2017-429-Minutes for Meeting November 18,1991 Recorded 7/25/2017Recorded in Deschutes County
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk CJ20I 7-429
Commissioners'Journal 07/25/2017 9:52:40 AM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiii2017-029 11111
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Bend, Oregon
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Audio Cassette Recording Titled: WORK SESSION
November 18, 1991; 10:00 AM - 12:30 PM (2 tapes).
A meeting of the Board of County Commissioners was held on November 18,
1991. Commissioners present were Nancy Pope Schlangen, Tom Troop and Dick
Maudlin. Also in attendance were Rick Isham, County Counsel; County
Administrator Mike Maier; other staff and a large group of citizens.
Items discussed at this meeting may be on a future Board business meeting
agenda:
Discussion of the renewal of a contract for services for Special Road District #1. for
snow removal.
Discussion of a public hearing concerned the proposed vacation of certain alleys
in the Laidlaw area.
Discussion of an appointment and accepting a resignation to the Weed Advisory
Board.
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, November 18, 1991 Page 1 of 8
Discussion of the forfeiture of DUI! vehicles. Greg Brown of the Sheriff's Office
explained that they are working on a vehicle forfeiture code in Deschutes County.
He gave a lengthy overview of the proposal, which would be modeled after what
is in place in Multnomah County. A long discussion followed.
Mr. Brown will prepare a written proposal and draft ordinance in the near future,
along with a budget for the program.
Discussion of a proposal to change a road name from Bentu (?) Road to 27th
Street. No public hearing is needed.
Discussion of a hearing on a proposed land exchange with Betty Jo Rosen
regarding 20 acres Byrum Road and 120 acres on Ten Barr Road, and 80 acres
north of Ward and Gosney Roads. The 160 acres is owned by the County, but this
exchanges RR -10 for EFU-20 land. Staff provided assessment information from
the Assessor's Office. None of them have water rights. This had been discussed
at length previously.
Discussion of a no -shooting district for Vista Del Sol subdivision and Eastmont
Estates. These properties are next to County land. This will be discussed further
on November 20 when the petitioners will be present.
Discussion of a resignation and an appointment to the Four Rivers Vector Control
District.
Discussion of signature of a plat for Aspen Glen Townhomes Stage II, which is a
City plat, off Purcell Boulevard near the hospital.
Discussion of signature of Resolution 91-098, setting a public hearing relating to
an exchange of property between Gary and Ella DeBernardi and Bend Park &
Recreation District. The only factor affecting the County is signing off on a
reversionary interest clause for property at Big Sky II. This is adjacent to land for
the school district. They are aware that the gas line runs through this land. This
reversionary interest will be transferred to Knott and 27th Street.
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, November 18, 1991 Page 2 of 8
Discussion for approval of out of state travel for the Health Department, for a
pilot program conference in Chicago. The cost would be $1,300 per person for
two people, but there is grant funding to cover most of the program.
Discussion of signature of an amendment to the Healthy Start program
agreement. The hospital added some provisions and more funding.
Discussion of approval and signature of State contract revision #4, increasing
revenue for Healthy Start.
Discussion of a recommendation from the Regional Strategies Committee,
adopting a high technology strategy. There needs to be a decision because they
are past the deadline already for submitting this to the State. The Board can go
ahead and accept the recommendation without having the group come in again.
Mr. Maudlin said the representative, David Bishop, should come to the
Wednesday meeting.
A very lengthy discussion with a large group of representatives of the Central
Oregon Board of Realtors regarding land use issues. Kitty Warner presented a list
of concerns of the way things are going in land use planning locally. Some of the
Realtors have been doing further studies on some of the issues.
One important issue is the river setback problem. Carolyn Bostwick explained
that this relates to the Planning Commission draft document. Mr. Throop said
that there will be a public hearing on this matter before the Board, probably after
the first of the year on an evening. Ms. Bostwick said there seems to be little
concern for the rights of private property owners, who pay taxes and should have
a say in this. She did not testify before the Planning Commission, but did write a
letter.
There are concerns about public access on private properties as well. A number
of people are worried about this. Mr. Throop said this part was removed from
the document, and public access was tabled. It is already contained within the
conservation easement as an option for the County, since 1986.
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, November 18, 1991 Page 3 of 8
The next issue relates to LCDC, and primary and secondary lands. Deschutes
County should not be considered the same as the counties in the west side of the
State. Decisions are too restrictive to this County on this basis, and are harmful to
the County and its residents. They asked for as much flexibility as possible. The
proposed moratorium within two miles outside the UGB is a big problem and
affects livability here. There was a lengthy discussion on this particular issue.
Deschutes County has this provision regarding RR -10 since 1979.
Mike Hoover pointed out that there is a problem with taking away property rights
in the urban area reserve. In particular, he spoke about the area off Eagle Road
and Neff Road. UAR is not acknowledged by the LCDC so it cannot be part of an
expansion until it is in the UGB. This probably won't happen until there are about
80,000 to 100,000 people in the County. There was a lengthy conversation about
a logical conversion of land over time.
Mr. Throop suggested a joint meeting with the City and the planners to discuss
this particular issue.
A citizen said that the draft document indicates there will be no zone changes in
this area outside the City. It was explained that they can't zone change rural land
from ten acres to 2.5 acre lots. This is an urban zone and won't happen until the
property is annexed. There won't be an expansion of the urban growth boundary
for some time, when the City can show that it is needed. It is a difficult and
lengthy process.
A citizen then discussed concerns regarding overlays that are sometimes on top of
other overlays. This makes the use of property very difficult for the private
property owner. He said he will challenge his taxes on this basis.
There was a long discussion of the politics of developing the community. They
consider the County as being very different from other parts of Oregon. They
want more autonomy at the local level. They perceive that there are limitations
that make it hard to plan growth. The economy of the area is based on growth.
No one wants to destroy the quality of life here. There seems to be more and
more boundaries and restrictions on what people can do with their properties.
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, November 18, 1991 Page 4 of 8
Half the people living here want to be outside the cities. They want to be able to
build where they can, privacy, views, and to fully use their properties. These
private property rights get lost when too many boundaries are established.
Mr. Throop explained that the County is responsible for implementing Oregon's
land use laws, for better or worse. They have to work within that structure. He
asked for an explanation of the specific concerns, other than the general
philosophy. It is difficult to speak in generalities when they have to address the
details.
A citizen said he is concerned about Mr. Throop being on the LCDC Board as a
possible conflict of interest. The Board needs to support the local population and
needs to try to change some of the State rules that don't apply well in this area.
He doesn't think that this is being done aggressively enough.
Bed and breakfast uses are so restrictive as to make it almost impossible. This is a
utilization of rural resources that matches up with the tourism industry. Also, to
classify most of the soils in this area as agricultural and farmable is bizarre. You
can't cultivate rocks and sagebrush. They would like to see a stronger fight for
the private property owners here and not just agreeing with LCDC. Rules need to
be followed, but some of them need to be changed.
A citizen said that there is a different demographic here. A large population is
retired, and the economy is not industrial based. People don't want their land
use rights taken away, and they are worried about it.
EFU zoning is always a concern, and the elected officials need to serve the citizens
and not any committees they are a part of. There is a lot of unnecessary need for
applications for conditional uses or variances. Staff seems to slant their decisions
and documents towards no -growth as much as possible, rather than for flexibility.
You cannot economically farm EFU land unless you own hundreds of acres, and
even then it is not a big moneymaker. People often want twenty acres but still
have to hold a job in town to make ends meet.
Steve Toomey said that the system is so confusing to the average citizen. Often
the planners can't tell you what you can and can't do with your property.
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, November 18, 1991 Page 5 of 8
There are too many layers and it is too complicated across the board. It is hard to
sell bare land because you won't know what it can be used for. Many of the
decisions seem to be very arbitrary and can change day to day, or planner to
planner. It seems to lack common sense.
The local citizens need more and stronger representation for this area and its
needs. LCDC may say you can't do something, but it doesn't make any sense and
there should be flexibility at the local level. This also happens within the cities.
There is resistance and a lack of cooperation. It is almost like someone is being
punished for buying a piece of property and wanting to do something
constructive with it.
There are thousands of acres in the County that should not be zoned EFU. But
until the secondary and primary use issue is resolved, everyone is in limbo. There
needs to be more flexibility. There may be some flexibility allowed but none of
the decision -makers are even considering this. There is no consistency in some of
the decisions regarding splitting parcels.
There was a long discussion regarding appeals and various court cases and how
these particular decisions came about.
It was pointed out that there seems to be an overriding attitude of no growth.
Mr. Throop said that at the State level, the County is considered as too flexible in
allowing more dwellings in the rural areas. He agreed that some of the generic
zoning needs to be addressed. The Realtors may feel the County is too restrictive,
but there are a number of others who see the County as being too flexible. The
Board needs to work for the citizens of the County, but this is a wide range of
people, including those citizens who don't want to see property divided up, those
who want no restrictions at all, and those who want reasonable land use
restrictions.
A lengthy and heated discussion then took place regarding these and other
concerns.
The group also spoke about the cost of land use applications and appeals. It costs
the average person a lot of money, which may be wasted in the long run.
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, November 18, 1991 Page 6 of 8
There is also the problem of public facilities and services. Land use laws are in
place to make sure these are available to citizens. This is harder to do with
developments located far from the cities. Otherwise there is no control or
efficiencies. People do want these services but they are not logical to provide far
from the cities, such as undeveloped roads and septic systems. People buy these
properties and then decide they miss having urban services.
The group then discussed problems with septic evaluations, in La Pine and around
Redmond. Bill Rabey of Sunriver said they are working with a consultant on a new
system to address the standard system versus the sand filter system. He
indicated that inconsistencies in septic decisions are an issue when dealing with
the County and DEQ.
One citizen said that the opinions and desires of some of the Board members are
in conflict between what is best for the County and what the State wants to have
happen. They seem to want no growth for Deschutes County, and to over -protect
the environment here.
Managed growth is needed, but to use the LCDC policies to attain no growth
through over -interpretation and application is a case of individuals stepping over
the boundaries of their authority to achieve their personal goals. He asked that
the Board put the local citizens first.
Mr. Throop said that Deschutes County has been the fastest growing county for
years. The issue is to not over -regulate or have a lack of control, but manage
growth properly. There is a comprehensive plan, State law and court decisions
that have to be considered.
Dan Varcoe stated he appreciates the Board's time. Sometimes it is difficult to
know if they are getting accurate information from the newspaper. He asked to
be on a mailing list to receive information as it develops in the land use arena.
This could go to the Realtors' board office for distribution.
Mr. Maudlin said they don't furnish transcripts, but can make sure that this group
gets the same notices and information as the media does.
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, November 18, 1991 Page 7 of 8
Staff said they have taken notes on the issues of concern today, and will put those
in a document for the Board to review further.
I certify that the above is a true and accurate record of a meeting, as reproduced from a
cassette tape identified as Minutes of a Meeting of the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners, held on November 18, 1991. This record was completed subsequent to the
presiding Deschutes County Board of Commissioners' tenure.
Bonnie Baker
For the Board of County Commissioners
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, November 18, 1991 Page 8 of 8