Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-05 Business Meeting MinutesDeschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701 -1960 (541) 388 -6570 - Fax (541) 385 -3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, JANUARY 5, 2009 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Tammy Baney and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Nick Lelack, Kevin Harrison, Terri Payne, Will Groves and Doreen Blome', Community Development; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; and approximately twenty citizens, including representatives of the media. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. 1. Before the Board was the Election of Board Chair and Vice Chair for 2009. Newly elected Commissioner Unger was introduced, and said that he looks forward to working as part of a team. UNGER: I nominate Commissioner Baney as Chair for 2009. LUKE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. UNGER: Move Commissioner Luke be Vice Chair. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, January 5, 2009 Page 1 of 14 Pages 2. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2009 -001, Approving a Petition for Designation of Territory as "Lazy River West No Shooting District ". Doreen Biome' gave an overview of the item and said that the chief petitioner, citizens in support of the Order and citizen who are opposed are present. Commissioner Luke asked if there is an election. Laurie Craghead said there is none. Ms. Biome' added that in order to form a district, 60% of the registered voters within a subdivision must sign a petition before it can be certified by the Clerk. There were 99 registered voters and 64% of those voters were in favor of the district. Commissioner Luke asked if there are other no shooting zones nearby. Ms. Biome' said that there are several in nearby areas. Commissioner Unger asked for some specific information regarding the location. Ms. Biome' referred to an oversized map. Chair Baney opened the hearing at this time. Marcia Hughes said that she has lived in the same place since 1990. Over those years they have been plagued by careless shooting and noise at all hours from gunshots. There are children and livestock in the area, and a person who is adjacent shoots towards their property. Other residents have the same complaint. They have talked with the Sheriff but nothing can be be done because there is no law against this. Commissioner Luke said that it is against State law to fire in a careless manner. The problem is they have to be caught and the citizen then has to make a complaint. The no shooting zone makes discharging a firearm illegal. Ms. Hughes stated that it is a dangerous situation and a big concern. When they first moved into the area, there were a lot fewer homes in the area, and now there are many families with young children. There used to be all kinds of wildlife, but most is gone now. She said she collected signatures and most people were very supportive of the no shooting zone. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, January 5, 2009 Page 2 of 14 Pages Ms. Biome' said that there is a five -acre minimum lot size in the subdivision, but some are smaller. Laurie Craghead stated that current zoning is for a ten - acre minimum but some lots were formed prior to land use law. Ms. Hughes understands that people may want to shoot on their property, but there are too many people in the area to have that happening now. Commissioner Luke stated that the NRA and other gun groups are in support of this type of thing. A relevant bill in the legislature was passed with their support. Del Rothrock testified that the average lot size is approximately five acres. He does oppose the Order. His lot is about 2 -1/4 acres. He said he has children visiting his property and won't discharge his rifle when they are there. He teaches his children and grandchildren how to handle firearms. It is inconvenient to have to leave the area to shoot, and rock quarries are not a safe environment. Ms. Hughes said that her property is surrounded by trees and shrubs. The shots could come from any direction. Current law is enough; the Sheriff cannot enforce this now or with the new law. A citizen has to make a citizen's arrest. He added that obviously anyone could be shooting but it will be hard to know who did it. The Sheriff won't be able to cite someone unless it is done in their presence. These ladies might make those arrests and risk the harassment that may follow. He sits in the middle of the subdivision, and does not feel this will help. He said that there is still wildlife but it is the dogs that have the wildlife leaving. The animals are used to hearing gunshots. The people who signed the petition may not be property owners. This type of law hasn't changed anything in other areas. He stressed that it is part of citizens' Constitutional rights, and is one more step in taking away citizen's rights. Commissioner Luke stated guns can still be owned or possessed and not taken away. He recalls that a .22 bullet can travel up to a mile if it misses its mark. Ms. Craghead stated that the law is supposed to allow firearms to be discharged only if someone is protecting himself or his property; or is law enforcement; or other special circumstances. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, January 5, 2009 Page 3 of 14 Pages Mr. Rothrock stated that he would like this to go to the property owners and not just the residents. It may be hard to round up livestock but people can get their children inside if they hear shooting. Commissioner Unger asked why he can't go to public lands, since there are a lot of Forest Service lands in the area. Commissioner Baney asked if this is a common activity in the area. Mr. Rothrock said he believes it is. Someone in the area does shoot a semi- automatic weapon, which does not make sense. Commissioner Luke noted that the Sheriff prefers having the district in place as it makes it easier for them to enforce offenses. Ms. Craghead said there would be no citizens' arrest; just a signature on a citation for a fine. Jude Folghum, chief petitioner, said that her neighbor to the north started shooting at exploding targets. A person can see the berm created to be able to shoot these. This is not a .22 rifle; it is a lot noisier. The Sheriff has talked with the man several times but nothing could be done. The berm is at the Little Deschutes River. If someone is canoeing, it can be very hazardous for them. Many of the people who signed the petition are hunters but realize there are a lot of people living in the area, and many of those people don't know that shooting is allowed. People across the river are also concerned, and there is the Thousand Trails campground about 1/4 mile away. The noise and hazards are a concern. If they could have had the man cited for using exploding targets, the petition might have not been necessary. People have tried before and he won't stop. The livestock in the area are very spooked by this noise. No other testimony was offered. Ms. Biome' said this is a petition, and Code requires that 60% the registered voters residing in the subdivision have to sign. Commissioner Luke stated this mirrors State law. Ms. Biome' stated that 64% signed it. Commissioner Luke added that during the 1997 legislature, the Gun Owners of America and the NRA helped to write the language of this law. It sets a high standard, requiring 60% of voters to sign. This is a clear majority, and he supports the Order. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, January 5, 2009 Page 4 of 14 Pages Mr. Unger asked for clarification of the process and whether the voters received full information at the time the petition was presented. Ms. Biome' said that the petition is to be circulated with all of the information. Mr. Unger noted that it is unfortunate that a few people spoil things for everyone, but there needs to be more control as the population changes. There are opportunities to shoot in public lands outside the populated areas. LUKE: Move signature of Order No. 2008 -001. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was Discussion of the Status of the Comprehensive Plan Update; and 5. Before the Board was an Update regarding Status of Destination Resort Mapping Option. Both issues were a part of the following discussion. Terri Payne introduce Nick Lelack, the new planning director. Mr. Lelack said that Deschutes County is one of the more dynamic counties in the country, and he is happy to be working here. He also has a long family history in the area and he looks forward to working on County issues. Ms. Payne then gave an overview of the process. Since August, five meetings have been held by the Committee and there have been six community meetings, plus eleven other presentations. The community listening sessions were held in Terrebonne, Bend, Brothers, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters. She then gave an overview of the situation and process followed. Kristen Maze said that 23 people attended from Sisters. Some areas had more than one session. The most stated goal was to protect rural character of the land; the least favorite was to allow provisions to add destination resorts. The consensus was that the impacts from destination resorts are not truly understood by the County. Another common theme was the use of water; and another was a mistrust of County and State land use laws. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, January 5, 2009 Page 5 of 14 Pages Commissioner Luke asked what cutoff lights are, as referenced in the documents. Ms. Maze said that they cover lights that need to shine down. Commissioner Luke stated that the County did allow funding for lights to be adjusted in this way. Tom Anderson said that there is still funding available for $50 rebates for the purchase of compliant lights. There are still occasional Code enforcement complaints on this. The dark sky ordinance and options are available on the Community Development webpage. Ms. Maze stated that a common theme was that the County doesn't understand the true impacts of destination resorts. They were also concerned about the enforcement of existing bonds and development at destination resorts, and feel that this is not being addressed. Staff has been meeting with citizens to discuss some concerns further. Commissioner Luke said that notices went out in tax bills. Ms. Maze stated that these just went to those in the unincorporated areas. Other outreach was done as well. Ms. Maze stated that there are more meetings planned. They are trying to obtain a grant from DLCD to assist in getting more detail on some issues. They would like to get a survey done to contact others who don't always show up at meetings. They are working with DLCD on wildlife maps as well. A State process may be needed to clarify this. New chapters will be written soon and brought before the steering committee for clarification. This process should be done by 2010, at which time the findings will come to the Board for review and approval. Commissioner Luke asked what the plan is for working on this issue with the Commissioners. Ms. Maze stated that they'd like to start this later in the year. Commissioner Luke would like to see the chapters as proposed when they are ready, rather than having the whole document come at once. Ms. Maze said that some chapters may reflect on or refer to others and it may be better if they can be reviewed at the same time. Commissioner Luke asked if there has been any movement in regard to Terrebonne trying to become a city. Dave Kanner said that there have been discussions on this being on the ballot in 2012. Mr. Lelack stated there seems to be some interest in moving forward. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, January 5, 2009 Page 6 of 14 Pages Alan Unger said he is distressed with concerns about the County land use process. He said the City of Redmond spent a long time working on land use policies and the comprehensive plan with citizens. People don't really get engaged right away; he asked how he can become more involved. Ms. Payne said that it is on the County website, with meeting dates, minutes and all of the documents. She asked if the chapters can be e- mailed to the Board or if they want to have a work session as needed. Commissioner Luke asked that the documents be e- mailed with a work session to follow. There was consensus of the Board in this regard. In regard to destination resorts, the map of where they might be located is being reviewed. Commissioner Luke said that even if something is mapped, it may not necessarily be allowed due to other constraints. The legislature eliminated periodic review language so that Counties could work on this issue at any time. Ms. Payne explained that there is a list of places where it is felt that destination resorts are appropriate. The smallest was 390 acres in size. Commissioner Luke stated that remapping was addressed in the past, but it was when Measure 37 was an issue. Much of the land now zoned for destination resorts is not appropriate for a number of reasons. Ms. Craghead said that caution needs to be taken so that property is not subject to a possible taking of the land. Commissioner Luke stated the owners would have to prove that they lost value. Ms. Payne stated that there is criteria regarding unmapping certain areas. One way is to take off the map anything that is 160 acres or less with no contiguous areas under the same ownership. The way it works now is that an economic study is required, but it is uncertain what should be done with this information. An alternative is to hire an expert to review them. A point system could be set up as well, and could allow for balance. It is hard to explain but it fairly easy to evaluate once the information is obtained. A process still needs to be established. Commissioners Luke said that if someone is advised that their property might be taken out; do they have any recourse. He asked what happens if people can combine property. He favors contacting all and eliminating any properties that really don't fit. Mr. Lelack said that some may be in an urban reserve area or UGB that might come off the map eventually anyway. Ms. Payne added that some are in wildlife areas that may not be suitable either. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, January 5, 2009 Page 7 of 14 Pages Commissioner Baney said that if the overlay is being removed, it seems confusing. Ms. Craghead stated that they would not be asked if they want to be removed. Commissioner Luke said that some are in subdivisions or otherwise are not acceptable for destination resorts and will never be. Commissioner Baney said that if a property is mapped but there is a wildlife overlay, it seems that the County would be open for dispute in this regard. She does not want to see property lose value. Commissioner Luke said that if a letter was sent out and they don't object, it should be allowed. Commissioner Unger asked why this is not being discussed in light of the comprehensive plan update. There are a lot of aspects to be considered and a lot of moving parts. He would like to see more stakeholder meetings. Commissioner Luke said that the County spends a lot of time on these issues and some end up at LUBA and are remanded to the County. There is a lot of planning when a destination resort is considered but this does not keep appeals from happening. Ms. Payne stated that this was done as part of the comprehensive plan update. From staff perspective, these really can't be separated out. There is not consensus on the remapping at this time. The ideas will be presented to the community, with information to come back to the Board. Commissioner Baney asked if someone applies for a destination resort, would remapping come in at a point when their intent is shown. She feels that there are inadequate policies and procedures in place now. Ms. Craghead said that remapping requires procedures. Commissioner Baney confirmed that someone cannot apply to remap until there are procedures in place. Commissioner Baney said that a matrix would be very helpful so that options can be considered before the information goes to the stakeholders. Commissioner Luke pointed out that the school districts and others do have input because of the amount of revenue generated by destination resorts with little impact. The revenue of destination resorts allows the County to do a lot of things that otherwise could not be done. However, the numbers appear far too big but that is because they show properties that cannot be developed in that fashion anyway. Ms. Payne stated that a matrix can be developed and options can be discussed with the Board, along with the process to get the project done. A work session will be scheduled within the next few weeks to review this information. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, January 5, 2009 Page 8 of 14 Pages 6. Before the Board was a De Novo Hearing on a Proposed Zone Change from Forest Use F -1 to Forest Use F -2 for a Parcel (Approximately 179.49 Acres) Located West of Highway 97 and South of Sunriver (Applicant: Belveron Real Estate Partners). Chair Baney read the opening statement at this time. In regard to bias, prejudgment, ex parte contacts, and prior hearing observations, Commissioner Luke said he has only talked with staff on this issue. Commissioner Unger stated that he has only spoken with staff. He did do a drive -by of the property. Commissioner Baney said she has talked with staff only. There were no challenges. Commissioner Luke asked about allowing the proponents to respond to testimony, or allowing testimony to alternate between opponents and proponents. Ms. Craghead said that there is no requirement that the procedure stay the same. Commissioner Baney indicated no preference in this regard. Commissioner Unger said he feels that there should be some options in taking testimony, but not to the point where it becomes a conversation that can go on and on. Chair Baney opened the public hearing at this time. Will Groves pointed out the property on an oversized map. The subject property was auctioned off by the Forest Service several years ago. Adjacent property was rezoned from F -1 to F -2; the owner of this property has asked for the same. The Forest Service feels that this is not commercial forest anymore and is not suitable for National Forest use. Mr. Groves explained the differences between F -1 and F -2, as listed in the comprehensive plan. The parcel does not fit as to use, access, public facilities available or size per the Forest Service and comprehensive plan. This property is not under forest management at this time. Commissioner Luke asked if the right to farm legislation fits this property. He believes there is no right to forest law in place. Mr. Groves said that no development application has been filed but a variety of uses, including a future destination resort, are possible, if rezoned. A lot could be created for tax purposes; this is not a land use action. Sometimes this does not happen at the time a legal lot of record is created, but a legal lot of record is needed. However, when the federal government conveys property it is understood this includes a legal lot of record, as federal law takes precedence over local law. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, January 5, 2009 Page 9 of 14 Pages However, Hearings Officers have found that a zone change may not require a legal lot of record. Ms. Craghead stated that this decision found that this is a legal lot of record, but may need to be decided later. The federal action is supposed to comply with local law. Mr. Groves stated that under current thinking this might not be a legal lot of record. Commissioner Luke asked what the process is to become a legal lot of record. Mr. Groves replied that this depends on the parent parcel and the timeframe. The minimum lot size for F -1 or F -2 is 80 acres. It has to be a legal lot of record before applying for another use. He feels that if it is not a legal lot of record, it was handed over from the federal government and the agency would have to partition it from other properties. Ms. Craghead said that the Board previously approved other parcels when this information was not known and these previous decisions cannot be readdressed. The Board can choose to determine that a legal lot of record does not need to be decided prior to changing the zoning There is no land use action before the Board at this time, so this can be addressed at a later date. Mr. Groves said that he received an e-mail from Nunzie Gould asking that this decision be delayed until the comprehensive plan and destination resort mapping issues are finalized. He said that this property is not currently mapped, nor is there an application and, therefore, a resort would not be allowed at this time. There was no opposition voiced at the Hearings Officer's hearing. Liz Fancher, an attorney representing the applicant, said that in regard to the lot of record issue, she agrees that it is appropriate to find that this is not needed at this time. She disagrees with the decision of the Hearings Officer in this regard. It is legal to convey a document if the federal government does it; therefore, it is a legal lot and no land division is necessary. The decision of both Hearings Officer is that the transaction is a legal one, free from interference from local government. She feels that this issue is not relevant at this time. Commissioner Luke noted that the Division of State Lands took a piece of property located south of the Fairgrounds from the BLM. The DSL is looking to transfer that property to the County. This would not be a legal lot of record. Ms. Craghead agreed this is the case. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, January 5, 2009 Page 10 of 14 Pages Ms. Fancher said that the action taken by the federal government does not require a separate action dividing the property off the other. It is lawful for the federal government to convey property but cannot promise development rights. That is the point when the local government comes in. Commissioner Luke said that he feels this puts a cloud over a lot of other properties. He would like to see briefs on both sides of this. Ms. Craghead said that she would prefer seeing this at a later date; perhaps at the development stage. There is a deadline on this particular issue. Ms. Fancher said that it is not relevant at this point but may be in the future. The property was in private ownership at some point and a lot of record might be established, but it will take time to research this issue. Ms. Craghead stated that a lot of record is not a criteria for this zone change. No development can happen until they prove that it is a legal lot of record anyway. Commissioner Luke wants to see resolution to this question as soon as possible. Ms. Fancher stated that this is not relevant at this time and LUBA would not look at this aspect in an appeal. It will be a matter to decide eventually so that her clients can decide what to do with the property at some point. Ms. Fancher distributed a map of the property and referred to an oversized map, explaining the history and use of the parcel and the area. Most of the land is within an exceptions area. The change in zoning to F -2 would not change potential uses at all from F -1 zoning. Her clients do not want to address potential development options at this point. Commissioner Baney clarified that the Board is only considering a zone change at this point and not anything having to do with development issues. Commissioner Luke suggested that the Division of State Lands and the Attorney General might want to look at this issue and decide if this has an impact. Carol McBeth of 1,000 Friends of Oregon referred to the oversized map, which shows F -1 properties. She said that on page 10 of the staff report, differences between F -1 and F -2 are detailed. This parcel does not have residences on it, and is larger than 160 acres. There is other F -1 lands nearby. A highway or railroad should not keep it from being F -1 land. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, January 5, 2009 Page 11 of 14 Pages On page 5 of the staff report, the Forest Service said that it could not be suitably managed as part of the National Forest, which is not the same as being a forest use. She believes that it could be a good purchase by a forest user. She feels that this is an important time to weigh in on F -1 and F -2 uses. It is not under forest management, but this should not be relevant. It is part of a domino effect, and somewhere the forest needs to begin and end. Commissioner Luke asked if this property is any different than the property to the north that is now F -2. Ms. McBeth said this is more surrounded by forest than the other piece. On a pie chart is shows more forest use. Commissioner Luke asked why Ms. Beth didn't testify before the Hearings Officer. Ms. McBeth said she is the only one in her office and this was overlooked. Ms. McBeth said that she would like to be able to brief this in regard to how federal land is conveyed. She said that she and Paul Dewey have submitted information on this situation in the past. Commissioner Luke stated that he would like to see an Attorney General decision on this issue at some point. Ms. Fancher said the property is not surrounded by Forest Service; and except for one small parcel, all of the local property is privately owned. One adjacent property is near the railroad and a highway and cannot be effectively utilized. Most of the property is in the landscape management zone as well. The Hearings Officer looked at the broader view and the impact to parcels in the immediate area. Mr. Groves said that the decision to the north addressed a lot of the concerns brought up by Ms. McBeth, and this is in the record. No further testimony was offered, so the record was closed. Commissioner Unger said that it is clear to him that an F -2 zone is appropriate in this case. He feels that when the federal government wants to sell property, it should go to the State before going into private ownership, but that is not the process at this point. Commissioner Luke agreed. This was addressed previously on an adjacent parcel. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, January 5, 2009 Page 12 of 14 Pages LUKE: Move approval of the Hearings Officer's decision with the exception of the lot of record issue, which will likely be addressed at a future date. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9 -1 -1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9 -1 -1 County Service District. This item will be addressed at the Wednesday, January 7 business meeting. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION /4 -H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension /4 -H County Service District. This item will be addressed at the Wednesday, January 7 business meeting. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County. This item will be addressed at the Wednesday, January 7 business meeting. 10. Before the Board were Additions to the Agenda. None were offered. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, January 5, 2009 Page 13 of 14 Pages Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 12:55 p.m. DATED this 5th Day of January 2009 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: f67 ecording Secretary 1 1-)Tammy ey, Chah Dennis R. Luke, Vice Chair Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, January 5, 2009 Page 14 of 14 Pages IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: V\ ; w 11:(, Mailing Address: Phone #: E-mail Address: Date: / Subject: IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: L i -- c. t-t -12--> Mailing Address: 6M 1,1w -e7v-es, Phone #: s- ' - s85 - 50C' j E -mail Address: C %z�- Date: l /5/c Subject: 14e--, (r '-t 40 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: DT A 07-7-1 Rock- Mailing Address: . 7a, .7- ,yee,9, iz . eirti f of a ��y Phone #: 4/441 E -mail Address: Date: /- Subject: J,, ?y' /4 /O< k, Ae3 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: (tot_ c4�4� Mailing Address: His p �'GUM/r br,-1' soAvfficA --� X 9” Phone #: 3 F z - 9 c E -mail Address: c <---e(0rez--1� Date: / /s -1/43 i Subject:. ./- F2 rcj Community Development Department Planning Division Building Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701 -1925 (541) 388 -6575 FAX (541) 385 -1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or. us \cdd Memorandum # 2 TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner and Staff DATE: December 17, 2008 MEETING: January 5, 2008 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update / Quarterly Report BACKGROUND The purpose of this memo is to update the Board of County Commission regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update process. Outlined below is the public outreach completed during the initial stage of this two year process. This public outreach and data gathering phase is projected to continue until July 2009 (Attachment 1: Steering Committee Schedule). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Deschutes County is initiating an update of the adopted comprehensive plan, the set of goals and policies that guide land conservation and development. These goals and policies are developed from an analysis of existing conditions /trends and community input and must comply with the 19 Statewide Planning Goals. STEERING COMMITTEE The Planning Commission is acting as a Steering Committee for the plan update, reviewing the existing chapters of the comprehensive plan and hearing from the public on what other policies coup d be considered as part of the plan. On August 28, 2008, growth and community involvement were discussed at a joint meeting with the Board of County Commission and Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee. Since that time, the Steering Committee has had four further discussions as detailed below. September 25, 2008: Farm and Forest discussion Panels were put together for the farm and forest discussions, to hear from experts in the field. The farm panel included: Jon Jinnings Regional Representative, DLCD Dana Martin Staff Chair, Central Oregon Small Acreage, OSU Extension Services Henry Lewis Local farmer Rick Leper Crop Analyst for Round Butte Seed Summary: • Commercial farming is difficult in Deschutes County because yields are low and uncompetitive • Low yields are based primarily on the climate and the short growing season. Comprehensive Plan Update Memo # 2 • Future farming will likely be hobby farming, niche farming, alternative energy production • Water use should be integrated into land use planning and consider in- stream flows • Look at rural renewable energy enterprise zones as an incentive to maintain large agricultural lands. • Weed eradication should be considered for farm land that no longer maintains irrigated pasture. The forest panel included: Jon Jinnings Joe Stutter Stu Otto John Allen Stephen Fitzgerald Regional Representative, DLCD County Forestry Specialist, Deschutes County Oregon Department of Forestry US Forest Service Silviculture and Wildland Fire, OSU Extension - Comments only Summary: • Forest's economic value is limited timber harvest, hog fuel, post poles etc. It is also managed for fisheries and wildlife habitat. • Trees in Deschutes County are mostly small immature logs that would not support the global market for timber sales. • Major issues for managing forests Water quality and quantity (aquatic habitat) Sustainable recreation Disconnect of most people from natural lands • Fire wise communities need to be part of the comprehensive plan • Development of forest lands significantly displaces wildlife. October 23, 2008: Rural Reserves and Destination Resorts discussion Rural Reserves and Destination Resorts • Staff introduced the idea of rural reserves, areas determined to have special rural value and protected from urban development pressures. • Destination resort re- mapping could be initiated, after proper notice to mapped owners and with their approval. • A process is needed to allow properties to be added. November 20, 2008: Rural Development, Housing, Economic Development, Urbanization and Natural Hazards discussion Rural Development and Housing • The goals are admirable, but the policies do not acknowledge what exists today. • The Rural Development and Housing policies are outdated. • Opportunity to grow should be included in these policies. Economy • Many of the economy policies are out -of -date and need revision. • The County should encourage smaller commercial centers in an effort to minimize vehicle trips and infrastructure impacts to the rural areas. Urbanization and Natural Hazards • Natural hazards mitigation plan needs to be incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan Update. Comprehensive Plan Update Memo # 2 • Deschutes County has good inter - jurisdictional cooperation with defensible space policies part o the zoning code December 18, 2008: Deschutes River Corridor and Fish and Wildlife discussion A panel has been put together for this river corridor fish and wildlife discussion: Dave lnbody Deschutes County Endangered Species Risk Assessment Coordinato • Ryan Houston Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Rick Demmer Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Jennifer O'Reilly U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LISTENING SESSIONS Six listening sessions were held around the county in October and November 2008 to hear from the community what is working and what needs attention. The county was divided into seven management areas for analysis and a meeting was held in a central location for each of the five areas with population. An additional meeting for the Northeast area was added since the originally scheduled session was on election day. • Sisters City Hall • Deschutes Services Center • Redmond School District • La Pine Senior Center • Brothers School • Terrebonne Community School A summary of the listening sessions is attached (Attachment 2). MEETINGS AND PRESENTATIONS Besides listening sessions, the county contacted 159 governmental and quasi - governmental agenc es and 28 community organizations with an offer to meet and discuss potential issues or lead a presentation and discussion with their group on comprehensive plan issues. The list below identifies; stakeholder meetings from August to December 2008. • 9 -9 -08 Project Wildfire presentation /discussion • 9 -17 -08 Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council meeting • 10 -6 -08 Central Oregon Irrigation District meeting • 10 -13 -08 Bend Municipal Airport Group presentation /discussion • 10 -14 -08 Central Oregon Real Estate Governmental Affairs Committee presentation /discussicn • 10 -15 -08 Bureau of Land Management meeting • 10 -16 -08 Community Wildfire Protection Plan presentation /discussion • 11 -13 -08 La Pine Fire District Board presentation /discussion • 11 -17 -08 Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, Deschutes River Conservancy meeting • 12 -4 -08 Video conference with Oregon Military Department OTHER OUTREACH • Coordinated with Senior Web Applications Developer, to develop a Comp Plan Update website including adding `blog' (e -mail) component (http: / /lava5. deschutes .orq /cdd /compplan /index.cfm Comprehensive Plan Update Memo # 2 • Staff have done interviews on the comprehensive plan and why it matters on Daybreak, Direct Connect, Good Morning Central Oregon and Inside Deschutes County. • A flyer was prepared with the Steering Committee schedule and mailed out to 42,500 households in the unincorporated county tax bills, sent to email lists and made available at the Community Development and Deschutes Services Center buildings. • A flyer was prepared for the listening sessions and sent to email lists including government and non - government agencies and the public located in the rural communities of each management area. The Flyer was also distributed at each listen session meeting, made available at the Community Development and Deschutes Services Center buildings and sent out as a press release to the numerous local newspapers. NEXT STEPS • Continue with the meeting topics outlined in the Steering Committee Schedule through 2009. • Provide quarterly progress of the Comprehensive Plan Update to the Board of County Commissioners. • In January and February hold community meetings to discuss issues in Terrebonne, Tumalo and Deschutes Junction. • In Spring 2009 begin with follow -up listening sessions in the five management areas to bring back what staff heard and address the changes that can be made within the limits of state statute. Attachments 1. Steering Committee Schedule 2. Listening Session Summary What do you value about Deschutes County? Recreational Opportunities? Community? Rural Lifestyle? Access to Nature? Deschutes County wants to know! What: Deschutes County is updating its land use policies in the County Comprehensive Plan Why it matters: The updated Comprehensive Plan policies will impact land use in Deschutes County for the next 20 years See the other side of this sheet to find out how your voice can be heard. Join the Conversation Deschutes County is initiating an update of its adopted Comprehensive Plan (Plan), the document that guides land use conservation and development. The Plan contains policies based on local conditions and community values and must comply with Statewide Planning Goals and regulations. In some cases, State regulations define the types of permitted land uses and lot standards. In other cases, there is considerable flexibility. The Deschutes County Planning Commission will act as the Steering Committee, holding one meeting per month on the Plan. Topics will be discussed at these meetings based on the schedule below. At each meeting State regulations will be identified along with current conditions, trends and our existing Plan policies. These meetings are open to the public and community input is encouraged. Date 8 -7 -08 8 -28 -08 9 -25 -08 10 -23 -08 11 -20 -08 12 -18 -08 1 -22 -09 2 -26 -09 3 -26 -09 4 -23 -09 5 -28 -09 6 -26 -09 7 -23 -09 Topic Work plan, schedule Growth, community involvement Farm and forest land Rural reserves and destination resorts Development: rural residential, urbanization, economy, housing, natural disasters Natural resources: rivers, riparian areas, wetlands, wildlife Environmental quality: water, air, land, energy Issue areas: Tumalo, Terrebonne, Deschutes Junction Transportation Public facilities and services Unincorporated communities: Sunriver, resort communities, rural service centers Resources: historic, parks and recreation, open space, surface mining Other as needed All meetings are scheduled to start at 5:30 p.m. Deschutes Services Center Barnes and Sawyer Rooms (first floor) at 1300 NW Wall Street Bend This schedule is subject to change What do you want Deschutes County to look like in 20 years? How should the Plan reflect community values? How should the County provide for anticipated growth? Are there issues you want to see addressed? For more information Visit the Deschutes County website at www.deschutes.orq /cdd and look for the Zink under comprehensive plan update, or contact staff listed below. Terri Hansen Payne Peter Gutowsky Peter Russell Kristen Maze terripdeschutes.orq petergdeschutues.orq peterr(c�deschutes.orq kristenmdeschutes.orq 385 -1404 385 -1709 383 -6718 383 -6701 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701 -1925 (541) 388 -6575 FAX (541) 385 -1764 http://www.co.desohutes.or.us\cdd Management Area Listening Sessions Summary Six listening sessions were held in October and November of 2008 to allow the public to discuss how well Deschutes County land use policies are working and what needs attention. Staff divided the county into seven Management Areas (MAs), two of which are primarily public lands, where the only houses are a handful of cabins. For the other five Management Areas a listening session was held in a central location. There was an additional meeting scheduled in Terrebonne for the Northeast Management Area because the first meeting for that area was scheduled on election evening. All meetings went from 6 -8 p.m. Date • 10 -28 • 10 -30 • 11 -4 • 11 -6 • 11 -12 • 11 -13 Management Area Northwest Central Northeast South East Northeast Location Sisters City Hall Deschutes Services Center Redmond School District Offices La Pine Senior Center Brothers School Terrebonne Community School Attendees 23 people 2 people 2 people 20 people 23 people 12 people Exercise At each listening session community members were invited to participate in an exercise. Six goals from our current comprehensive plan were set around the room on large sheets of paper and the audience was asked to place a purple dot on the sheet with their most favorite goal and a blue dot on the sheet with their least favorite goal. Results of Listening Session Exercise [PEHESIE PLAN "To preserve and enhance rural character, scenic values and natural resources of the county." MOST FAVORITE 29 LEAST' FAVORITE 1 "To maintain existing water supplies at present quantity and quality." 8 1 "To reserve and maintain agriculture land." 6 5 "To allow flexibility of housing location, type and density in Deschutes County." 3 11 "To conserve forest lands for forest uses." 2 0 "To provide for the development of destination resorts in Deschutes County." 1 48 Management Area Listening Sessions Meeting Notes At each meeting staff briefly discussed the comprehensive plan update process, then listened to the community. Notes were taken on large pads to assure the correct capture of ideas. At the Northwest Management Area meeting six written comments were handed to staff on the topic of destination resorts. These written comments as well as detailed notes from each session can be found at our website www.deschutes.org/cdd under comprehensive plan update. This is a brief rundown of the main issues discussed. Overall The issue of destination resorts was raised and discussed at every session. The overall consensus (with a few exceptions) was that we don't understand the impacts of resorts, can't enforce the resort regulations and should not allow more resorts. Another common theme was the need to protect water and other natural resources. A final common theme was mistrust and frustration with county land use and with county government in general. Northwest MA This discussion focused primarily on destination resorts and with one exception there was support for a moratorium on resorts and /or repealing the overlay map. Primary concerns included effects on water quantity /quality and fish/wildlife; the lack of understanding of the cumulative impacts of many resorts; the need for workforce housing; traffic; mitigations across jurisdictions and the inability of the county to enforce existing regulations. Suggestions • Enact a moratorium on destination resorts • Have resort applications address cumulative impacts from area resorts • Have applicants provide funding for the county to hire independent experts for impact analysis • Use bond money for funding studies on resorts, for land preservation or for mitigation and monitoring Central MA Concerns were noted over destination resorts, traffic congestion and crime. The county was urged to maintain rural areas and natural resources and to address fire hazards. Suggestion • Repeal the destination resort map • Create policies for addressing fire hazards • Trade county lands to obtain and preserve land along the rivers Northeast MA Water quality and quantity were a concern as were destination resorts, which use water and city services. It was noted that canals should not be piped as they are an historic resource and add moisture to the air and support wildlife, vegetation and quality of life. Suggestions • Balance individual and community rights and support agriculture • Create an internet site to match people wanting to farm with people who have land that could be farmed Pg 2 December 2, 2008 Management Area Listening Sessions South MA Concern was expressed over the south county position on the Planning Commission being held by someone not from south county. It was noted that the county should do a better job of enforcing dock requirements, since illegal docks affect water quality. A moratorium on destination resorts was recommended and various negative impacts from resorts were noted by many of the participants. A number of residents noted that south county residents feel like they have no control and are treated differently than residents in other parts of the county. It was stated that there are many problems in La Pine but also many involved and active residents. The negative impacts of resorts came up again. Comments were made on the importance of promoting local businesses. The local rule was discussed. Suggestions • Send out a questionnaire to understand community opinions on destination resorts • Enact a moratorium on destination resorts • Develop a code to encourage the use of graywater East MA Concern was expressed over the restrictiveness of the farm zoning in east county. It was noted that the overlay for wildlife is too restrictive and the required fencing does not work. Concern was expressed over the lack of respect for farmers shown by recreational hunters, hikers and motorcycle riders. The large size of the parcels makes it harder to watch over your property and posting doesn't help. Some noted that allowing more homes and a community would help wildlife and the additional children would allow the school to operate. Others objected to additional development. There were mixed opinions over whether to protect large ranches or allow them to subdivide. It was noted that the county needs better light requirements and enforcement to allow the observatory to operate. There were objections to the county land use processes and comments that the community does not trust the county. Suggestions • Amend fencing and wildlife overlay requirements • Require and enforce cut -off lights Northeast MA #2 It was noted that much EFU land is hard to farm. The importance to the community of natural resources was discussed. Concern was expressed because access to the river at Eagle Rock swimming hole has been closed. A discussion was held over water tables and the impacts of destination resorts. Various traffic concerns were noted, including the lack of enforcement of speed laws and no- parking zones. Suggestions • Protect natural resources and promote growth in urban areas • Before selling County -owned lands, engage in public outreach • Create water management plans • Coordinate with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Department of Forestry to protect natural resources and ensure logging of downed timber Pg 3 December 2, 2008 VANDEVERT ACRES SOUTH PO/NT OF BEGINNING E 1/16 -� Ca Ca N 00'40'13" £ 2656.83' 100' 50' Y 2 50' OFFSET 420' SPIRAL CURVE RT L- 199.05' CB -S 0452'09" w 199.05' S 20 5 21 N 89'45'20" W 702.00' 5 29 5 28 T 20 5, R 11 E NOTE: DIMENSIONS SHOWN PER C504418 AND C508890 DESCHUTES COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE RECORDS AND MONUMENTS OF RECORD FOUND EXHIBIT 'A PREPARED BY BAXTER LAND SURVEYING, INC. DESCHUTES COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP 20 -11 TAX LOT No. 104 DATE: 12/24/08 SHEE T P.O. BOX 7022 LOCATED IN SECTIONS 16, 17, 20 & 21, T. 20 5., R. 11 E., W. M. SCALE: 1" = 400' BEND, OREGON 97708 DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON DRAWN BY: TKC 1 OF 1 (541) 382 -1962 PAUL OOLAND/BELVERON REAL ESTATE PARTNERS LLC 750 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111 IL 104LEGAL.OwG DA TE: 12/24/08 SCALE: 1" - 400' CB -N N 2498'13' W 349.27' V..--3.3.00-FOOT N IDE EASEMENT L-157.64' V PER VOL. 241, PAGE 178 7'43'2 00' 7 01'43'28" w 153.59' l N 20'51'16" E / 194.42' ROAD VANDE ' E 3009.87' N 79'02'42 _ — - -33.00 -FOOT WIDE EASEMENT PER VOL. 173, PAGE 494 BLUE EAGLE ROAD E 1/16 S 8953'01" w 711.47' PINE RIVER ES TA TES VANDEVERT ACRES CE 1/16 N 00'40'49' E 2662.62' POMMY Of SE 1/4 TAX LOT 20 -11 No. 104 PORTION or w7/2 S0, S 174 S 16 S 20 - S21 <L i ,I 182.34 ACRES GROSS ti PownoN or E I/2 E v/2 E 1/4 50' OFFSET 380' SPIRAL CURVE LT L- 384,14' C8 -S 22 '01'30" W 384,03' 50' OFFSET ? JO' DC CIRCULAR CURVE LT L- 398.46' R- 2342.01' C8 -5 1359 35" W 397, 98' 50' OFFSET 380' SPIRAL CURVE LT L- 384.14' C8 -5 05'57'40" W 384.0.3' 5 08'09'48" W 16.36' 50' OFFSET .340' SP /RAL CURVE RT L- 3.36.74' C8 -S 09'24'14" W .336.67' 50' OFFSET 2'12' DC CIRCULAR CURVE RT L-355.51' R-2554.51' C8 -.5 15 '5324" W 355.22' 50' OFFSET 340' SPIRAL CURVE RT L■336.74' C8 -S 2222'34" W 336.67' Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701 -196() (541) 388 -6570 - Fax (541) 385 -3202 - www.deschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, JANUARY 5, 2009 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. ELECTION of Board Chair and Vice Chair for 2009 2. CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Citizens who wish to speak should sign up prior to the beginning of the meeting on the sign -up cards provided. Please use the microphone and also state your name and address at the time the Board calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing will NOT be included in the record of that hearing. 3. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2009- 001, Approving a Petition for Designation of Territory as "Lazy River West No Shooting District" — Doreen Blome', Community Development 4. DISCUSSION of the Status of the Comprehensive Plan Update — Terry Payne, Community Development 5. UPDATE regarding Status of Destination Resort Mapping Options — Terry Payne, Community Development 6. A DE NOVO HEARING on a Proposed Zone Change from Forest Use F -1 to Forest Use F -2 for a Parcel (Approximately 179.49 Acres) Located West of Highway 97 and South of Sunriver (Applicant: Belveron Real Estate Partners) — Will Groves, Community Development CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9 -1 -1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 7. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9 -1 -1 County Service District Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, January 5, 2009 Page 1 of 7 Pages CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION /4 -H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 8. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4 -H County Service District RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 9. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County 10. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7 -1 -1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388 -6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. FUTURE MEETINGS: (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388- 6572.) Thursday, January 1, 2009 Most County offices will be closed to observe New Years Day. Monday, January 5, 2009 8:30 a.m. Elected Officials Swearing -in Ceremony, Judge Sullivan's Courtroom 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, January 5, 2009 Page 2 of 7 Pages Tuesday, January 6, 2009 1:30 p.m. Budget Committee Overview and Update Wednesday, January 7, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, January 8, 2009 7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council, in Redmond Wednesday, January 14, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) 5:30 p.m. Annual Dinner with the Judges and Court Administrator Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:30 a.m. Regular Meeting with Commission on Children & Families' Board Monday, January 19, 2009 Most County offices will be closed to observe Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Tuesday, January 20, 2009 1:00 p.m. Health Department — Incident Command System Training for Executives Wednesday, January 21, 2009 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) 5:00 p.m. Public Hearing — Latham Mine Land Use Appeal Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:00 a.m. Administration/Board of Commissioners Annual Planning Retreat — Fair & Expo Center Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, January 5, 2009 Page 3 of 7 Pages Monday, January 26, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Sisters Council, Sisters City Hall Monday, February 2, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council) Wednesday, February 4, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) 5:00 p.m. Regular Meeting with City of La Pine Council — Midstate Community Room, La Pine Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Monday, February 16, 2009 Most County offices will be closed to observe President's Day. Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:00 noon Regular Meeting of Board and Department Directors Wednesday, February 19, 2009 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, January 5, 2009 Page 4 of 7 Pages Monday, February 23, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Monday, March 2, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday March 4, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday.`March 5, 2009 10:00 a.m. Regular Update with District Attorney 11:00 a.m. Regular Update with Community Development Department 1:30 p.m. Regular Update with Road Department Monday, March 9, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, March 11, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, January 5, 2009 Page 5 of 7 Pages Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council, in Redmond 11:00 a.m. Regular Update with Mental Health Department 1:00 a.m. Regular Update with Health Department Monday, March 16, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, March 18, 2009 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, March 19, 2009 10:00 a.m. Regular Update with Community Justice Department 1:30 p.m. Regular Update with Solid Waste Department Monday, March 23, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Fair & Expo Department 11:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Commission on Children & Families Monday, March 30, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, January 5, 2009 Page 6 of 7 Pages Wednesday, April 1, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Sisters Council, Sisters City Hall Monday, April 6, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7 -1 -1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388 -6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, January 5, 200( Page 7 of 7 Pages