation factors, imported material and reclamation." Explanation: We recommend using language from the Staff draft which specified "mitigation impacts on neighboring uses," which we believe is clearer. A revised Policy 2.10.3 would then read: "Review surface mining codes and revise as needed to consider especially mitigating impacts on neighboring uses, and consider issues of imported material and reclamation." W I =L-~ C FF April 5, 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. • Deletions are struck out. • Additions are underlined. • Action items are added at the end Thank you for your consideration. Paul Dewey Attorney and Executive Director Central Oregon Landwatch Board of Directors Wildlife LandWatch recommends the following underlined changes, new policy, and action item: 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 Interagency Report Oregon Conservation Strategy and the Greenprint report. 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. 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. 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. 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, or Endangered or Species of Concern. 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 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. ➢ In the Wildlife Section, there was originally an Action Item that said "in collaboration with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife identify lands where public ownership or conservation easements should be encouraged. " which contains far more direction than the Goals and Policies. April 5, 2011 To: Deschutes County Commissioners From: Central Oregon Landwatch vikOtiM~u -tA L Q~~iTY 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. • Background materials are discussed before the explanation of LandWatch's position; these background materials directly follow the Section heading. • Deletions are struck out. • Additions are underlined. Thank you for your consideration. Paul Dewey Attorney and Executive Director Central Oregon Landwatch Board of Directors 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 underlined changes and new policies: 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. 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. 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. 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. New Policy 2.9.6 Coordinate with State and Federal Agencies to understand impacts on resource quality. 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. New Policy 2.9.7 Develop an understandinq of the impacts of land use and disturbed land on air quality. While this section includes 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. Le)qa-w v, Comments to Draft Comprehensive Plan Section 2.2 Agricultural Lands Policies General: Should include language regarding private property and recognition of M49 compensation when restrictions are increased. Should include mention of county Right to Farm provisions Section 2.5 Water Resources General: • Should have a recognition of doctrine of prior appropriation • Collectively, the Policies will increase litigation and appeals • Should include language regarding private property and recognition of M49 • Far too many specific policies that interfere with State Statutes • This entire section should be conditioned with a statement that all policies shall be accomplished through incentives and education Goal I Deschutes County does not have the expertise or staff to take the lead on developing a regional management plan and this does not recognize the rights of prior water right owners. This goal should be amended to read. "Cooperate with a regional, comprehensive water management plans that balance the diverse needs of water users so long as there is a strong recognition of the doctrine of prior appropriation. " 2.5.1 Should be more general and not limited to specific entities such as Deschuted Water Alliance. 2.5.1.a. should be amended to delete references to the Deschutes Water Alliance and the policy should be amended to read Department and appropriate water alliances and/or groups." 2.5. Lb. should be amended to add "subject to the doctrine of prior appropriation." 2.5.3 Should use incentives rather than trying to regulate efficiency measures. This policy should be amended by replacing the word "regulatory" with "incentive" 2.5.4 Ok so long as it is restricted to public awareness and does not include regulations 2.5.5 Good 2.5.6 Generally good, but should reserve right to decline based on non-environmentally sound practices such as projects that have detrimental impacts on other wildlife values. It also does not qualify this support for a program that may be unreasonably expensive or illegal for that matter. This policy should be amended to read "Support environmentally sound, fiscally responsible, and reasonable conservation efforts..." 2.5.7 a Deschutes water fluctuations are normal. Many of these items are already dealt with by state or federal regulations. Complete restoration of natural flows will create flood events and could damage the county's agricultural sector in violation of Section 2.2 of the comprehensive plan. 2.5.7 b Ok, so long as efforts recognize property rights 2.5.7 c Good, so long as this remains research and does not morph into regulation. 2.5.7 d Taken literally, 2.5.7. and d. could be construed to mean that the Central Oregon landscape and riverways should be returned to their natural state of more than 100 years ago and all withdrawals and impoundments would be discontinued. The result would be the destruction of agriculture in the county and flooding along the rivers. Suggest deletion of this subsection. 2.5.7 e Define protection of cold water springs - impact area, etc. This subsection could easily be interpreted to require a full moratorium on all ground water withdrawal due to the hydraulic connection between the basin groundwater and the springs that discharge into Lake Billy Chinook. Suggest deletion of this subsection. 2.5.7 f Do not add to the scenic waterways listing. If waterways are listed, they must not impact private property rights - M49 impacts. There are significant impacts on private property when rivers are listed. Suggest deletion of this subsection. 2.5.7 g Should impact public lands only. This is a wildlife issue and should not be included in the water section. Suggest deletion of this subsection. 2.5.7 h Who will ultimately pay for this additional layer of county oversight and enforcement? Suggest deletion of this subsection. 2.5.8 Not all studies are unbiased and based on sound science. Suggest amending by replacing the word "new" with "sound and verifiable". 2.5.9 Ok. 2.5. 10 This policy gives unconditional support to a report that is listed by reference only. This report lists a total of nineteen different strategies from establishing a comprehensive monitoring plan to adding spawning gravel. Suggest considering each of those strategies and listing those "priority" strategies as individual subsections under this policy if they are deemed appropriate. In the alternative, this subsection should be deleted. 2.5.11 Ok so long as private property rights are recognized. Suggest adding "through incentives and education." 2.5.12 Ok 2.5.13 Good, but need recognition of private property rights. Suggest amending to read "Support healthy native fish populations through incentives, education, and coordination with stakeholders..." 2.5.14 These policies should be accomplished through incentives and education. Suggest amending to read "Review Habitat Conservation Plans for endangered species to identify appropriate incentives and education to assist those species." 2.5.15 Mitigation of development impacts on rivers and streams could be interpreted to include impacts on fish habitat due to groundwater withdrawal. This is overly broad and could serve to stop almost any development from a home on an exempt well to a resort. Suggest amending to read "Use a combination of incentives and education to mitgate development... " 2.5.16 What is inappropriate runoff? Suggest deleting this language from the subsection. 2.5.17 No! County should not start enforcing pollution standards. These are the jurisdiction of multiple state agencies. The county has neither the staffing or expertise to do this. Suggest deleting this subsection. 2.5.18 Ok 2.5.19 Should be incentive and education only. Deschutes County is very dry and as such has very little impact from runoff. 2.5.20 This is an area of State and Federal regulation. The county should not get involved in this area of regulation. Suggest deleting this subsection. 2.5.21 What does this mean? Any development "may" impact a river, riparian ecosystem or wetland. This is overly broad and notices are already sent to other agencies for comment. Suggest deleting this subsection. 2.5.22 How would this be implemented? Is this a moratorium? The only way to preserve the integrity of a hydrologic system would be to not withdraw from it. This is overly broad and could be used as a moratorium against all water withdrawals or changes in the county. Suggest deleting this subsection. 2.5.23 How would this be implemented? Is every development required to conduct a basin wide hydrologic study? What is a significant development? Does this include a study of fish habitat 50 miles away for an irrigation district piping project? This is overly broad and could be used as a moratorium against development. This is already done by the Oregon Department of Water Resources and there is no need to double the process. Suggest deleting this subsection. 2.5.24 This is done by other agencies. The county does not have the resources or expertise to accomplish this in an unbiased manner. The county does not have the resources or expertise to do this. Suggest deleting this subsection. 2.5.25 No! This is an infringement on private property rights in violation of M49. Water Resources Dept does not have the resources to conduct these reviews. This would be an unfunded mandate on both irrigation districts and the OWRD. Suggest deleting this subsection. 2.5.26 This a city issue rather than county? Are we going to start regulating thunderstorm run off on rural lands? Suggest deleting this subsection. 2.5.27 Ok 2.5.28 Ok 2.5.29 Use specific language rather than reference an unattached report. Section 2.6 Wildlife General Deschutes County is made up of nearly 80% public land and an additional large acreage of large forest tracts. Except for incentive and educational programs, wildlife management programs should be limited to public lands only. There should be a recognition of private property rights and M49 protections against additional regulations on private property. The United States and Oregon Constitutions guarantee individual property rights and do not make them subject to the rights of animals or their habitat without compensation. Most wildlife goals can be reached through incentives and education. 2.6.1 Should be incentive and education based. Suggest editing to read "Create incentive and education programs that promote stewardship of 2.6.2 Should use specific data rather than reference a report. Goal 5 protections should be incentive based. Suggest editing to add "Goal S wildlife protections will be incentive and education based." 2.6.3 Should use specific data rather than reference a report. Referenced wildlife habitat recommendations should apply to public land or be incentive based. Suggest editing to read "Initiate a public process to review and revise County Code to create an incentive and education program that incorporates appropriate wildlife habitat recommendations from the... " 2.6.4 Ok, except that there should be no net loss of private property for tax base reasons. Suggest editing to add provided there is no net loss of property tax base." 2.6.5 Support the "provision"? According to the dictionary, this is an improper word usage. Suggest editing to read "Assist in providing information and education 2.6.6 Oregon Conservation Strategy? Should incorporate specific language rather than reference another document. This is a rather lengthy document and rather than a general reference, specific citations should be used if appropriate. Suggest deletion of this section. 2.6.7 Should use incentives only on private property. Regulations should be restricted to publicly owned lands. Suggest editing to read "Use a combination of incentives and education to promote stewardship 2.6.8 Ok 2.6.9 Ok. Non-profit ownership should not remove property from the tax rolls. Suggest adding "so long as there is no net loss of property tax base. " 2.6. 10 Through incentive programs on private lands and/or regulations on public lands. Suggest adding "through incentive and education programs." Section 2.7 Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites General: Deschutes County is made up of nearly 80% public land and an additional large acreage of large forest tracts. Except for incentive and educational programs, open space and scenic view management programs should be limited to those public lands. There should be a recognition of private property rights and M49 protections against additional regulations on private property. 2.7.1 This should be incentive based on private lands. Suggest adding through incentive and educational programs." 2.7.2 Support "incentive based" efforts. Suggest adding through incentive and educational programs." 2.7.3 Should be incentive based. Suggest editing to read "Support a variety of incentive and educational approaches 2.7.4 Again, incentive based. Suggest adding through incentives and education." 2.7.5 Generally ok. Section 3.9 Destination Resorts General: The Comprehensive Plan should be general in nature and set the overall goals rather than incorporate specifics. Since the Comp Plan language must be reviewed by the state, it should not be too restrictive on the county's ability to make changes. The Policies are far too detailed and don't adequately allow for changes in statutes. This section could be simplified to state that Destination Resorts will be sited in accordance with state statutes without state review. The county needs to decide if it wants resorts or not. If so, these policies should be minimized on order to encourage what is now the counties largest employment and tourist sector. 3.9.1 This Policy may not be appropriate if the state drops the mapping requirement. Suggest editing to read "Deschutes County shall adopt a map showing where destination resorts can be located in the county in accordance with state statutes. Such a map shall... " 3.9.2 There is no "Grandfather Clause" to allow currently mapped properties to remain on map. Should not incorporate specific ordinance into the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan should be controlling rather than the other way around. Suggest deleting and Deschutes County Code 18.113." 3.9.3 Too specific. Suggest editing to read "Updates to map will be in accordance with State statutes. " 3.9.4 This is a good idea, but may be difficult to determine. Who determines what is adequate mitigation to which real or perceived impacts? Suggest editing to read "Work with resort developers and county residents in an attempt to identify real adverse impacts of resorts and how those impacts might be mitigated. " 3.9.5 Good 3.9.6 Ok 3.9.7 Ok so long as they are within reason. `fenced" should be `fences" 3.9.8 Such as? This is too broad and could include unlimited new regulations that could make all new resorts unfeasible. Suggest deleting this subsection. 3.9.9 Ok 3.9. 10 Ok 3.9.11 Who? Nice thought, but impractical in today's electronic age where many rentals are done through the internet. Requiring all rentals to go through one central booking may infringe on commerce rights. Suggest deleting this subsection. 3.9.12 Ok - State statute, however if this is written in stone in the Comp Plan it does not allow the county an easy way to update as statutes change. Suggest editing to read "Siting of resorts will be done in accordance with State Statutes." 3.9.13 Ok -State statute 3.9.14 No. The comp plan should be general and long term. These restrictions are more appropriate for ordinances that can be changed without state approval. There is nc "Grandfathering" provision for lands that were on the map, but no longer meet the criteria. Strongly suggest deleting this subsection. 3.9.15 No. The comp plan should be general and long term. These restrictions are more appropriate for ordinances that can be changed without state approval. There is no "Grandfathering" provision for lands that were on the map, but no longer meet the criteria. Strongly suggest deleting this subsection. 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; April 4, 2011 Page 5 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 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. April 4, 2011 Page 6 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. maintain the visual ehar-aeter- of the area-; 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. April 4, 2011 Page 9 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. April 4, 2011 Page I I 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. April 4, 2011 Page 12 THE TRUST f-PUBLIC LAND CONSERVING LAND FOR PEOPLE April 4, 20 1.1 Deschutes County Planning Office Attn: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 Re: Comment on Deschutes County Draft Comprehensive Plan PC rev 1-13-2001 Dear Ms. Payne, The Trust for Public Land (TPL) would like to acknowledge several references to the Deschutes County Greenprint and The Trust for Public Land in Chapter 2 Resource Management of the Draft Comprehensive Plan (revised 1/13/2011). Below are comments to those references. Section 2.4 Goal 5 Overview Future Goal 5 Inventories - The Deschutes County Greenprint results will be reviewed and incorporated as needed into the Goal 5 inventories. The Trust for Public Land would like to suggest the following language replace the current reference: The Deschutes County Greenprint data and community values will be reviewed and incorporated as needed into the Goal S inventories. Section 2.6 Wildlife Future of Wildlife and Habitat in Deschutes County -Another area for coordination is with The Trust for Public Land (TPL). In 2009 this non-profit group initiated a Greenprint effort that will identify specific areas needing protection, including wildlife habitat. A survey done by this organization identified protecting wildlife habitat as important to County residents. The Trust for Public Land would like to suggest the following language replace the current reference: Another area for coordination is with The Trust far Public Land (TPL). In 2009 this non-profit group initiated a Greenprint effort that included more than 45 stakeholders. Through several public surveys multiple conservation values, including wildlife habitat were identified as being important to County residents. r Section 2.7 Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites Deschutes County Greenprint - One avenue the County can take is to identify specific sites or views that still need to be protected. This work is being undertaken in 2009 by The Trust for Public Land (TPL). This non-profit organization has initiated a public process to create a Greenprint that identifies a number of resources, including open spaces and scenic views (and wildlife and trails). TPL will also identify tools that can be used to protect lands identified, such as conservation easements or funding sources to purchase specified lands. Working with TPL will provide the County with important information that can be incorporated into this Plan. The Trust for Public Land would like to suggest the following language replace the current reference: One avenue the County can take is to identify specific sites or views that still need to be protected. This work was undertaken in 2009 through the Deschutes County Greenprint. The Trust for Public Land (TPL) initiated the public process to create a Greenprint which identified a number of values, including; open spaces, scenic views, wildlife habitat, forest land, farm and ranch land, trails and water quality. TPL will also work with partners to identify sources of funding that can be used to help purchase specific lands. Working with TPL will provide the County with important information that can be incorporated into this Plan. The Trust for Public Land appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Plan and would like to thank the County planning staff and Commission for their hard work drafting the Plan and efforts to engage the community. Sincerely, Kristin Kovalik The Trust for Public Land IaS~~' IOS@~ S t Now there's another move to re-open h o v e eral school, cl sed se rs hig the Sist ' Sister, not lung ago, viias ong of the Years ago state's, poorer school districts fman If it dbes re open, Sisters high school ' students' will ' for the most Bally speaking It had less assessed value per student than most Oregon ; ; ' Paint, be the :losers: They will be irad- . districts. Sisters residents, as a result, • ing off a few minutes of commuting paid higher school taxes.than most time each day to go to a much smaller Oregonians, and even then had...prob- school.,: , lems keeping schools up to standard. The smaller 'school, almost by That situation has changed drasti- definition; will'not be able to'offer as. . cally as subdividers- have discovered ; many courses,=oi as high. quality of.... the pretty' country around Sisters. teaching, as larger schools.. Students . Tots have been sold, lots of them: WhQ want advanced math' will not be Many of them have no residents ` as . able to get is at the new Sisters high yet,,a clear gain for,taxing districts. school, almost certainly. Those who " ' No services need to~ be'provided, :yet want,. to learn welding, too,' almost th e money rolls in:_ certainly, will not be able to get it in _ Many of the new lots do have the proposed new school. homes on them. For the most part they . The new school eventually might , . are occupied by residents who have no be highly satisfying-to, some facets of . children in school: That's tough on the community pride. It will not help the residents. They pay taxes; but m, ost of education of Sisters youngsters, the their money goes for schools. They're= real reason for operation of a school ceive few other. government services. system; J To: Deschutes County Commissioners From: Pamela Mitchell 69339 Hinkle Butte Dr Sisters, Oregon 97759 Please consider the following comments in regards to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. Comments to Draft Comprehensive Plan Section 2.2 Agricultural Lands Policies General: Should include language regarding private property and recognition of M49 compensation when restrictions are increased. Should include mention of county Right to Farm provisions Section 2.5 Water Resources General: • Should have a recognition of doctrine of prior appropriation • Collectively, the Policies will increase litigation and appeals • Should include language regarding private property and recognition of M49 • Far too many specific policies that interfere with State Statutes • This entire section should be conditioned with a statement that all policies shall be accomplished through incentives and education Goal I Deschutes County does not have the expertise or staff to take the lead on developing a regional management plan and this does not recognize the rights of prior water right owners. This goal should be amended to read. "Cooperate with a regional, comprehensive water management plans that balance the diverse needs of water users so long as there is a strong recognition of the doctrine of prior appropriation." 2.5.1 Should be more general and not limited to specific entities such as Deschuted Water Alliance. 2.5.1.a. should be amended to delete references to the Deschutes Water Alliance and the policy should be amended to read Department and appropriate water alliances and/or groups. " 2.5.I.b. should be amended to add "subject to the doctrine of prior appropriation." 2.5.3 Should use incentives rather than trying to regulate efficiency measures. This policy should be amended by replacing the word "regulatory" with "incentive" 14 2.5.4 Ok so long as it is restricted to public awareness and does not include regulations 2.5.5 Good 2.5.6 Generally good, but should reserve right to decline based on non-environmentally sound practices such as projects that have detrimental impacts on other wildlife values. It also does not qualify this support for a program that may be unreasonably expensive or illegal for that matter. This policy should be amended to read "Support environmentally sound, fiscally responsible, and reasonable conservation efforts..." 2.5.7 a Deschutes water fluctuations are normal. Many of these items are already dealt with by state or federal regulations. Complete restoration of natural flows will create flood events and could damage the county's agricultural sector in violation of Section 2.2 of the comprehensive plan. 2.5.7 b Ok, so long as efforts recognize property rights 2.5.7 c Good, so long as this remains research and does not morph into regulation. 2.5.7 d Taken literally, 2.5.7. and d. could be construed to mean that the Central Oregon landscape and riverways should be returned to their natural state of more than 100 years ago and all withdrawals and impoundments would be discontinued. The result would be the destruction of agriculture in the county and flooding along the rivers. Suggest deletion of this subsection. 2.5.7 e Define protection of cold water springs - impact area, etc. This subsection could easily be interpreted to require a full moratorium on all ground water withdrawal due to the hydraulic connection between the basin groundwater and the springs that discharge into Lake Billy Chinook. Suggest deletion of this subsection. 2.5.7 f Do not add to the scenic waterways listing. If waterways are listed, they must not impact private property rights - M49 impacts. There are significant impacts on- private property when rivers are listed. Suggest deletion of this subsection. 2.5.7 g Should impact public lands only. This is a wildlife issue and should not be included in the water section. Suggest deletion of this subsection. 2.5.7 h Who will ultimately pay for this additional layer of county oversight and enforcement? Suggest deletion of this subsection. 2.5.8 Not all studies are unbiased and based on sound science. Suggest amending by replacing the word "new" with "sound and verifiable". 2.5.9 Ok. 2.5. 10 This policy gives unconditional support to a report that is listed by reference only. This report lists a total of nineteen different strategies from establishing a comprehensive monitoring plan to adding spawning gravel. Suggest considering each of those strategies and listing those "priority " strategies as individual subsections under this policy if they are deemed appropriate. In the alternative, this subsection should be deleted. 2.5.11 Ok so long as private property rights are recognized. Suggest adding "through incentives and education." 2.5.12 Ok 2.5.13 Good, but need recognition of private property rights. Suggest amending to read "Support healthy native fish populations through incentives, education, and coordination with stakeholders..." 2.5.14 These policies should be accomplished through incentives and education. Suggest amending to read "Review Habitat Conservation Plans for endangered species to identify appropriate incentives and education to assist those species." 2.5.15 Mitigation of development impacts on rivers and streams could be interpreted to include impacts on fish habitat due to groundwater withdrawal. This is overly broad and could serve to stop almost any development from a home on an exempt well to a resort. Suggest amending to read "Use a combination of incentives and education to mitgate development..." 2.5.16 What is inappropriate runoff? Suggest deleting this language from the subsection. 2.5.17 No! County should not start enforcing pollution standards. These are the jurisdiction of multiple state agencies. The county has neither the staffing or expertise to do this. Suggest deleting this subsection. 2.5.18 Ok 2.5.19 Should be incentive and education only. Deschutes County is very dry and as such has very little impact from runoff. 2.5.20 This is an area of State and Federal regulation. The county should not get involved in this area of regulation. Suggest deleting this subsection. 2.5.21 What does this mean? Any development "may" impact a river, riparian ecosystem or wetland. This is overly broad and notices are already sent to other agencies for comment. Suggest deleting this subsection. 2.5.22 How would this be implemented? Is this a moratorium? The only way to preserve the integrity of a hydrologic system would be to not withdraw from it. This is overly broad and could be used as a moratorium against all water withdrawals or changes in the county. Suggest deleting this subsection. 2.5.23 How would this be implemented? Is every development required to conduct a basin wide hydrologic study? What is a significant development? Does this include a study of fish habitat 50 miles away for an irrigation district piping project? This is overly broad and could be used as a moratorium against development. This is already done by the Oregon Department of Water Resources and there is no need to double the process. Suggest deleting this subsection. 2.5.24 This is done by other agencies. The county does not have the resources or expertise to accomplish this in an unbiased manner. The county does not have the resources or expertise to do this. Suggest deleting this subsection. 2.5.25 No! This is an infringement on private property rights in violation of M49. Water Resources Dept does not have the resources to conduct these reviews. This would be an unfunded mandate on both irrigation districts and the OWRD. Suggest deleting this subsection. 2.5.26 This a city issue rather than county? Are we going to start regulating thunderstorm run off on rural lands? Suggest deleting this subsection. 2.5.27 Ok 2.5.28 Ok 2.5.29 Use specific language rather than reference an unattached report. Section 2.6 Wildlife General Deschutes County is made up of nearly 80% public land and an additional large acreage of large forest tracts. Except for incentive and educational programs, wildlife management programs should be limited to public lands only. There should be a recognition of private property rights and M49 protections against additional regulations on private property. The United States and Oregon Constitutions guarantee individual property rights and do not make them subject to the rights of animals or their habitat without compensation. Most wildlife goals can be reached through incentives and education. 2.6.1 Should be incentive and education based. Suggest editing to read "Create incentive and education programs that promote stewardship of " 2.6.2 Should use specific data rather than reference a report. Goal 5 protections should be incentive based. Suggest editing to add "Goal S wildlife protections will be incentive and education based. " 2.6.3 Should use specific data rather than reference a report. Referenced wildlife habitat recommendations should apply to public land or be incentive based. Suggest editing to read "Initiate a public process to review and revise County Code to create an incentive and education program that incorporates appropriate wildlife habitat recommendations from the..." 2.6.4 Ok, except that there should be no net loss of private property for tax base reasons. Suggest editing to add provided there is no net loss of property tax base." 2.6.5 Support the "provision"? According to the dictionary, this is an improper word usage. Suggest editing to read "Assist in providing information and education 2.6.6 Oregon Conservation Strategy? Should incorporate specific language rather than reference another document. This is a rather lengthy document and rather than a general reference, specific citations should be used if appropriate. Suggest deletion of this section. 2.6.7 Should use incentives only on private property. Regulations should be restricted to publicly owned lands. Suggest editing to read "Use a combination of incentives and education to promote stewardship..." 2.6.8 Ok 2.6.9 Ok. Non-profit ownership should not remove property from the tax rolls. Suggest adding "so long as there is no net loss of property tax base." 2.6. 10 Through incentive programs on private lands and/or regulations on public lands. Suggest adding "through incentive and education programs." Section 2.7 Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites General: Deschutes County is made up of nearly 80% public land and an additional large acreage of large forest tracts. Except for incentive and educational programs, open space and scenic view management programs should be limited to those public lands. There should be a recognition of private property rights and M49 protections against additional regulations on private property. 2.7.1 This should be incentive based on private lands. Suggest adding through incentive and educational programs." 2.7.2 Support "incentive based" efforts. Suggest adding through incentive and educational programs. " 2.7.3 Should be incentive based. Suggest editing to read "Support a variety of incentive and educational approaches 2.7.4 Again, incentive based. Suggest adding through incentives and education." 2.7.5 Generally ok. Section 3.9 Destination Resorts General: The Comprehensive Plan should be general in nature and set the overall goals rather than incorporate specifics. Since the Comp Plan language must be reviewed by the state, it should not be too restrictive on the county's ability to make changes. The Policies are far too detailed and don't adequately allow for changes in statutes. This section could be simplified to state that Destination Resorts will be sited in accordance with state statutes without state review. The county needs to decide if it wants resorts or not. If so, these policies should be minimized on order to encourage what is now the counties largest employment and tourist sector. 3.9.1 This Policy may not be appropriate if the state drops the mapping requirement. Suggest editing to read "Deschutes County shall adopt a map showing where destination resorts can be located in the county in accordance with state statutes. Such a map shall... " 3.9.2 There is no "Grandfather Clause" to allow currently mapped properties to remain on map. Should not incorporate specific ordinance into the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan should be controlling rather than the other way around. Suggest deleting and Deschutes County Code 18.113." 3.9.3 Too specific. Suggest editing to read "Updates to map will be in accordance with State statutes. " 3.9.4 This is a good idea, but may be difficult to determine. Who determines what is adequate mitigation to which real or perceived impacts? Suggest editing to read "Work with resort developers and county residents in an attempt to identify real adverse impacts of resorts and how those impacts might be mitigated." 3.9.5 Good 3.9.6 Ok 3.9.7 Ok so long as they are within reason. `fenced" should be `fences" 3.9.8 Such as? This is too broad and could include unlimited new regulations that could make all new resorts unfeasible. Suggest deleting this subsection. 3.9.9 Ok 3.9. 10 Ok 3.9.11 Who? Nice thought, but impractical in today's electronic age where many rentals are done through the internet. Requiring all rentals to go through one central booking may infringe on commerce rights. Suggest deleting this subsection. 3.9.12 Ok - State statute, however if this is written in stone in the Comp Plan it does not allow the county an easy way to update as statutes change. Suggest editing to read "Siting of resorts will be done in accordance with State Statutes." 3.9.13 Ok - State statute 3.9.14 No. The comp plan should be general and long term. These restrictions are more appropriate for ordinances that can be changed without state approval. There is no "Grandfathering" provision for lands that were on the map, but no longer meet the criteria. Strongly suggest deleting this subsection. 3.9.15 No. The comp plan should be general and long term. These restrictions are more appropriate for ordinances that can be changed without state approval. There is no "Grandfathering" provision for lands that were on the map, but no longer meet the criteria. Strongly suggest deleting this subsection. ~ ~40ur~