1995-17932-Minutes for Meeting December 21,1983 Recorded 2/21/1984vta 51. , ,c -F 9 7
" E D
95-17932 � � L
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FES 211984
DECEMBER 21, 1983 - RIVER STUDY ORDINANCE HEARING
MARY SUE PENULLOW,0
Chairman Young opened the hearing at 7:00 P.M. Commissioner ut
qw
and Commissioner Prante were also present.
Chairman Young explained that the Board will be considering two
ordinances serving the same purpose; one for the urban area and one
for the rural areas of Deschutes County. The hearing started with
an outline from John Andersen, Planning Director and Rick Isham,
County Legal Counsel.
John Andersen, Planning Director, explained that testimony and
discussion will be on Ordinance 83-058 which governs the Deschutes
River Combining Zone in the rural portions of the County and
Ordinance 83-066 governing the Bend urban area. Mr. Andersen read
two letters received by him. The first letter being from the
Sunriver Owners Association signed by Charles R. Cusack and Louis C.
Masten and a Policy Resolution No. 11 of the Sunriver Owners
Association. The second letter was received from Jack H. Boon; both
letters supported the ordinances. Mr. Andersen pointed out that the
Board has had recommendations from both the County Planning
Commission and the Bend Urban Area Planning Commission recommending
proceeding with the ordinances and some suggested changes to those
ordinances. Mr. Andersen continued that the economic benefits that
have been mentioned in regard to possible recreation activities on
the river indicate that there may be as much as 100 million dollars
a year brought to Deschutes County by tourism, a big part of which
is related to the Deschutes River. Another figure used is up to 10
million dollars a year brought to this County by fishing and
hunting, a big part of which is on the Deschutes River. In addition
to the economic factors to be considered, there are many social,
cultural, and environmental issues of importance related to the
Deschutes River, which were pointed out in the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Andersen submitted into evidence copies of
pertinent policies from both the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
and the Bend Urban Area General Plan. Mr. Andersen explained that
there has been a recent addition to the situation with the arrival
of an Attorney General's opinion, which seems to affirm the role of
local governments in the development of reasonable regulations
regulating activities on the Deschutes River, as well as any other
streams. He continued that concerns have been responded to
throughout the process in the development of the various zones.
The important aspects of these ordinances have been maintained which
will make it possible to protect the river as it needs to be. Mr.
Andersen explained that this important issue goes far beyond
Deschutes County. For this reason, the State of Oregon has
developed a process through the Comprehensive Land Use Planning
Program, which involves the Goal 5 Balancing Process. This involves
the balancing of various natural, historic and cultural resources of
a community. He submitted a copy of the State Goal 5 Prods„ be
used in the implementation and the study proposed. The deci`sY'
trl.4 1995
PAGE 1 - MEETING MINUTES
v"I 51 rm E 948
that will result from this study may have very long term
consequences and in fact be some of the most important decisions
made about the river. Because the study is so important, Mr.
Andersen urged that the process begin as quickly as possible and the
ordinances be adopted.
Rick Isham, County Legal Counsel, explained where the combining
zones would be on maps located on the walls. This is approximately
the fifth hearing on these ordinances. During this process�a number
of issues have been raised and the Planning Commissions took into
consideration the testimony before them, and in a number of cases
provided for amendments in the original drafts that were sumbitted
to LCDC for reivew in their review process. Currently, the intent
of the ordinances is to not substantially interfere with any federal
process (FERC has authority with respect to development of certain
types of projects which may affect the resource). With respect to
the federal process, the local ordinances are intended to achieve a
different purpose since they are intended to implement the local
state-wide land use planning responsibilities. Under the Goal 5
Process, it requires that local jurisdictions complete an inventory,
identify conflicting uses, and to make certain decisions. When
there are no conflicting uses, the local jurisdiction is mandated to
preserve the resource. It provides for the determination of
economic, social, environmental and energy consequences of its
decision with respect to the resource. It also provides for a
development plan to protect the resource, to allow conflicting uses
fully, or a balance between those two where you have a need to
balance conflicting uses of the resource. Deschutes County is not
new to the Goal 5 Process. It is clear that you may not ignore some
conflicts or some responsibilities in the land use process in an
attempt to regulate other issues with respect to a goal related
resource. As a consequence, the ordinances were designed to deal
with the resource as a whole (being the Deschutes River Basin) and
not to deal with a specific use or specific site, since it was clear
from earlier experiences and from law that a resource wide inventory
review is necessary. An Attorney General Opinion has been issued
dated December 16, 1983. It is an informal opinion of the Attorney
General binding on the State Agency in response to Opinion Request
5506. The opinion is that there is both local authority under the
planning process and the mandate of the local jurisdiction; anal a
statewide authority with respect to certain statewide interests that
are vested in the Water Policy Review Board. It clearly identifies
that there is the potential of conflict between what appears to be
somewhat different purposes with respect to the State Law which
mandates land use planning and the State Law relating to the
functions of the Water Policy Review Board. If at any time the
State were to ignore the local jurisdiction, they would have to do
so with a clear directive and would have the burden of proof on it
to explain why it could not comply with local ordinance
responsibilities. Mr. Isham explained that there has been some
misinformation regarding what the ordinance will accomplish. They
are grounded on already existing comprehensive plan use policies
that in many cases have existed for some time. The policies on
review of certain major issues that could arise with respect to the
PAGE 2 - MEETING MINUTES
I
v�:1 51 m E 949
resource appear to not adequately address all of the issues that
could be raised. Deschutes County Comprehensive Land Use Plan was
approved at the same meeting where the Goal 5 Process was adopted by
LCDC. As a consequence, in order to grant acknowledgement
compliance to our local planning, LCDC had to write an exception to
our acknowledgement process. This ordinance is not intended to
surplant the authority of an agency such as the Water Resources
Department and it does not affect or regulate the delivery of
irrigation water or water rights. Mr. Isham explained that these
ordinances have been clarified because of testimony that came before
the Planning Commissions and based upon their recommendations to
more clearly implement the intent and purposes of the ordinances as
understood by the drafters and the Board of County Commissioners.
There are some changes where the wording is different although the
intent of the wording is to more clearly implement those provisions
that were already provided.
Chairman Young recognizd a letter from Diamond International and
Bend Aggregate and Paving which were entered into the record.
Chairman Young explained the rules of the hearing. There will be
one hour allocated for those in favor of the ordinances and one hour
for those opposed. This will be divided into 30 minute segments for
the purpose of persons who may want to testify at the City of Bend
hearings on this same subject.
Tim Ward, 2151 N. E. Division, Bend, testified that he lives in
Rimrock West where a hydro -electric project is proposed, is the
developer of Sunrise Village where a hydro -electric project is
proposed, and he recreates where a hydro -electric project is
proposed. His decision to live in this area was a result of much
research, planning, time, money and effort. In consideration of the
circumstances and existence at the time of this decison, there was
no reason to expect that their value, use, and enjoyment would be
threatened by the numerous hydro -electric projects being proposed
today. He continued that his concerns are not unique. Several
hundreds of small businesses, several large homeowners associations,
dozens of organizations, and thousands of individuals have indicated
a concern in this matter. In his opinion, the negative consequences
of this ordinance, if any, would be miniscule compared to the likely
consequences of no such ordinance or a meaningless one. The State
Attorney General's Opinion recently released has made it abundently
clear that this ordinance must be based on land use planning and in
particular Goal 5, if we are to have local jurisdiction. Over-
whelming indications are that this ordinance is in the best interest
of the community as a whole. In responding to the potential
problems poised by hydro -electric projects and to recognize a need
to protect the rivers of our area as a matter of a major natural
resource, please make every effort to protect pre-existing property
rights. If by reducing the zone or exempting all pre-existing uses,
greater equity can be achieved without significantly hurting the
ordinance. For the good of all, please do so.
Ted Fies, District Fish Biologist for Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, testified that the Department of Fish & Wildlife supports
PAGE 3 - MEETING MINUTES
VOL 51 FACE 950
the adoption of the ordinance. The Deschutes River from Wickiup Dam
to Lake Billy Chinook is a valuable and unique natural resource. It
contains fragile and valuable fish and wildlife habitat. It
supports heavy recreational use including fishing, hunting,
trapping, camping, boating, and hiking. The river is managed
exclusively for wild rainbow and brown trout in Benham Falls to Lake
Billy Chinook and is supplemented with stock trout from Wickiup to
Sunriver. The wild trout rely on the Deschutes and its tributaries
for spawning and rearing habitat. Lands within the river corridor
provide both summer and winter habitat for deer and elk. The river
and its adjoining ponds, slough, and marshes support populations of
ducks, geese, shore birds, and fir bears; such as mink, otter,
muskrat and beaver. Mr. Fies continued that since 1980 there have
been 15 proposals for hydro -electric projects in Deschutes County.
Of those 15 proposed projects,:5 are currently under consideration
for a FERC license or an exemption from licensing. All 5 are on the
Deschutes River. There are 4 other proposed projects that have been
issued FERC preliminary permits to conduct feasibility studies.
Because of the number of proposed projects and the possibility of
licensing in the very near future, the Department feels studies of
impacts on and adjacent to the Deschutes should begin as soon as
possible. Studies are needed to determine individual and cumulative
impacts of the proposed projects upon such items as: Total fishing
and hunting use, fish and wildlife populations, upstream and
downstream fish migrations, and instream flow studies to determine
the impact upon fish and wildlife or a range of predicted minimum
flows, stream channel changes at different flows, and the potential
for fish and wildlife mitigation and habitate enhancement measures.
Adoption of this ordinance would be a positive step to insure
protection of the fish and wildlife resources of the Deschutes
River.
Don Smith, Chairman of the Board of Parks and Recreation Department,
testified that he is here to reaffirm the resolution made by the
Parks and Recreation Board. They support the proposed ordinance and
the long term study of the river, stream flow and hydro -electric
projects on the river's recreational, economic and natural habitat.
Mr. Smith stated that as public officials we are placed in difficult
situations in the past and are often given tasks of making
decisions, not always with the privledge of all the facts. Before
us we have a situation brought forth by a group of officials acting
from a crisis situation. The legislation forcing the wholesale
purchase of power from small scale hydro projects was predicated on
projected deficits by 1985. Through conservation efforts and
decreased demands, the crisis has not materialized. Through the
recent Attorney General rulings and the Water Resources Board
rulings, we are in a position to act intelligently. The destiny of
our river resource and its wise development are within our reach.
Let us not act from a position of crisis but from one of
intelligence and information. Mr. Smith testified that as a
citizen, local businessman interested in development, an individual,
and a member of the Park Board, he personally has dedicated himself
to all that is necessary to insure a timely study and development of
the hydro ordinance and its future clarifications. With the recent
PAGE 4 - MEETING MINUTES
rulings handed down, whatever development does occur on the
Deschutes River, will be mandated locally with sanity and not in a
matter to hinder current industry, future plans, and intelligent
development. He urged the Board to put the ordinance in place and
proceed. Protection for existing water rights, industry,
recreation, economic, and fish and wildlife concerns will be and can
be protected during the study period so that current activity can
continue with business as usual. We are not here to argue the need
for hydro or individual projects. We are here to put control of our
rivers in our own hands.
Kirk Sandburg, Recreation Director of Inn of the 7th Mountain and
President of Sun Country Tours (white water rafting company)
testified as himself as a recreationalist, and concerned citizen, as
well as for the Inn of the 7th Mountain and Sun Country Tours. The
ownership and management of the Inn of the 7th Mountain feel
strongly that the river must be protected from inappropriate and
unwise hydro electric development. They support the efforts of
local government to pass this ordinance that will provide a study
period to consider the considerable effects of potential hydro
electric development. They offered thanks to those who have put
forth efforts and imput, and the County Officials in listenting to
the needs and desires of the citizens of Bend. They are pleased
with the ordinance, in particular maintaining the existing stream
flow, and are in favor of the passage of this ordinance. Mr.
Sandburg submitted to the Board signed letters of support by the 300
condominium owners of the Inn of the 7th Mountain.
Bob Pengra, 61489 Maidmarion Court, Bend, testified from his
viewpoint as a businessman and personal standpoint to adopt this
river study ordinance.
Ron Ross, 1415 N. W. 4th, Bend, testified as a member of the
Coalition for the Deschutes, a realtor, and concerned citizen. The
following statement in support of passage of this ordinance has been
signed by 292 business persons representing 140 individual
businesses in the Bend vacinity. The statement reads: I support
the work of the Board of County Commissioners for Deschutes County
and the Bend City Commission to provide for a study of the
individual and cumulative effects of all known and potential
hydro -electric sites on the Deschutes River Basin. I encourage them
to develop a program to balance the conflicting uses of this natural
resource in order to mitigate any negative impact on fish and
wildlife, stream flow, recreation, sales, tourism, residential and
resort development, and the business community. Among the
businesses signing the statement include 20 restaurants and taverns,
10 real estate offices, 8 motels, 8 sport shops, 4 distributors,
numerous doctors, print shops, service stations, builders and
contractors, and retail outlets. He submitted a written copy of the
statement into the record. Mr. Ross continued that we who live in
Central Oregon are blessed with the quality of life virtually
unequaled throughout this country. Among those factors contributing
to this claim are a natural and unspoiled environment and our
friendly and intelligent people. Mr. Ross stated that as a realtor
PAGE 5 - MEETING MINUTES
WX 51 qrq 95-9
he constantly deals with people moving into Central Oregon and he
knows why people want to live here. People live here and vacation
here for the quality of life that we offer. That quality of life
must be protected. It is both the responsibility and the privledge
of local governing officials to preserve this priceless life style.
Bend will grow and develop. Mr. Ross stated that as a businessman
he will encourage, applaud, and possibly profit from properly
directed growth and development. There are, and will continue to
be, enumerable opportunties for enterprising business and industry
to prosper in Central Oregon in harmony with our present high
quality of life. It is the responsibility of those of us who care
to properly direct this inevitable growth and development; to
encourage that which is compatible with environment and life style;
and to thwart those who seek to destroy these assets and personal
profit. Local officials today are shaping the future of Bend and
Deschutes County. We must make a strong commitment today to
preserve what we have for our children tomorrow. We must send a
message loudly and clearly; We are open for business, but only to
those which will not compromise the integrity of our people or the
quality of our environment. Mr. Ross continued that it is
absolutely clear that we cannot look to state or federal government
to protect our river. We must fight our own battle. Without this
ordinance we go to battle unarmed. Without this ordinance we have
no control over the future of the Deschutes River. We need a leg to
stand on for the protection of our river.
Brian Meece testifed as a citizen and businessman. He explained
that he had submitted a letter to the Board and his basic concerns
remain the same. As far as economic issues are concerned, he
explained that millions of dollars of revenue are received due to
tourism, exiting businesses, and environmentally sound potential
businesses moving into the area. The hydro electric potential and
onslaught being seen now can do nothing but bring down the potential
in the area for development and revenues. Mr. Meece continued that
there is no need for power until sometime in the 1990's, and will
only take 12 to 24 months to put hydro electric plants on line. In
that time period there is a possibility of technological
advancements in the area of solar, goethermal, and other energy
sources that could demonstrate no need to develop the hydro electric
potential. The logical answer is to protect the rivers with
ordinances now and make sure the study is done professionally. If
needed and where the study supports it, hdyro electric development
can occur in the future. Mr. Meece continued that the City and
County Planning Commissions have unanimously supported the
ordinances. LCDC has supported our efforts and indicated that there
would have been a need to eventually directed ourselves at the Goal
5 Process. The Attorney General has said we have the right to
control our own destiny. Not only do we have the right but we
should take the responsbility to enact that control. The Oregon
Water Policy Review Board recognized, in writing through an article
in the Oregonian, that they need to consider our local plans in
their planning process. The Board of Commissioners and City
Commission can adopt a well developed and thought out ordinance to
assure local control of a great economic and aesthetic resource.
PAGE 6 - MEETING MINUTES
WU 51 Orr 951
Mr. Meece thanked the City and County Commissions, their respective
Planning Commissions, and their staffs who have done a professional
job and taken the time to do the research necessary to put this
ordinance together. They have also allowed many avenues for public
imput, which has strengthened this ordinance.
John Judy, Member of Board of Directors of Oregon Trout, read a
letter prepared by the Executive Director, William Bochy. Oregon
Trout is a statewide organization of anglers and an angling club
dedicated to the protection and restoration of Oregon's wild trout,
steelhead, salmon resources, and their waters. Since the Deschutes
river resident trout fishery is an important natural resource to
Oregonians and others in the United States and represents an
important economic resource to Central Oregon, Oregon Trout supports
the conclusion that all proposed hydro electric facilities must
comply with the Comprehensive Plan, and that all adverse impacts be
identified and mitigated. If local land use planning is to
effectively guide the development of local economic resource, it is
important that the state -approved hydro development be consistent
with local plans and compatible with existing planned development in
the immediate area of the Deschutes river. In addition to
maintaining consistency with local comprehensive plans, hydro
electric development must also comply with fishing wildlife programs
adopted by the Northwest Power Planning Council on November 15,
1982. Section 1200 of the program calls for review of hydro
projects to assess cumulative and environmental effects on fish and
wildlife. The program also requires consistency through the Federal
Energy Regulation Commission process, where hydro developers must
demonstrate how a proposed project will take fish and wildlife
programs into account. Oregon Trout stands in support of an
ordinance to require an environmental and economic study of
individual projects and their cumulative impacts on the recreational
fishery and other resources on the Deschutes river and related
economics within the community.
Brent Lake, Field Representative for the Department of Land
Conservation and Development, testified that the Department supports
the adoption of this ordinance, particularly in light of the Goal 5
analysis that is carried out in the ordinance. Mr. Lake stated that
they would like to give the County whatever assistance they can
through Mr. Lake and other members of the staff in Salem to assist
during the study period. LCDC encourages the adoption of the
ordinances.
Stanford Miller, 19960 Tumalo Road, testified that he is
representing the Central Oregon Flyfishers who unanimously support
the ordinance. Mr. Miller stated that his home is in Kansas City
and he has purchased a home here in hopes of making this their
permanent resident because of the beauty of the area. Mr. Miller
urged the protection of the beauty we have which attract money and
interest in this area. He hoped this study period will bring out
the fact that tourism is very important and very stable. Mr. Miller
asked that the beautiful falls on the Deschutes be preserved.
PAGE 7 - MEETING MINUTES
vc, 51 c;--954
D. W. Fomer testified that he supports the ordinance and hopes that
it is approved.
John Wujack, representing the Deschutes River Kayak and Canoe Club,
testified that the Deschutes River Kayak and Canoe Club sent to the
County Commissioners a resolution giving the unanimous and
enthusiastic support for adoption of this ordinance. Since the last
time the club has spoken to the Board of Commissioners, their
membership has jumped from 35 members to 51 members. This
demonstrates how greatly concerned persons are within the community
for the survival of the canoe sport. The Deschutes River Kayak and
Canoe Club is looking forward to working with the City, County and
State agencies during the study period and offered their assistance.
Thom Porterfield, Director of the Oregon Council for the Federation
of Flyfishers, read aloud a letter written by the President, Keith
A. Burkhart. The Oregon Council for the Federation of Flyfishers
urges you to support the river study ordinance proposed for the
Deschutes River. We also urge you to do a cumulative impact study
on the upper Deschutes River and its tributaries. With the 14 or so
hydro projects proposed for the upper Deschutes basin, this
cumulative impact study is a must. A study such as this is the only
way to see the effects of a number of hydro projects on a small
drainage. It is of the utmost importance to protect the fish and
wildlife of the area. Again, we urge your support of the river
study ordinance and a cumulative impact study.
Chairman Young asked for testimony for those persons opposed to the
ordinance.
Robert Coats testified that he owns considerable frontage on the
river and looks at this ordinance as not just control of hydro, but
control of the river at all aspects. Mr. Coats explained that at
the present time he is being taxed on the basis of $15 a front foot,
in addition to the regular tax on his land fronting Tumalo Creek.
The tax for the property fronting the Deschutes River is $25 a front
foot. If the rights to the river are taken away, it is not fair.
Mr. Coats continued that he conducts a business in Bend and has a
two or three million dollar payroll every year. If 200 feet on
Tumalo Creek are taken away, 2 million yards of aggregate (which has
been set aside in the Comprehensive Plan as a surface mining zone)
will be taken over. Mr. Coats said that this will eventually
squeeze him out of business. He continued that there is adequate
protection by State agencies of the river. Mr. Coats stated that
this ordinance should not be adopted until there is some more
thought put into it because people will be seriously impacted by it.
Even property on the desert located on tribuaries will be impacted.
The ordinance is so inclusive that consideration hasn't been given
to how far it is going. He questioned the legality of the natural
resouces being taken away that were set up in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Neil Bryant, Representing Arnold Irrigation, testified in regard to
fairness; fairness for the irrigation districts, fairness for the
PAGE 8 - MEETING MINUTES
vot 51 p
people that the district affects, and those concerned about this
ordinance as far as giving input. Deschutes County should be
represented and should have input into the licensing process. A
study period is valid and the projects Arnold Irrigation has
proposed can live with the 18 month study period. Arnold Irrigation
is willing to help and give information toward the studies. Arnold
Irrigation is in favor of a fair balancing test, but this test must
not only include the interest of the people who swim and kayak, but
also those who irrigate their land. Mr. Bryant spoke in regard to
the fairness in balancing of the interpretation of the ordinance.
At the Planning Commission where the minimum standards were
mentioned, John Andersen and other members explained that it is not
their intent (when they say that exiting stream flow shall be
maintained) for stream flows to be absolutely maintained. Some use
could be allowed, but Section 4A does not say that. This ordinance
has to be balanced with state laws and federal laws. In the draft
Attorney General Opionion, he was less than clear on some points as
far as who controls. On certain issues it is going to be the State
Water Resources Board. Mr. Bryant recommended that the
interpretation and the study of this ordinance be sent to the
Attorney General and Federal Energy Regulatory Commision asking
opinions as to whether or not it complies with their interpretation
of the ordinance. If this is determined to be a moratorium of
hyrdo, Deschutes County will lose that valuable opportunity of
giving imput because the ordinance will be invalid. Mr. Bryant
urged fairness especially from the Commissioners in selection of the
Committee. He felt it is important that somebody from the
Irrigation Districts be represented as a committee member, which
would show fairness and reasonableness. To assist with fairness,
lets stop the hysteria, rumors, and misinformation on hydro. Mr.
Bryant said that Arnold Irrigation will continue to pursue their
hydro projects. They are now in the process of refining what is
done and submitting information to FERC. He stated that they are
dealing with 27 different agencies. The environmental concerns will
be answered by some of the studies required of them. They are going
to try to meet the requirements of FERC and the State and try to
meet the concerns of Deschutes County. Arnold Irrigation realizes
the importance of the Deschutes River, tourism, fish, game and
natural beauty that needs to be preserved and can say that they will
not do anything that will significantly affect any of those uses.
Mr. Bryant assured the Board of -Commissioners that the Board of
Arnold Irrigation District has the same concerns in mind when they
talk, plan and try and deal with these hydro issues.
Bob Lovlien, representing Central Oregon Irrigation District (COI),
testified that COI has proposed a site and power project. This is
the only project that will be affected by the Ordinance £83-066,
since it is the only project within the DR zone. The COI Board
regrets the problems that this ordinance has caused so many business
people in Deschutes County. It is unfortunate that some type of
energy facility siting ordinance was not used instead. Mr. Lovlien
stated that the ordinance has gone overboard in attempting to attack
hydro. The problem is that this is more than a river study
PAGE 9 - MEETING MINUTES
Vol 51
ordinance and much more than a hydro electric ordinance. Mr.
Lovlien stated that he appreciates the efforts that the Commission
has made in attempting to except out so many existing uses and this
should take care of most of the problems that this ordinance has
created for developers, business people, and other users of the
river. The central question with respect to this ordinance is
whether or not it amounts to a prohibition of the COI site and power
project. Section 4A talks about maintaining existing stream flows.
When the Planning Commission heard Ordinance £83-058, they modified
Section 5A by deleting some language. To Mr. Lovlien this implied
that the Commission was willing to use some type of balancing test
in evaluating any uses that application be made for during the
period of the study. If the language in Section 4A were to read:
..the use shall maintain the stream flow of any affected river or
stream at qualities and quantities consistent with the requirements
of this section.., he has no problem with the clarification of this.
Mr. Lovlien explained that COI has a contract with PP&L which would
obligate them to provide power by 1987. If it happens that COI
needs to make application before the study period is over, if this
is in fact a prohibition on hydro, where are they. Mr. Lovlien
stated that the ordinance seems to indicate that if a hydro electric
project wanted to make application, there is provison for doing
that. Will this be interpreted as a prohibition or as a balancing
test that the Commission is willing to apply along with all the
other requirements and standards imposed by the ordinance. If this
Commission can state that the ordinance is not intended as a
prohibition of a site and power project, but rather imposes a set of
criteria against which the project would be evaluated (if
application was made prior to completion of the study), COI would
have the type of assurance it seeks and would be in a position to
support the ordinance. COI has been around for 65 years. They are
the primary user of the river, irrigate 45,000 acres, and have a big
stake in the river and study period. COI is very upset because they
feel that they have been excluded from the process on this
ordinance. Irrespective of what you do with the ordinance and
irrespective of what you tell me you are going to do by way of
intrepretation, the COI Board has asked that he plead with the Board
of Commissioners to let them participate in the study period. Bob
Anderson has been with the district for over twenty years and knows
every stretch of the river. There is a wealth of information that
the districts are more than willing to share with this Commission
and anyone else concerned with the river. A lot of the reason the
river is the way it is today and provides the recreation it does is
a direct result of the irrigation projects. Those projects are
important to this community and will continue to be important to
this community. If nothing else, maybe the hatchets will get
buried. Mr. Lovlien stated that another problem is that there is
provision for studying of the river and stream diversion canals. He
is concerned why the canal is still a part of the ordinance. The
district has been getting calls from concerned irrigation users
regarding the study of canals. Mr. Lovlien said that he hopes the
Commission is willing to impose a balancing type situation. The
district wants to cooperate with the Board. He pleaded for
participation by someone associated with the district on the study
PAGE 10 - MEETING MINUTES
gut 51 � 957
period.
Dave Jaqua testified that he does not represent any recreational or
environmental group, any irrigation districts or hydro electric
projects, but represents some owners of private property along the
Deschutes river, and in particular the developers of the Eagle Crest
project in the Redmond area. He originally testifed before the
Planning Commission in opposition although for or against is
inaccurate. He stated that he hasn't heard anyone tonight who is
against the study ordinance or an ordinance which will protect the
Deschutes river from abuse from hydro electric power projects.
Representing the recreational development on the Deschutes river, we
are in favor of an ordinance that protects the quality and integrety
of the river. His concern is the impact the ordinance has, whether
intentially or inadvertently, on private property owners along the
Deschutes river who have nothing to do with hydro electric projects
or development or use of the river. Mr. Jaqua expressed his concern
with how broad the ordinance has been drafted. The process could
have been handled differently eliminating a lot of concern of
private property owners by treating hydro electric projects as a
particular use and dealing with it like other uses in the
conditional use section that deal with specific criteria. Mr. Jaqua
expressed some concerns with the ordinance, not for purposes of
objecting to passage, but for clarification of what it means. As
far as specific use standards in Section 4, his explained that the
way the language is drafted is prohibitive. It is not intented as a
reasonable test or something you can present evidence on. One of
the things that need clarification is whether this ordinance is
intended to recognize that development will occur within that area
and therefore presumes that there is a balancing in criteria, or is
it intended to eliminate any development within the area. Where the
ordinance says ...the use shall maintain existing stream flow...,
you could use the word reasonably which is something that the
hearings body has the ability to discuss. Where the ordinance says
..the use shall conserve and protect fish and wildlife habitat...,
does this mean if you have 24n impact you are not conserving? Mr.
Jaqua expressed his concern with the criteria when applying and if
you do not comply, do you go through an exemption process or can a
hearings body make a finding that they are not applicable, or as the
ordinance implies do you have to affirmatively address every
criteria. If new development may have an impact on existing or
viable potential uses but the new use is more benficial to Deschutes
County then the present use, it will have a significant negative
impact, but may be more beneficial to the county as a whole. Mr.
Jaqua didn't see a reason for an approval date on the exception
section if you are a cluster development, planned development,
destination resort, dude ranch, or planned community, because these
are processes that have to go through their own stringent
conditional use criteria.
Chairman Young asked for testimony from those in favor of the
ordinances.
PAGE 11 - MEETING MINUTES
va 51 - 958
Emil Sidell testified as a member of the community. He stated that
as Commissioners the Board has a special commitment to all the
people of Deschutes County and all the issues that come before you.
In respect to this ordinance, he urged the Board's approval. He
said that a vote for this ordinance would preserve our Deschutes as
it presently exists.
Larry Cathcart testified for the Friends of the Deschutes. The
Friends of the Deschutes support the proposed ordinances and urge
their speedy adoption.
Norm Schultz, member of the Bend Urban Area Planning Commission,
testified. He stated that they have been working on this ordinance
for a long time and wanted to remind the Board that the ordinance
was unanimous at the Planning Commission level. They think the
ordinance is workable and reasonably fair.
Alice Keiser-Greth testified in favor of the ordiance. She
explained that she is a small user of Arnold Irrigation District.
She explained that she grew up near a river that was black with coal
dirt. She urged the Board to support this study ordinance.
Beardsley Graham, member of the Bend Urban Area Planning Commission,
testified in favor of the ordinance. He explained that he is a
registered professional engineer and has been in the technical
economic planning business for decades. It is significant that the
Oregon Department of Economic Development has determined that 100
million dollars a year comes into Deschutes County as a result of
out-of-state tourists alone. Some fraction of that is due to the
existence of the river as we know it today. For every dollar spent
in Deschutes County, it turns over at least two and one-half times.
This means that out-of-state tourists bring one quarter of a billion
dollars a year in local economic activity. This is extremely
important to the entire community and community economic development
is one of the things that all of us in favor of the ordinance are
primarily concerned with. Mr. Graham said that he is aware that
many industrialists sign that the economy elsewhere is more
important to their survival for local economy, but he lives here and
would like to see the local economy prosper.
Stephen Thompson, member of the Deschutes County Planning
Commission, testified in favor of the ordinance. He wanted to
assure everyone in the audience that they have worked long, hard,
and diligently on this issue. They have expedited the drafting of
an ordinance as rapidly as possible. This is a very complex issue
legislatively, legally, and administratively and the time taken
working on this ordinance will pay dividends down the road. We now
have an ordinance that has been worked over and is now able to stand
up. Mr. Thompson commended the planning staff on the very hard work
they did.
Being no further testimoney for or against the ordinances, Chairman
Young closed the public hearing.
PAGE 12 - MEETING MINUTES
wa 51 FAm 959,
Commissioner Prante asked why the study of the canals was included
in the ordinance.
John Andersen, Planning Director, explained that the basic purpose
for including that was that the study calls for a review and
evaluation of the hydro -electrical characteristics of the Deschutes
river. Since the canals have a rather significant impact on those
characteristics, it is felt to be important to study the canals and
the interaction with the river if funding could be found. This was
not meant as a way to regulate a canal but rather see how the river
functions and understanding the characteristics.
Rick Isham, Legal Counsel, explained that he has drafted an
ordinance which doesn't deal with the study of canals.
Commissioner Tuttle explained that he would have no problem with
leaving the studying of canals out of the ordinance. He added that
while studying the river, if funds are available, ground water
considerations should be done as a matter of course.
Commissioner Tuttle moved to eliminate the language in the
ordinances for the study of canals. Commissioner Prante seconded
the motion. All being in favor, motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Prante moved for the first and second readings of
Ordinance £83-058 by title only. Commissioner Tuttle seconded; all
being in favor, motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Young gave the first reading by title of Ordinance £83-058.
This ordinance would amend Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance with
the addition of Deschutes River Combining Zone, and providing for a
study period. Chiarman Young gave the second reading of Ordinance
£83-058 by title.
Commissioner Tuttle moved the adoption of Ordinance £83-058 and
acception of the legislative findings. Commissioner Prante seconded
the motion.
Commissioner Prante assured people that the Commission has made
every effort to communicate with the community to listen to a
variety of concerns and to modify in response to those concerns.
This is an interim ordinance. When a study is completed and facts
on which to base permanent decisions, there will be hearings and a
much more definitive piece of legislation.
All Commissioners being in favor of the ordinance, the motion passed
unanimously.
Commissioner Tuttle moved for the first and second reading of
Ordinance £83-066 by title only. Commissioner Prante seconded the
motion; all being in favor motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Young gave the first reading of Ordinance £83-066. This
ordinance amends Deschutes County Ordinance PL -11, Bend Urban Growth
PAGE 13 - MEETING MINUTES
O
f I
Boundary Zoning Ordinance, the addition of Deschutes River Combining
Zone and providing for a study period. Chairman Young gave the
second reading of Ordinance £83-066.
Commissioner Prante moved to adopt Ordinance £83-066 and accept the
legislative findings of fact. Commissioner Tuttle seconded the
motion. All Commissioners being in favor of the ordinance, motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Tuttle thanked the staff in helping with this
ordinance.
Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
r
Alb r You�}g, Ch rman _
-ZZ GU
Loi -BKistow rante, Commissioner
Laurence A. Tuttle, Com%4ssioner
BOCC:ap
PAGE 14 - MEETING MINUTES