Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-30 Work Session Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 30, 2014 Page 1 of 5 Pages For Recording Stamp Only Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2014 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Alan Unger. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, David Doyle and Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Nick Lelack and Kevin Harrison, Community Development; Anna Johnson, Communications; and two other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m. ___________________________ 1. Discussion regarding Thornburgh/Loyal Land Decision (July 2 Business Meeting). Kevin Harrison gave a brief overview of the item and referred to handouts (copies of which are attached for reference). Much of the focus is on condition #38. Some conditions have been met and are not in dispute. Others need to be decided by the Board, with the project viewed as a whole. The Hearings Officer defined ‘substantially exercised’. Direction from LUBA had to do with when construction is not required. The second part has to do with compliance. LUBA used the terms interchangeably. The Hearings Officer also used the terms interchangeably but the applicant feels they are distinctly different. The Board needs to decide which is appropriate. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 30, 2014 Page 2 of 5 Pages Regarding the two-year approval period, Mr. Harrison said it does not have a lot of sustentative meaning, depending on which decision is being referenced. All the information in the record shows the actions were done before the approval of the CMP. Item #3 on page 5 is defined by the Hearings Officer, and neither party offered an alternative explanation. Chair Baney asked if they are to interpret ‘fault’. Mr. Harrison stated it would apply to what is in Code. Laurie Craghead noted that this could be interpreted later in other cases. Mr. Harrison said that for staff purposes, this interpretation is binding on staff. The Hearings Officer’s latest decision includes verbatim language regarding this and other items. This is the single best resource. Item #6 has to do with conditions of approval, substantially exercised, including #38, the only one that was challenged. The Hearings Officer felt the applicant had substantially exercised the necessary process for this (wildlife management mitigation). It was found to be lacking but the Hearings Officer felt it had been substantially exercised before being challenged. Regarding #7, the standard of review and the effect of the LUBA decision come into play. Findings will define to some extent the scope of the Board’s review. Ms. Craghead feels that while these cases relate in some way, the other cases do not have a bearing. It would be a waste of time, money and resources to add an extra trip to LUBA. The Board can interpret the first round of the Hearings Officer’s decision on a declaratory ruling differently from LUBA. Commissioner Unger noted that sometimes the Board skips this option due to time constraints. Ms. Craghead said that once LUBA decides, the Board might not be able to undo what LUBA has decided. Chair Baney stated that the Board sometimes lets it go to LUBA anyway to expedite the process. She asked if the Board could challenge this. Ms. Craghead stated she would defend the decision. Commissioner Unger stated that they could argue this and see where it lands. Mr. Harrison said the Hearings Officer’s first decision recognized the three-step process. Some conditions applied to different steps. She found that those relative to the CMP were fully complied with. However, LUBA said she could not pick and choose which were relevant. They said all 38 conditions had to be met. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 30, 2014 Page 3 of 5 Pages Ms. Craghead says that only those should be relevant. The applicant lost the appeal, but wants the Board to review this and see if the conditions overlap. Commissioner DeBone stated that some do not make sense at the CMP level. Mr. Harrison stated that the second Hearings Officer’s decision said it does not make sense, either. Ms. Craghead stated the conditions of approval were not written in that fashion, either. Tom Anderson asked why they think LUBA will change its mind on this. Ms. Craghead noted that governing body deference applies. Some is code language and some is interpretation of conditions. Mr. Harrison said the language is similar to that of other desti nation resorts. Chair Baney said they might have been written differently if they had known this would be challenged. No one anticipated the lengthy timeframe and most others were a single step application. Commissioner Unger said it appears they need to address them all but make it clear some will be deferred to the FMP stage. Ms. Craghead stated they can do this but LUBA wants a public process. Mr. Harrison stated the question is whether some have been substantially exercised, such as the wildlife mitigation plan. Mr. Harrison referred to the section as to fault. They can consider whether some of the information was not available at the time to the Hearings Officer, such as the local and global economy, bankruptcy and changes in ownership and agency delays regarding the wildlife mitigation plan. The opponents argue all of those. Ms. Craghead said only the Board can open the record to add information, and the Hearings Officer’s hands were tied, as she could not. Whether conditions as a whole were substantially exercised is the next issue. In general terms, a land use approval is good for two years, with potential extensions. This CMP took seven years because of various delays and appeals. Ms. Craghead said that some has to do with vesting since some work had been done. There is the issue of abandonment, if nothing is done for a year. Mr. Harrison said there was an extension, then a LUBA decision that backdated the extension, they applied for another one at that time but the date had been changed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 30, 2014 Page 4 of 5 Pages Commissioner Unger stated that the work was done before either of those dates. Mr. Harrison stated that everything being discussed falls within the approval period. All the factors involved with fault happened between 2005 and 2011. Conditions of approval being fully exercised were reviewed by the Hearings Officer. She weighted the conditions and the Board can do the same. She felt some were more significant but not were completely complied with. Ms. Craghead said that conditions of approval were drafted by the original attorney and reviewed by staff, but did not receive a lot of scrutiny since the same process had successfully been completed for previous resorts. Mr. Harrison said the conditions can be addressed one at a time, or they can look at the issue of fault. Chair Baney feels the matrix will help them focus. Mr. Harrison said the road was constructed to the resort but no construction inside the resort. Some of this happens later in the process. The other question is if something has not been done, is it the fault of the applicant. Ms. Craghead said that the applicant feels the FMP could not begin due to the other factors. Commissioner Unger stated that it is difficult because why would they invest more if they cannot get through the first part and the appeals. Mr. Harrison stated the applicant makes this argument and has affidavits to present in that regard. Commissioner Unger asked about past Board actions and the overnight lodging issues, which often have been extended numerous times for other resorts. This was in part in response to the recession. Ms. Craghead said they had applied for extensions. Chair Baney would like to weight the conditions when possible. Mr. Harrison said a written decision is due by August 3, and staff will need direction soon. 2. Other Items. The Board discussed the State of the County/City event at the Chamber of Commerce in Sisters, what to talk about, and the Top Ten. ___________________________ The Board spoke about the Harper Bridge issue, river access and who should be responsible for what. Mr. Anderson stated that a study was done on the entire upper river system and there are few potential locations for a boat launch. Law enforcement is pushing hard to shut down the existing access outside of Sunriver due to safety concerns. The Commissioners observed that Sunriver and the La Pine Park & Recreation District could be involved, but there are those in both who do not want to embrace change. Commissioner Unger said he asked Central Oregon Mitigation to speak with the parties involved in Tumalo. No resolution has been reached. Dave Doyle said that the business association there can move forward with a monument sign. Mr. Anderson said ODOT approved the original sign application with the Community Association, but now the business group wants to take this up. Some individuals there may not want the signage at all. Being no forther items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m. DATED this ~Day of ~ 2014 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ~d Tammy Baney, Chair Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ATTEST: Alan Unger, Commissioner ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 30, 2014 Page 5 of 5 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., MONDAY, JUNE 30,2014 1. Discussion regarding Thornburgh/Loyal Land Decision (July 2 Business Meeting) Nick Lelack, Laurie Craghead 2. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS \92.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.66O(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other issues under ORS 192.660(2), executive session. Meeting dates. times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board o/Commissioners' meeting rooms at /300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, please call (541) 388-6571, or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker(a)deschutes.org. ",,I 1 ~ I I~, , N',. s:: , \ r, I I4.1 ! : ~ ( i '~I ~ Ul /\ I~ I + i "" OJ <tI c.. ...... o ......../....­ 1 LOYAL LAND DECISION MATRIX The critical questions in reviewing the Loyal Land application are: “Have the conditions of the permit or approval for the Conceptual Master Plan (CMP) for Thornburgh Destination Resort been substantially exercised and is any failure to fully comply with the conditions the fault of the applicant.” (DCC 22.36.020(A)(3)). If the application meets these criteria, then the CMP has been “initiated” and there is no expiration date for that approval. If the CMP has not been initiated, then the approval has expired and the resort has no land use entitlements. Issue Board Options Information in Record Staff Comment 1. Determine whether each of the 38 conditions of approval must be “substantially exercised” or must the 38 conditions of approval, when viewed as a whole, have been “substantially exercised”? The Board must choose the appropriate method of analysis. In LUBA No. 2012-042, LUBA found that the County had the option to determine the correct approach. The Hearings Officer made findings on DCC 22.36.020(A)(3) based on the conditions viewed as a whole. The parties did not contest that point. Sample motion for BOCC: “Move that the BOCC finds that the appropriate analysis is whether the conditions of approval contained in the CMP, when viewed as a whole, have been substantially exercised.” 2. Define the term “substantially exercised.” a. Adopt Hearings Officer’s definition. b. Adopt other definition. The Hearings Officer defined “substantially exercised” to mean “performing or carrying out a condition of approval to a significant degree but not completely.” This definition was not challenged by any party and was not disturbed by LUBA. Sample motion for BOCC: “Move that the BOCC adopt the Hearings Officer’s definition of ‘substantially exercised.’” 3. Reconcile dispute regarding the meaning of the words “exercise” and “comply” in DCC 22.36.020(A)(3): ‘Where construction is not required by the approval, the conditions of a permit or approval have been substantially exercised and any failure to fully comply with the conditions is not the fault of the applicant.’ a. Adopt Hearings Officer’s definition. b. Adopt Opponent’s definition. In LUBA No. 2012-042, LUBA gave the County the following instructions: “On remand…the Hearings Officer must be able to find both that the 38 conditions of approval, viewed as a whole, have been substantially exercised and that for any of the 38 conditions of approval where there has been a failure to fully exercise the condition, the applicant is not at fault.” (LUBA No. 2-12-042; p.20) In other words, LUBA viewed “exercise” and “comply” in the context of the code to mean the same thing. The Hearings Officer followed those instructions. (HO decision; p. 14) The Applicant argues that “exercise” and “comply” have different meanings in the context of the code. Exercise requires an act; comply means to obey. Therefore, the Applicant can be in full compliance even if no action has taken place with respect to a condition. (Applicant’s June 18, 2014 submittal; pages 4-5) The Opponent argues that Applicant’s assertions are not consistent with the LUBA decision and, because they were not presented during the LUBA appeal, are barred from this proceeding. (Opponent’s June 11, 2014 submittal; pages 6-7) Sample motion for BOCC: “Move that the BOCC adopt the Hearings Officer’s/Applicant’s usage of the terms “exercise” and “comply” in DCC 22.36.020(A)(3).” 2 Issue Board Options Information in Record Staff Comment 4. Determine the effective two-year approval period for the CMP. a. Use effective date determined by LUBA (11/18/11). b. Use original date determined by Hearings Officer (12/7/11). In LUBA No. 2012-042, LUBA recalculated the expiration date for the CMP as November 18, 2011. That date was not appealed, and has not been challenged in subsequent proceedings. As a practical matter, the two-year period is not really at issue because the evidence relative to whether the 38 conditions of approval were substantially exercised falls within the effective two-year period identified by the Hearings Officer or LUBA. Sample motion for BOCC: “Move that the BOCC find that all of the evidence presented in this matter, relative to the conditions of approval, fall within the effective two-year period.” 3 Issue Board Options Information in Record Staff Comment 5. Define the term “fault.” a. Adopt Hearings Officer’s definition. b. Adopt other definition. The Hearings Officer defined “fault” to mean “reasons for which the applicant was not responsible, including but not limited to, delay by a state or federal agency in issuing a required permit.” Neither party offered an alternative definition. Sample motion for BOCC: “Move that the BOCC adopt the Hearings Officer’s definition of ‘fault.’” 6. Review Hearings Officer’s findings as to conditions 1,14E, 23, 32 and 38. a. Adopt Hearings Officer’s findings, with or without modification. b. Adopt other findings. The Hearings Officer found that the applicant fully complied with conditions 1, 14E, 23 and 32, and substantially exercised condition 38. The parties did not challenge those findings, except with respect to condition 38. In summary, the Hearings Officer found that the applicant did not fully comply with condition 38 because it did not obtain final FMP approval during the initiation period; it substantially exercised the condition by submitting the required wildlife mitigation plan and defending its adequacy on appeal (HO decision; p. 43). The opponent challenges this finding because the wildlife mitigation plan was ultimately rejected by LUBA and the Court of Appeals (Opponent’s June 18 submittal; p.6). Sample motion for BOCC: “Move that the BOCC adopt the Hearings Officer’s findings as to conditions 1, 14E, 23, 32[and 38].” 4 Issue Board Options Information in Record Staff Comment 7. The Applicant requests that the Board overturn the existing Hearings Officer’s decision and replace it with her original decision, arguing that it is the better interpretation of the code, as it pertains to the destination resort approval process. The Opponent objects, asserting that the LUBA and Court of Appeals decisions effectively circumscribe the issues on remand and the scope of the Board’s review. The issue before the Board is to determine the effect of the LUBA and Court of Appeals decisions on the Board’s scope of review/admissible evidence. LUBA’s decision, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, was that, for any conditions that have not been fully complied with during the two-year approval period, the County can conclude that the CMP approval was initiated only if it finds, based on substantial evidence, that for such conditions, the “failure to comply with the conditions is not the fault of the applicant.” a. Follow reasoning presented by Opponent (Opponent’s submittal dated June 11, 2014). Some issues have already been decided by LUBA: Whether it is appropriate to consider compliance with all 38 conditions of approval or just those that it contends do not involve subsequent land use approvals like the FMP and final plats. Whether the provision “any failure to fully comply with the conditions must not be the fault of the applicant” applies to all of the conditions of approval or only those that the Hearings Officer in her first decision found relevant. Some issues are barred because they were not raised in the prior case: Applicant’s argument that “exercise” does not mean “compliance” was not raised before the Hearings Officer, or in subsequent appeals to LUBA or Court of Appeals. The Board’s ability to interpret its code is limited by LUBA and Court of Appeals decisions, and ORS 197.829 does not apply to the Court of Appeals. Interpretation of code also limited here because LUBA determined that the operative language to be applied is that which is found in the conditions of approval for the CMP. b. Follow reasoning presented by Applicant (Applicant’s submittal dated June 18, 2014). The Board is the final arbiter of what its own code means: ORS 197.829(1) provides that LUBA shall affirm a local government’s interpretation of its own land use regulations, with some exceptions. The Board has not determined what DCC The Hearings Officer found that the scope of the decision on remand is limited by LUBA’s decision to considering whether Thornburgh Destination Resort was initiated under Section 22.36.020(A)(3). Opponent objects to information presented by the Applicant in its presentation to the Board on June 4 on the grounds that the issues have either been resolved by LUBA and the Court of Appeals or were not raised below and, thus, not remanded. Opponent cites Beck v. City of Tillamook and Hatley v. Umatilla County (Opponent’s submittal dated June 11, 2014; pages 3-8). Objections include: Whether it is appropriate to consider compliance with all 38 conditions of approval or just those that do not involve subsequent land use approvals Whether the provision “failure to fully comply with the conditions must not be the fault of the applicant” applies to all of the conditions of approval or only those that the Hearings Officer in her first decision found relevant Applicant’s argument that “exercise” does not mean “compliance” Applicant’s argument for an exception to the Beck rule prohibiting raising new issues Applicant rebuts Opponents’ arguments in its June 18 submittal, citing Gage v. City of Portland, Siporen v. City of Medford and Canfield v. Umatilla County (Applicant’s submittal dated June 18, 2014; pages 1-4). Arguments include: The Board is the final arbiter of its own code (ORS 197.829(1) LUBA gives deference to the Board’s interpretation of it code as long as that interpretation is plausible The Court of Appeals shall affirm LUBA unless it found the order to be unlawful in substance or procedure (ORS 197.850(9)(a)) Applicant objects to Opponent’s testimony regarding comments made by former County Commissioners on the original CMP decision on the basis of impermissible attempt to re- litigate that approval. Those comments were critical of the application materials and questioned the completeness of the application. Applicant cites to Lord v. City of Oregon City (Applicant’s submittal dated June 18, 2014; p.7). 5 Issue Board Options Information in Record Staff Comment 22.36.020(A)(3) means. The Court of Appeals was required to affirm LUBA unless it found the order to be unlawful in substance or procedure (ORS 197.850(9)(a)). The Board is free to interpret DCC 22.36.020(A)(3) as long as its interpretation is plausible. c. Other. 8. Determine, as to each remaining condition of approval, whether it has been: Exercised Substantially Exercised If not exercised or substantially exercised, whether the Applicant is at fault. In LUBA No. 2012-042, LUBA gave the following relevant instructions: County must consider whether all of the 38 conditions of approval have been ‘substantially exercised.’ For those conditions that have not been substantially exercised, failure to do so is not the fault of the applicant. With respect to conditions of approval that provide ‘contingent or continuing obligations’, the County may find that any failure on the Applicant’s part to comply with such conditions is not the fault of the Applicant because the contingency that would trigger obligations under the condition does not and may never exist or the Applicant’s failure to obtain additional prerequisite land use approvals is not the Applicant’s fault. The Hearings Officer found that most of the CMP conditions of approval under consideration impose contingent obligations on the Applicant that did not occur before the CMP approval became void, and the Applicant’s failure to fully comply with contingent obligations was the Applicant’s fault. She found that she lacked authority to consider whether the Applicant substantially exercised most of the conditions with which the Applicant failed to fully comply because noncompliance was the Applicant’s fault (HO decision; pages 27-31). The Applicant asserts that all conditions of approval have been fully complied with but if the Board finds otherwise then any failure to fully comply with these contingent conditions of approval was not the Applicant’s fault because: Delay in the BLM approval of the wildlife mitigation plan. TRC’s bankruptcy proceedings and other economic considerations. Opponent’s appeals. Futility of initiating FMP remand. (Applicant’s Power Point presentation, June 4, 2014) The Opponent asserts that 22 conditions of approval have not been substantially exercised or fully complied with and failure to fully comply with these contingent conditions of approval was the Applicant’s fault because: Mitigation measures on BLM land could have been resolved prior to submitting the CMP and/or resolved between February 2011 and December 2012 (Opponent’s submittal dated June 11, 2014; pages 9-10). The financial difficulties experienced by TRC predate the bankruptcy proceedings and the effects of the recession. Opponent’s appeals tolled the expiration date of the approval and Opponent cannot be blamed for Applicant’s delay in initiating the FMP remand. Applicant had one year and nine months to initiate FMP remand and failure to do so Refer to attachment showing all 38 conditions of approval, color coded pursuant to Hearings Officer’s decision. 6 Issue Board Options Information in Record Staff Comment was the Applicant’s fault. 9. Determine whether the conditions of approval, when viewed as a whole, have been substantially exercised. a. The conditions of approval, when viewed as a whole, have been substantially exercised. b. The conditions of approval, when viewed as a whole, have not been substantially exercised. The Hearings Officer found that 22 conditions and portions thereof were not fully complied with and that such failure was the Applicant’s fault. The Hearings Officer found that the appropriate analysis under the “viewed as a whole” approach requires the County to determine whether the destination resort approval conditions as a whole have been exercised to a significant degree, and that determination necessarily requires an evaluation of the significance of conditions relative to the overall development. The Hearings Officer found that 7 of the 15 conditions of approval that were fully complied with (Conditions 9, 13, 14A, 14B, 22, 36 and 37) require only notations on the FMP, revisions to and filing of CC&Rs, modification of a density chart and coordination with the Sheriff. In contrast, she found the other 8 conditions (3, 8, 10, 11, 15, 19, 24 and 30) are relatively more significant because they require more substantive action to develop the resort (obtaining right-of-way, water rights, state permits and approvals, well agreements, fire district annexation, submitting and obtaining county approval of detailed and complex plans for traffic circulation and fire protection). Ultimately, the Hearings Officer found that she cannot conclude the CMP conditions of approval have been substantially exercised because only 8 of these 15 conditions fully complied with required significant action by the applicant relative to the overall destination resort development. The Hearings Officer also found that 4 additional conditions of approval had been fully complied with (Conditions 1, 14E, 23 and 32). The Hearings Officer found these conditions did not require significant action by the Applicant. Two require new land use approvals if the approved CMP or open space are changed. The other two simply put the Applicant on notice of what was not approved by the CMP. The Hearings Officer found the remaining 22 conditions of approval and portions thereof with which the Applicant either failed to fully comply or did not substantially exercise required the majority of significant actions necessary to develop the resort- i.e., securing subdivision plat and site plan approvals and constructing the resort elements and amenities (HO decision; pages 44-47). The Applicant argues: Only those conditions that could be exercised before FMP approval or concurrently with an FMP are relevant. Here, every one of those conditions has been fully exercised. If full exercise exists, then substantial exercise also necessarily exists. Forty of the 41conditions have been fully exercised or are fully complied with, and condition 41 has been substantially exercised. There is no condition for which substantial exercise was permissible, but has not yet occurred. When the applicant has either fully or substantially exercised every condition possible, and is in full compliance with the rest, substantial exercise of the conditions as a whole must exist. The Board can give more or less weight to any particular condition; the Board needs to make this determination by considering all approval conditions relative to each other and their importance to the project. Sample motion for BOCC: “Move that the BOCC find that when viewed as a whole the approval conditions in the CMP have/have not been substantially exercised.” 7 Issue Board Options Information in Record Staff Comment Substantial exercise exists if every condition that could have been exercised by this point in the process has been exercised. This is 20 of 41 conditions, almost 50%. The Hearings Officer erred in giving greater weight to some conditions over others. Finally, any failure to fully comply with those 22 remaining conditions of approval is not the Applicant’s fault, as described under Issue #7, above. (See Applicant’s final argument dated June 25, 2014) Community Development Department Planning DivIsion BuIlding s.r.ty Division Envll'Ol1lYlltflbll SolIs DivIsion P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: May 22,2014 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner RE: Ordinance Text Amendment submitted by Central Oregon Irrigation District (File No. TA-13-4) BACKGROUND: Central Oregon Irrigation District (COlD) applied for an ordinance text amendment to amend Deschutes County Code Title 19, Chapter 19.20, Suburban Low Density Residential Zone (SR­ 2.5), to add the following use to the list of Permitted Uses in 19.20.020: E. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District, except as provided in Dee 18.120.0501, According to COlD, the text amendment will allow the piping of the existing Pilot Butte Canal located within the SR-2.5 zone, to serve their hydro-electric facility located approximately 3 miles to the north. Creating more water pressure for water flow for the facility will increase the output of the hydro plant. The water saved by piping (no leakage or evaporation) will be dedicated to in-stream flows for the Middle Deschutes River. Due to the amount of interest and testimony that was generated by this application, three hearings2 were held before the Deschutes County Planning Commission on this request. The hearings were conducted on: February 13, March 13, and March 27, 2014. Additionally, the Planning Commission conducted a site visit to the proposed canal piping area on the afternoon of March 2th before the hearing. There was approximately 8 hours of testimony over these three hearings, and the record includes many letters and other documents, including pictures, that were submitted in opposition to the request. There is an extensive written record on the text amendment, which can be viewed on the County's website3 • There was a substantial amount of opposition to the request. Staff believes that the main concerns expressed by property owners who would be affected by the proposed piping were: J The applicant's proposal referenced DCC 18.120.050, which is part of Title 18 not Title 19. If the Board were to approve the requested amendment, staff believes the reference should be to DCC 19.92.130. 2 The first hearing included notice in the Bulletin as required under DCC 22.12.020(A). The next two hearings were continuations of the first hearing and were not noticed. However, statements were made by the Planning Commission chairperson indicating that the hearing was continued to a particular date. 3 http://lava5.deschutes. orglresearchlindex.cfm ?fuseaction=research. getAII Docs&pid= 171232A C03600 Quality Services Perfonned with Pride • Diminished property values from having a stream-like feature adjacent to their property being replaced by a very large pipe covered by soil (and possibly wire fencing to prevent access and vandalism). • Loss of open space and views, as well as wildljfe habitat, by installation of the large pipe and soil covering. The large size of the pipe (9-foot diameter), combined with the soil covering (3 feet deep) will negatively impact views. • The proposed text amendment request should be conducted on an urban growth boundary basis, rather than just the SR-2.5 zone (I.e. a holistic approach to reviewing piping within the UGB). • The proposed piping project deals exclusively with providing more water pressure for the hydro-electric facility, and has little to do with water conservation. • The proposed text amendment will not get the applicant the desired outcome -the piping, because it is directly related to the hydro plant (I.e. the piping would require a conditional use permit approval because it is part and parcel of the hydro facility). • The proposal did not meet the applicable BAGP goals, policies or language. The proposed text amendment is reviewed for conformance with the Bend Area General Plan (BAGP). Staff provided the Planning Commission with the attached matrices for their use during deliberations. While not specifically listing certain goals or policies of the BAGP, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to deny the applicant's request, finding that it was not in compliance with the Plan. Additionally, Commissioner Turner was not able to attend the deliberations, but expressed in writing his opinion that the piping was part of the hydro plant that requires a conditional use permit, and that the proposal did not meet the BAGP policies. PROCESS The Planning Commission, under DCC 22.12.010, is required to review the proposed legislative change. Staff determined that a public hearing should be held, and noticed of the initial hearing was printed in The Bulletin. Notice of the Board's hearing will also be provided. Attached for your review is a copy of the proposed text amendment request. Additionally, staff is including the memo and matrices prepared by staff for the Planning Commission. I am also providing you with two maps that show where the SR-2.5 zone is located, along with the Pilot Butte Canal. Again, there is a substantial amount of written material, all of which can be reviewed (and printed) at your convenience. I have scheduled this for the Board's work session on June 16, 2014 for discussion, and a public hearing (an evening hearing) for July 2, 2014. Depending upon the amount of testimony received, a second hearing date may be necessary. If you should have any questions. feel free to contact me at your convenience. BOCC Memo (TA-13-4) Page 2 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P. O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541}388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cddt MEMORANDUM DATE: May 2,2014 TO: Deschutes County Planning Commission FROM: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner Nick Lelack, Community Development Director RE: TA-13-4 Deliberations SUMMARY The purpose of this agenda item is for the Planning Commission to conduct deliberations on Central Oregon Irrigation District's (COlD) Text Amendment (TA-13-4). COlD applied to amend Section 19.20.020 of Title 19 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC) to add as a permitted outright use in the SR-2.5 zone, the "operation, maintenance and piping of existing irrigation systems." The Planning Commission held three hearings on the proposed text amendment on February 13, March 13, and March 27, 2014. In addition, the Planning Commission conducted a site tour of the proposed piping area on March 27. This is a policy decision to determine whether TA-13-4 complies with and implements the Bend Area General Plan (BAGP). This policy decision involves interpretations of the BAGP since the BAGP does not explicitly address piping existing canals. Per the Planning Commission's direction on April 24, please find attached: two matrices to aid the Commission in determining the applicability of BAGP goals and policies to this application, and whether TA-13-4 complies with them or not. The Planning Commission may vote to recommend approval or denial of TA-13-4 at this meeting or continue deliberations to May 22. DCC TITLE 19' Please find below the "purpose" of Title 19, which identifies the BAGP as the basis for evaluating TA-13-4. , http:/twww.deschutes.org/County-Code.aspx?F=chapter+19.04.pdf. (Ord. 83-041 §1, 1983) Quality Services Perfonned 'With Pride 19.04.020. Purpose. A. DCC Title 19 has been designed in accordance with the goals, pOlicies and statements of intent of the Bend Area General Plan, the officially enacted comprehensive plan for the City of Bend and its environs. It is the general purpose of DCC Title 19, therefore, to provide one of the principal means for implementation of the Bend Area General Plan. B. DCC Title 19 is designed to classify, designate and regulate the location and use of buildings, structures and land for residential, commercial, industrial or other uses in appropriate places and for said purposes; to divide the Bend Urban Area into districts of such number, shape and area as may be deemed best suited to carry out these regulations and provide for their enforcement; to encourage the most appropriate use of lands; to conserve and stabilize the value of natural resources; to provide adequate open spaces for light and air and prevention of fire; to prevent undue concentrations of population; to lessen congestion of streets; to facilitate adequate provisions for community utilities, such as transportation. water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare. C. To regulate placement, height and bulk of buildings, and the placement and growth of vegetation within the County to insure access to solar energy by reasonably regulating interests in property within the County. as authorized under ORS 215.044 and ORS 105.880 through 105.890; to promote and maximize the conservation of energy by preserving the option to utilize solar energy and to implement the Comprehensive Plan policies relating to solar energy. D. To encourage the design of new buildings, structures and developments which use solar energy and protect future options to use solar energy by protecting solar access. MATRICES Please find attached are two matrices. The first matrix is intended to serve as a tool to help the Planning Commission determine the applicability of BAGP goals and policies to this application, and whether TA-13-4 complies with them. The second matrix can assist the Commission in determining whether TA-13-4 complies with the applicable goals and policies or not. This matrix is intended only to be high level summary, and the actual record should be reviewed. Testimony on BAGP compliance can generally be found in the following five parts of the record: 1. Elizabeth A. Dickson's testimony on behalf of COlD at the first public hearing. She specifically addressed how COlD believes TA-13-4 complies with BAGP goals and policies. Steve Johnson also provided a PowerPoint presentation at the third public hearing. 2. Bruce White's letter dated February 12, 2014 in which he specifically addresses TA-13-4 and the BAGP goals and policies. Mr. White referenced four goals/policies of the BAGP. 3. Pat Kliewer's letter of March 27, 2014 in which she addresses certain BAGP language and poliCies. 4. Jeff Perrault's two Power Point gresentations on the hydrologic impacts of the proposed piping, at the March 13th and March 27 hearings. -2­ 5. A significant amount of both oral and written public testimony, including photographs and Power Point presentations, regarding items in the BAGP such as: preserving neighborhoods for living, preserving water resources and wildlife habitats, protecting open space and natural features, retaining major canals as an asset to the community, but not directed at specific policies or language. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Following deliberations at this meeting, the Commission may: 1. Vote to recommend approval or denial ofTA-13-4. Commissioners should state the reasons/justifications for the recommendation for the record (captured in the meeting minutes). 2. Continue deliberations to May 22. -3­ Attachments: 1. BAGP Goals and Policy Matrix 2. Testimony Matrix -4­ _ _ BAGP Goal$~n~P(;mcies . ,~' > .__ >~:' ,>,':~1t~~~~Jr: ;.';:::;.~ :" \,', ',"_ . ,_ /" >c' :<rF:::::~'i;'" .Appnt~b(~JQje~t:'i,i:~ .':Ifapplicable, do~stext ameridme'nt?": .... -'3,jnendmentcomply,?, .' .YIN,,"""";::"""'." .' YIN The goals set forth below provide general guidance for improving the character and quality of the Bend area as growth occurs. In addition to these goals, most of the other chapters in the Plan include goals that are specific to the chapter topic. Neighborhoods -Create and preserve attractive neighborhoods for living. co~m;:ity Natural Beauty and Heritage-Protect and enhance Bend's natural beauty noting (pa;e 1-1) especially the trees, rocks, rivers, view, sounds and historic structures. Appearance of Structures -Ensure that the "built environment" is as attractive as feasible. Quality Economic Growth -Assure an opportunity for a stable, vital and diverse economy while sustaining its environmentlecologicalsupport systems. to provide land for recreational uses such as hiking, photography, bicycling, jogging, or fishing; Natural to preserve water resources, riparian areas, and wildlife habitats; Features and Open to shape the urban development and provide visual relief from developed land; Space to encourage environmental awareness so that citizens will become stewards of our Goals 1 natural areas; and(Page 2-2) to support the coordinated efforts of public agencies, private organizations and individuals to preserve and enhance the area's natural features and open space. 11. The city and county shall partiCipate with other governments, special districts, non­Natural profit organizations, land trusts, interested businesses, and citizens in protectingFeatures open space.and Open Space 16. The Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District shall acquire strategic areas alongPolicies rivers, streams, and canals to protect and conserve scenic, recreational, and natural(Page 2-12) values, and make such areas accessible to the community. 1 http://www.bend.or.uslmodules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=4078. Open space is clearly a broad term that can apply to many types of undeveloped and improved land. Page 2-3. Table 1 in the BAGP describes six types of "open space" that exist to a greater or lesser degree within the urban area. Irrigation canals are provided as an example of corridor or linear open space. Page 2-4. t * ; ti!il & ; Ji£4!WAhi.AUlMI :'Review :Criteria ' ";~~!~;a~;~~'rJd"~6i1~i~ · The city and county shall establish a water conservation committee including, but · " . "'.,"'>;;,,,),.~:,',;;i·;;:l~~~f:':,";:':· '\App.licable~~'tfJxt If applicable.'dQfJ~;:~~;; amendment';colnpIY1: ',;;~a~~;Y}~;~nt?". YIN' ,,~(: not limited to, local representatives from the irrigation districts, Department of Water Resources. Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), United States Forest Service (USFS), Deschutes County and the City of Bend Planning Department, and Deschutes County and Bend Urban Area Planning Commissions to provide an ongoing forum regarding water management on the Deschutes River and its tributaries and to make recommendations to appropriate agencies. The committee should: ii. Request assistance from the Water Resources Department. Bureau of Reclamation, and Soil and Conservation Districts to initiate an in-depth study of, and to set priorities for, actions that should be taken to improve the irrigation districts' deliverv systems. 2. The city and county shall petition the Water Resources Department to amend the appropriate provisions in the Deschutes River Basin Plan to reflect the recommendations of the River Study Task Force. Deschutes Basin Study Policies (Page 2-14) 3. The city and county shall petition the State Legislature to amend state law to designate in-stream use as a beneficial use to ensure that rights designated to in­ stream use shall not be subject to downstream appropriation by holders of equal or junior rights, and petition the Water Resources Department to adopt a uniform, easily-accomplished process for the transfer of water rights in the Deschutes River Basin to instream use 7. The city and county shall encourage the Water Resources Department, irrigation districts, and municipalities utilizing diverted waters to enforce the "without waste" provision in appropriated water rights. 8. The city and county shall support efforts by the irrigation districts to provide financial incentives to conserve water. This incentive could be determined for example, by a water use fee on the minimum amount of water required (commensurate with the plant/soil requirements determined by the soil and water conservation districts) and an excess charge for water used over the base amount. 10. The city and county shall encourage examination by irrigation districts and the Water Resources Department of options for providing additional flows below the North Canal Dam during the irrigation season. These additional flows shall not take the place of the current 30 CFS spilled by agreement with Central Oregon Irrigation District (COlD), and the North Unit Irrigation District (NUID). Options that might be considered included shared conserved water, public participation in irrigation district improvements, public "buy down" of interest rates on improvement loans, and public or private purchase/transfer of water riQhts for in-stream use. -2­ .' Applicable tot,,~;'0',~,;. "t';pplicable;'doestext" amendment?;;;;":;:~1~;::; ·."r,n..endment comply?':'BAGP Goal$arid~~~I;i~i;~~[;;~">" YIN "'c .'YIN .. ...... . ;..,:, Urban Trails Policies (Page 3-18) Community Appearance Policies (Page 9-8) 18. The city,'county, irrigation companies, state and park district shall work together to develop a series of trails along the DesChutes River, Tumalo Creek, and the major . canals so that these features can be retained as'an asset in the urban growth boundary and urban reserve area. 19. The City shall work with the irrigation districts to limit development within the canal easements that would impair the maintenance and operation of the canals .. 1. The city, county, and special districts shall publicly advocate and coordinate activities relating to beautification and landscaping throughout the community. Unless otherwise agreed, each agency shall be responsible for improving the appearance of its own properties. Additional Goals or Policies Raised by Opponents From the Preamble to Chapter 2, Natural Features and Open Space (Page 2-1' Chapter 2, Natural Features and Open Space Overview ~age2-3) Open space and natural features are an integral part of the Bend Urban Area plan. A wide range of types and sizes of open space and natural features within the urban area should provide: diverse plant and animal habitat, visual and spatial breaks from urban uses, places for recreation and sports activities, facilities for community events, trails for pedestrian and bicycle transportation and recreation, and many other uses. As defined in the plan, open space natural features may be in the form of: parks, public school grounds, trails, natural areas and areas of special interest, river and stream corridors, open space easements, and right-of-way, and lands excluded from development. The preservation and enhancement of open space and natural features, and their incorporation into the infrastructure of the Bend Urban Area is a function of the plan and related ordinances. A city is the sum of physical, biological, and historical processes that shape the social values and image of the community. The natural features such as the rock outcroppings, native vegetation, the river, and wildlife frame Bend's speCial character and sense of place. Which natural features have some intrinsic value, and how much land should be preserved, are questions that Bend area residents wrestle with as they seek to balance the growth and the value of preserving natural areas. -3­ Additional Goals or Policies Raised by Opponents ,----~ ~-~ Wetlands and Riparian No specific language quoted. Concern expressed over the loss of wetlands from piping. Areas (Page 2-8) ---­ Chapter 2 Fish and Wildlife (Page 2-14) If significant Goal 5 wildlife habitat areas or nesting sites are documented during future Periodic Review inventory work the City will adopt new protection measures if existing codes are not adequate to protect the resource. From the Preamble to Chapter 5, Housing and Residential Lands Natural features such as rock outcroppings, draws, mature trees and natural vegetation are assets to the community. Such features help to establish the character of a neighborhood. Keeping such natural features in a development can also help break up the feel of increasing urban densities so Bend continues to feel like a small town Housing and Residential It is a goal of the General Plan to accommodate the varied housing needs of citizens Lands with particular concern for safety, affordability, open space, and a sense of community. Goals (Page 5-1) Housing and Residential Lands-Preserving natural features and incorporating open space areas into the residential open space and natural features in landscape will help make every type of housing development more interesting and enjoyable. residential areas (Page 5-12) Housing and ~_m.ntial Land Policy Future development and local development standards shall recognize and respect the character of the existing areas. #1 (Page 5­ ~ 25) -4­ I AppUC?a"t~i.jtiiri()I1YI'• . ' .j';,II1~:nng~;r"}" ~"'::t$f!~!iIOPp<>&~£f4 . the FebruarY1~'3ii2014:" ubllc'he.ri~alJ:~i::'< Community Goals (Page 1-1) The goals set forth below provide general guidance for improving the character and quality of the Bend area as growth occurs. In addition to these goals, most of the other chapters in the Plan include goals that are specific to the chapter topic. Neighborhoods ­Create and preserve attractive neighborhoods for living, Natural Beauty and Heritage ­Protect and enhance Bend's natural beauty noting especially the trees, rocks, rivers, view, sounds and historic structures. Appearance of Structures -Ensure that the "built environment" is as attractive as feasible.. Not specifically addressed. Not specifically addressed. But concern was expressed about preserving existing neighborhoods, and protecting Bend's natural beauty. Quality Economic Growth ­Assure an opportunity for a stable, vital and diverse economy while sustaining its environment/ecological support systems. Natural Features and Open Space Goals 1 (Page 2-2) to provide land for recreational uses such as hiking, photography, bicycling, jogging, or fishing; to preserve water resources, riparian areas, and wildlife habitats; to shape the urban development and provide visual relief from developed land; to encourage environmental awareness so that citizens will become stewards of our natural areas; and The canals would be considered linear or corridor open spaces. Concern expressed over loss of wildlife habitats, visual impacts, preservation of open space, to support the coordinated efforts of public agencies, private organizations and individuals to preserve and enhance the area's natural features and open space. Natural Features and Open Space Policies (Page 2-12) 11. The city and county shall participate with other governments, speCial districts, non­ profit organizations, land trusts, interested businesses, and citizens in protecting open space. 16. The Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District shall acquire strategic areas along rivers, streams, and canals to protect and conserve scenic, recreational, and natural values, and make such areas accessible to the community. Not addressed by applicant. Piping the canal increases the likelihood of a trail, based mainly on safety, and maintenance and operation of the Not specifically addressed. However, concern was expressed over loss of open space. Concern was expressed over the unsightliness of the canal pipe and berms, making a trail much less desirable. 1 http://www.bend.or.uslmodulesfshowdocument.aspx?documentid...4078. Open space is dearly a broad term that can apply to many types of undeveloped and improved land. Page 2-3. Table 1 in the BAGP describes six types of "open space" that exist to a greater or lesser degree within the urban area. Irrigation canals are provided as an example of corridor or linear open space. Page 2-4. ·,.·d~~~itlontestimOny I 'Findings' 1. The city and county shall establish a water conservation committee including, but not limited to, local representatives from the irrigation districts, Department of Water Resources, Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), United States Forest Service (USFS), Deschutes County and the City of Bend Planning Department, and Deschutes County and Bend Urban Area Planning Commissions to provide an ongoing forum regarding water management on the Deschutes River and its Not addressed. Not addressed. tributaries and to make recommendations to appropriate agencies, The committee should: ii. Request assistance from the Water Resources Department, Bureau of Reclamation, and Soil and Conservation Districts to initiate an in-depth study of, and to set priorities for, actions that should be taken to improve the irrigation districts' deliverv sYstems. 2. The city and county shall petition the Water Resources Department to amend the Not addressed. Not addressed. appropriate provisions in the Deschutes River Basin Plan to reflect the Deschutes recommendations of the River Study Task Force. Basin Study 3. The city and county shall petition the State Legislature to amend state law to Policies designate in-stream use as a beneficial use to ensure that rights designated to in­ (Page 2-14) stream use shall not be subject to downstream appropriation by holders of equal or Not addressed. Not addressed. junior rights, and petition the Water Resources Department to adopt a uniform, easily-accomplished process for the transfer of water rights in the Deschutes River Basin to instream use 7. The city and county shall encourage the Water Resources Department. irrigation Not addressed. Not addressed. districts, and municipalities utilizing diverted waters to enforce the "without waste" provision in appropriated water rights. 8. The city and county shall support efforts by the irrigation districts to provide financial incentives to conserve water. This incentive could be determined for example, by a Not addressed Not addressed water use fee on the minimum amount of water required (commensurate with the plant/soil requirements determined by the soil and water conservation districts) and an excess charge for water used over the base amount. 10. The city and county shall encourage examination by irrigation districts and the Not addressed Water Resources Department of options for providinQ additional flows below the -2­ APPIi~~~~~!~bn~;'r;'::;"i';"L,::i ..... Th,.applic~nt·$\'t·,:: :' ,. ,.' l. . . 'Were ~taledver~.lly.t· • . the Febrqa!'Yi 1'3i':2014, ublic he~.rina;.· North Canal Dam during the irrigation season. These additional flows shall not take more instream flow the place of the current 30 CFS spilled by agreement with Central Oregon Irrigation through measures such District (COlD), and the North Unit Irrigation District (NUID). Options that might be as piping. considered included shared conserved water, public participation in irrigation district improvements, public "buy down" of interest rates on improvement loans, and public or private purchase/transfer of water riahts for in-stream use. Trails are more likely to Trails along piped canals 18. The city, county, irrigation companies, state and park district shall work together to be developed with a are much less desirable, . develop a series of trails along the Deschutes River, Tumalo Creek, and the major piped canal versus an considering wire fences canals so that these features can be retained as an asset in the urban growth open canal -safety being with barbed wire adjacent boundary and urban reserve area. the primary concern. parts of them.Urban Trails This policy gives Mike Knoell, developer ofPolicies deference to COlD's Canal View Estates, has (Page 3-18) maintenance and19. The City shall work with the irrigation districts to limit development within the canal a signed agreement with operation of the canals;easements that would impair themainteni:mce and operation of the canals. COlD limiting piping allows for better development within the maintenance and canal easement. operation. 1. The city, county, and special districts shall publicly advocate and coordinate activities Appearance Community relating to beautification and landscaping throughout the community. Unless Not specifically Not specifically Policies otherwise agreed, each agency shall be responsible for improving the appearance of addressed. addressed. (Page 9-8) its own properties. ....... :"'\... comm.(1~'on;th~B~GP, . p,ppositlon TeStimonyr:: Findings: .' Additional Goals or Policies Raised by Opponents From the Preamble to Chapter 2, Natural Features and Open Space (Page 2-1) Open space and natural features are an integral part of the Bend Urban Area plan. A wide range of types and sizes of open space and natural features within the urban area should provide: diverse plant and animal habitat. visual and spatial breaks from urban uses, places for recreation and sports activities, facilities for community events, trails for pedestrian and bicycle transportation and recreation, and many other uses. As defined in the plan, open space natural features may be in the form of: parks, public school grounds, trails, natural areas and areas of special interest. river and stream corridors, open space easements, and right-of-way, and lands excluded from development. The preservation and enhancement of open space and natural features, and their incorporation into the infrastructure of the Bend Urban Area is a function of the plan and related ordinances. -3­ Not specifically addressed. Pat Kliewer's March 2ih letter mentions this language. ~~~~~~,.ii" ,fU*IIli.l;!'III'l4', 1lilli511HIf¥M!Ft $ .wllllf:fl"'%!lW, I#t il, .!4ffWIl49+. '~""m>· "'lM , ..., ft,;;, %1, :;; JAM'-? ,lie \p. i.4)P..,.".AHfIii' , V'f~~'~",itiQi ,4 9""'!f¢ % ,fi*1<~_""'-''''''''~~·'''''''''"'''~_·-.-.-,',.",~=-----.. Chapter 2, Natural Features and Open Space Overview (Page 2-3) A city is the sum of physical, biological, and historical processes that shape the social values and image of the community. The natural features such as the rock outcroppings, native vegetation, the river, and wildlife frame Bend's special character and sense of place. Which natural features have some intrinsic value, and how much land should be preserved, are questions that Bend area residents wrestle with as they seek to balance the growth and the value of preserving natural areas. Pat Kliewer's March 27 th letter mentions this. Wetlands and Riparian Areas (Page 2-8) No specific language quoted. Concern expressed over the loss of wetlands due to piping. 1---------+-­ Pat Kliewer's March 2ih letter mentions this. Chapter 2, Fish and Wildlife (Page 2-14) If significant Goal 5 wildlife habitat areas or nesting sites are documented during future Periodic Review inventory work the City will adopt new protection measures if existing codes are not adequate to protect the resource. Not specifically addressed. Pat Kliewer'S March 27th letter mentions this. I----=--Bruce White's February From the 1ih letter. The canals Preamble to Natural features such as rock outcroppings, draws, matur~ trees and natural vegetation. provide a scenic amenity, Chapt!r 5, are assets to the community. Such features help to establish the character of a Not specifically and have established the H.ousmg .J n.eighborhood. Keeping such natural features in a ?evelopment ~an also help break up addressed. character of the~nd. the feel of increasing urban densities so Bend continues to feel like a small town. neighborhoods adjacent Residential to them. -----. Lands -----Bruce White's February I 12th letter. The BAGP Housing expresses concern about and the loss of open space Residential It is a goal of the General Plan to accommodate the varied housing needs of citizens Not specifically values as the community Lands with particular concern for safety, affordability, open space, and a sense of community. addressed. grows, and reiterates the Goals Page need for preservation and (5-1) inclusion of open space in planning for residential areas. r---­Bruce White's February Housing 12th letter. This policy and Preserving natural features and incorporating open space areas into the residential states the importance of Not specifically Residential landscape will help make every type of housing development more interesting and respecting the existing addressed.Lands enjoyable. character of residentialGoals areas in development (Page 5-12) _______--". ~(;tivity, and developing -4­ • Housing and Residential Land Policy #1 (Page 5-25) Future development and local development standards shall recognize and respect the character of the existing areas. Not addressed. standards for regulating development activity. Bruce White's February 1ih letter. Allowing for the destruction of irrigation canals that are one of the defining characteristics of the existing SR-2.5 zone certainly does not "recognize and respect" the character of the area. -~ ~ -5­~