HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-03-16 Business Meeting Minutes
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 16, 2015
Page 1 of 12
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 BUSINESS MEETING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, MARCH 16, 2015
_____________________________
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
__________________________
Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney.
Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy
County Administrator; David Doyle and Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Nick
Lelack, Peter Gutowsky, Cynthia Smidt, Paul Blikstad and Will Groves,
Community Development; and about twenty other citizens including Ted Shorack
of The Bulletin.
Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m.
__________________________
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. CITIZEN INPUT
3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing (continued from March 4) and
Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2015 -002, a Code
Amendment to Allow a New Manufactured Home/RV Park in the MUA-10
Zone.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 16, 2015
Page 2 of 12
Paul Blikstad provided a brief overview of the item. The Board had asked for
ODOT to provide feedback, and a representative is present today. Mr. Blikstad
presented a list of alternative course of action for the Board.
Gary Farnsworth, area manager for ODOT Region 4, provided a letter for the
record. Commissioner Baney said that the letter addressed her concerns. Chair
DeBone asked if there will be opportunities for other access in the future. Mr.
Farnsworth stated that it is limited. The corridor will have places with either
consolidated access or they will need to purchase properties. The railroad is an
issue. No plans have been affirmed yet. This location is pretty tight and they
would like to pursue ways to go over the railroad to tie in. Commissioner
Unger said the highway right of way and railroad seem to overlap. He noted
that the signal would be three legs and not four, so that does not allow for
pedestrians or vehicles. Mr. Farnsworth said the North Corridor EIS will still
allow access for those parcels. He added that the three Commissioners are
engaged in transportation issues and ODOT is grateful for that.
Chair DeBone closed the hearing. The Commissioners indicated they were
ready to deliberate.
Commissioner Unger said he drives by this area almost every day and is
concerned about access. He feels that there need to be ways to limit this
activity, and wants to encourage development elsewhere perhaps through
development transfers. This does not send the message he wants to send about
traffic in this area. It needs to function safely.
Commissioner Baney disagreed that government should not allow property
owners to use the ways available to them to develop their property, as long as
other issues are mitigated. If government does not like one idea they should not
try to force the owner to do something else. They have met the criteria. It
almost feels like they would be devaluing the owners’ land. They have enough
in the record to show how ODOT and others feel about it. The impact is not
that great, with just a few additional dwellings. The concerns are valid , but it is
beyond what government can force.
Chair DeBone supports the housing application and purpose, although is aware
of the traffic issues.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 16, 2015
Page 3 of 12
Commissioner Unger asked if the homes will be moved in. Mr. Blikstad stated
that they will be manufactured or modular homes. Commissioner Baney stated
there are not a lot of opportunities for this kind of development to occur within
the Bend UGB.
Mr. Blikstad said they can make a decision on the amendment, adopt staff
findings, and move first reading of the Ordinance.
BANEY: Move approval of first reading by title only of Ordinance 2015-002.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY Yes.
UNGER: No. (Split vote.)
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
Chair DeBone conducted the first reading at this time. The second reading will
be conducted no sooner than in two weeks.
4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Approval of
Document No. 2015-144, an Outdoor Mass Gathering Permit for the 2015
4 Peaks Music Festival on a Tumalo Area Property.
Cynthia Smidt gave an overview of the item and the process to be followed.
Regarding personal interest, conflicts of interest or bias, the Commissioners had
none to disclose. There were no challenges from the audience.
The 2015 permit is almost identical to the permit approved by the Board last
year. There will be on-site camping and other activities. They have complied
with the minimum standards for health and safety. The applicant seeks a
waiver to having an ambulance on site. This was waived last year , and the
Bend Fire Department confirms this is a reasonable request.
There is always a complaint with an outdoor mass gathering, and in this case
there was one received from Jacqueline Hook who owns property across the
street, regarding noise and traffic.
This year they are starting site preparation early, in particular mowing and
watering grasses and setting up temporary structures. Commissioner Baney
said the insurance does not match with the extended timeframe. Erik Kropp
said the policy should extend for the length of the event and the preparation
time.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 16, 2015
Page 4 of 12
Commissioner Unger stated this happens every year, and he wonders if they
have other events at this property. Ms. Smidt said there have been none.
Commissioner Unger asked if there were any issues last year. Ms. Smidt stated
that she believes it went well. Commissioner Unger noted that this is under
State law and the Board cannot decline it without specific cause.
Steve Holtburg and Stacy Totland said they have asked for about the same as
last year. There were no problems last year. It is a well-run festival for
families. They encouraged all to attend. Commissioner Baney asked about the
insurance. Mr. Holtburg said they can extend this and make it a condition of
the permit.
Ms. Totland said that the property owner has been doing much on his own to
prepare the site. They will have volunteers there this year to help, clearing
brush, mowing and irrigating. No structures will be put up until Wednesday.
Commissioner Baney wants to make sure that they don’t have to anticipate
excessive traffic earlier in the week. Mr. Holtburg said there were no violations
or citations from the Sheriff’s Office last year.
Howard Koff said he received a copy of the letter to the Commissioners from
Jacqueline Hook, who opposes the festival. He wanted to respond to some of
the comments. Ms. Hook had indicated that she owns the property across the
street, but does not live there and rents it out. Her concern is the festival creates
a disturbing presence to the area. He does not know of any specific incidents in
the past like this. She also wanted to know what types of people would be
wandering around drunk or high. Mr. Koff said that she would need to attend to
see who the attendees are.
She also was offended by the ticket money going to the property owners. He
said the property owners are not paid but invite the neighbors and music lovers.
They have family coming from all over the country to participate. Ms. Hook
also said it was a private money-making business. Four Peaks is private and
hopes to make a profit, but supports public radio and the Environmental Center.
CRAFT and Brightside animal shelters help by taking in the deposit cans and
bottles. Corporate sponsors find merit in supporting the event. Ms. Totland
brings a level of passion and energy to this event that she also brings to other
charitable involvements. Ms. Hook inferred that the local government benefits
from this. She asked about enduring this atrocity. Mr. Koff gave the definition
of ‘atrocity’ and it is anything but that. It is held for all the right reasons.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 16, 2015
Page 5 of 12
Julie Nichols testified that she is a registered nurse and a volunteer at the first
aid tent at the festival. Last year throughout her time there, she witnessed no
bad behavior, and treated some people for sunburn and handed out a few band-
aids. She witnessed nothing but people having fun, and brings her children
there herself. It is a safe and good environment.
Officer Derrin McMasters testified that he is neither in favor of or against, in
respect of all citizens served. There were four calls on the property, two calls
for service, with one called in by security there. This person was on the
property three times and did not pay. He was removed. The only other call was
a person from 4 Peaks advising that they were the contact person for the event.
There were two noise complaints, one being at 10:44 p.m. at Tyler Road and
Tumalo Reservoir Road, of a loud party in the area. The music had not yet
been shut down, but the Deputy cleared it. At 10:54 p.m. a caller said the music
had stopped but was still upset at it being too loud. The organizers were
contacted and the music had already been turned down at the main stage. It is
hard to research the call history at specific sites since there may be a number of
Sheriff staff involved.
Commissioner Baney asked about the timing of the music. Ms. Totland said the
main stage is shut off, but there is a tent with acoustic music only. She checks
all the time with a decibel reader. Commissioner Baney stated that there will be
some noise from camping, but in the spirit of being good neighbors , it would be
good to make sure other music ends as well. Commissioner Unger noted that
they will never make everyone happy when there is something unusual going
on. Ms. Totland stated that the security guard does patrol the area to handle
this.
Ms. Smidt said that within fourteen days prior to the event the insurance policy
will need to be provided with the correct dates.
Being no further testimony offered, Chair DeBone closed the hearing.
Commissioner Baney indicated that she wants to commend the applicant on the
work that has been done. Government does not make it easy to meet the
threshold. Commissioner Unger recognizes that it is on residential farmland,
and there will be conflicts no matter what. Chair DeBone noted that the extra
measures are important.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 16, 2015
Page 6 of 12
BANEY: Move approval with the extended insurance caveat.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
5. Before the Board was Consideration of Board Signature of Order No.
2015-018, Closing the Record for File #TA-13-4, Which Would Amend
Code to Allow as a Use Permitted Outright in the SR-2.5 Zone, the
Operation, Maintenance and Piping of Existing Irrigation Systems
Operated by an Irrigation District.
Laurie Craghead gave an overview of the item, which is meant to close the
record on this legislative matter. It also sets the date for Board deliberations on
March 25. The applicant is aware and agrees.
BANEY: Move approval.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
Nick Lelack explained they are making a significant effort to get the word out
of the upcoming record closure and following steps.
6. Before the Board were Deliberations and Consideration of a Decision
regarding the Shepherd Property Wildlife Management Plan.
Will Groves provided a recap of the process to date and referenced the decision
matrix.
The first issue if the applicant has to comply with the 2001 WMP. Staff felt
that the new plan would completely replace this. It was difficult to comply with
the old WMP. The ODF&W feels the new plan will provide adequate
protection of wildlife. Staff recommends adoption of staff findings on this
item.
UNGER: Move that the Board adopt the staff’s findings on this issue.
BANEY: Second.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 16, 2015
Page 7 of 12
VOTE: UNGER Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
__________________________
Mr. Groves asked about the modification explained in issue #2. A new WMP
was cooperatively created by the ODF&W and the applicant, and includes best
practices and clarifies the process. The applicant incudes the change of
ownership, and the WMP as a change of circumstances. Staff recommends a
motion recognizing that the improved plan is the change in circumstances and
the change in ownership is not.
Commissioner Baney feels the old WMP was poorly written and the new one is
an improvement. Chair DeBone feels best practices and improved clarity is the
focus.
BANEY: Move Board modify staff’s findings to identify the availability of a
new WMP for the property, containing current best habitat mitigation
practices and significantly improved clarity of required owner actions
represents a change of circumstances. The change in ownership, in
itself, is not a change of circumstances.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
__________________________
Mr. Groves said the third issue relates to wildlife and livestock forage
competition. The juniper areas were to be cleared to allow for further grazing.
The applicant proposed a change as a solution. Commissioner Unger noted that
there needs to be a balance and the owner should adjust each year to account for
this. The goal is improved habitat. Commissioner Baney appreciates the
applicant bringing this up.
UNGER: Move that the Board modify staff’s findings to revise the final
paragraph of the decision to identify forage competition as a relevant
concern, and impose the following condition. Cattle grazing on the
plateau area above the rim rock shall be limited to four weeks per
year and shall only occur between June 1 and August 31, to minimize
forage competition with deer. Livestock shall be excluded from
juniper thinning areas except as specifically allowed in this condition
of approval.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 16, 2015
Page 8 of 12
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: UNGER Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
__________________________
The fourth issue has to do with the location of the juniper thinning areas. They
have thirty days to provide a map after approval. A Google map seems to be
the best way to identify these areas. Commissioner Baney asked if this can be
used to determine compliance. Mr. Groves said they use USGS maps from the
past and can compare them with the new maps through Google. If there is a big
discrepancy in what is supposed to be in place, they will do a site visit. The
2001 map had been changed and photocopied too many times and was
impossible to decipher.
UNGER: Move that the Board recognize applicant’s “Google Earth” map
presented at the hearing as the map required under condition 4(a) of
the staff decision.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: UNGER Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
__________________________
The fifth issue has to do with monitoring. Mr. Groves said that the applicant
supports staff’s recommendation but the appellant felt this may not be followed
and was concerned about the unfunded mandate. Staff recognizes that they are
complaint-driven and does not have a full-time compliance officer to oversee
these situations. There is a stated requirement for a first and third year visit.
This is the best tool at this time to cover this.
Commissioner Unger asked when the juniper is to be thinned. Mr. Groves said
the dates are clearly noted in the decision. Regarding the monitoring visits,
they don’t do a lot of these but will ask for ODFW to confirm what they have
seen. The County is on the same clock as ODFW and ODFW has indicated
they are available for this kind of work.
BANEY: Move that the Board adopt staff’s findings and conditions of approval
on this item..
UNGER: Second.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 16, 2015
Page 9 of 12
VOTE: BANEY Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
__________________________
Finally, success of the habitat requirements is item #6. The applicant was
concerned whether two seedings would be adequate to establish the vegetation.
They would be required to continue seeding until this happens. Staff believes
that with the guidance of the ODF&W that the seedings will be adequate, with a
follow up to make sure. This is being done through a grant.
Commissioner Unger said he is encouraged that there is a grant involved with
that oversight. Chair Baney prefers language that says not only established but
continued. Chair DeBone said if you put seed out, the wildlife will eat the
plants and it may have to be propagated by adding seed. Chair Ban ey noted
that there is poor soil in the area and it needs to be in place years from now.
Commissioner Unger supports staff’s approach. There are a lot of conditions of
approval for this property and he is pleased there would be a good WMP in
place. Mr. Groves said he has done this type of work before and knows how it
can be checked, but it would take a very formal action of a biologist to be that
exact.
UNGER: Move that the Board adopt staff’s findings and conditions of approval
on this issue.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: UNGER Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
Mr. Groves will work with the applicant to memorialize the decisions made
today and bring it back for the Board to sign.
__________________________
Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda.
Chair DeBone asked that the minutes be changed as to the spelling of a couple
of names and another adjustment.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 16, 2015
Page 10 of 12
Commissioner Unger noted the new Deschutes Watershed Council members
and also that he is being reappointed to that Council.
UNGER: Move approval of the consent agenda as stated.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: UNGER Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
Consent Agenda Items
7. Board Signature of Resolution No. 2015-022, Authorizing Participation in the
2015-17 Oregon Community Dispute Resolution Grant Fund Program
8. Board Signature of Document No. 2015-136, an Amendment to the
Intergovernmental Agreement with WEBCO regarding the Early Learning Hub
and Maternal Child Health Program
9. Board Signature of Letters regarding the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council:
Accepting the Resignation of David Newton, and Thanking him for his Service;
and Reappointing, through January 31, 2018, the following: Nancy Gilbert,
Chuck Newport, Don Rife, Alan Unger and Rick Wright
10. Approval of Minutes:
Business Meeting of March 11, 2015
Work Session of March 11, 2015
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
11. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of
$4,345.74.
BANEY: Move approval, subject to review.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 16, 2015
Page 11 of 12
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
12. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District in the
Amount of $2,728.96.
BANEY: Move approval, subject to review.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
13. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $506,679.32.
BANEY: Move approval, subject to review.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
14. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Commissioner Baney noted that Bruce White, local attorney and a previous
County employee, passed over the weekend. He cared deeply about the
community and will be missed.
Being no other items brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
11:20 a.m.
DATED this zt1f Day of}rJdA dL-2015 for the
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
Anthony DeBone, Chair
Alan Unger, Vice Chair
ATTEST: Tamm~ioner ~~
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 16 , 2015
Page 12 of 12
_______ _
-------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------
--------------------------------
---------------------------------
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK 31f t,Agenda Item ofInterest _____________ Date ____
Name _---=:.:'''''''''-J---=::;L{,-=...k '_\J_,c_.lD----::..l~J:.._________
Address
Phone#s _____________________________________
E-mail address
D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? IJ Yes
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item,ofInterest __________________ Date ~
Name \--kMM
Address
Phone#s
E-mail address
D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes
,.
/A--/f-z ~a~ k-}1L1~~-t
• Continue the public hearing to a date a
• Close oral record and keep the written record open to a date a
certain.
• Close the public hearing (oral and written records), and:
Begin deliberations, or
Direct staff to schedule time on a future agenda to cond
deliberations, or
Take no action on the proposed amendments.
Make a decision on the proposed Text Amendment
• and adopt Staff's proposed findings
-And move first reading by title only
• Or direct Staff to make different findings
Oregon Detective Agency
Deschutes Detective Agency
P.o. Box 8371, Bend, OR 97708 . 541·280·0965
Security Services Agreement
Business Name: 4 Peaks Presents
Address: P.O. Box 8282, Bend, OR 97708
Phone: 541-350-6474
This Agreement is made and entered on March 9th, 2015, by Oregon Detective AgencylDeschutes Detective Agency,
hereinafter called the "Agency", and 4 Peaks Presents, hereinafter called the "Client"
The Agency is hereby contracted by the above named client to provide and perform security services as agreed upon and described by both
the Client and the Agency as follows:
Services To Be Provided (Check Appropriate Boxes):
[gI Onsite Security
Location: 19449 Tumalo Reservoir Rd, Bend, OR 97701
Description of Services: The Agency will provide a security officer to remain onsite, observe and report any
suspicious or unusual activity and make contact with suspicious persons or persons committing unlawful acts. The
officer will advise unauthorized persons trespassing on the property to leave immediately. The security officer
reserves the right to summon law enforcement if the need should arise.
Number of Officers, Desired Days and Hours of Services:
6/18/15 -6/19/15: 2 Officers in the evening & overnight (Hours TBD)
6/19/15 -6/20/15: 6 Officers, 1200 hrs -0200 hrs
6/20/15 -6/21/15: 6 Officers, 1200 hrs -0200 hrs
Additional Information:
Number of Officers and hours may vary depending on Client's needs
Onsite Rate: $ TBD IHour per Officer
Page 1 of 3
Additional Services (Check Appropriate Boxes):
o Security Patrol
Description of Services: The Agency will provide a security officer to patrol the property at random times during nighttime hours,
observe and report any suspicious or unusual activity, and conduct field interviews with persons not authorized to be on the
property. The officer will advise unauthorized persons trespassing on the property to leave immediately. The officer will check all
doors and secure them if necessary. If a door is found unsecured, the officer will attempt to secure it and make sure the building
is clear of trespassers. The security officer reserves the right to summon law enforcement if the need should arise.
(Choose One)
D Patrol Rate: $ fPatrol
D Monthly Rate: $ __/Month
o Alarm Response
Description of Services: The officer will respond to alarm calls, attempt to verify the cause of the alarm, reset the alarm if
needed and contact law enforcement if forced entry or a crime has occurred.
(Choose One)
D Response Rate: $ __/Response
D Monthly Rate: $ /Month
o Firewatch
Description of Services: The officer will remain onsite when a business's fire protection system is out of service.
Number of Officers, Desired Days and Hours of Services:
Onsite Rate: $ __ /Hour per Officer (discounted rate for night patrol client)
o Special Services
Description of Services: The officer will respond to emergency, additional or special services as requested by the Client.
(Choose One)
D Response Rate: $ IResponse
D Rate: $ __/Hour per Officer (rates may vary depending on the nature of services)
D Investigation Services
Description of Services: The Agency will provide a private investigator for services requested by the Client.
Investigation Services Include But Are Not Limited To: Asset Location, Background Checks, Criminal/Civil Investigations,
Employee Investigations, Personal Injury Claims, Repossessions, Service of Process, Skip Trace and Surveillance.
Investigation Rate: $ __fHour per Investigator (Rates may vary depending on the nature of the investigation)
Agency Contact Information: Client Contact Information:
Andrew Walters Contact Name:
P.O. Box 8371 Phone:
Bend, OR 97708 Phone:
541-280-0965 Email:
Phone:
Phone:
Emergency Contact Name:
Phone:
Page 2 of 3
(
Terms &Conditions:
1. The Agency's services and location(s) of services to be provided are defined under the "Services to be provided" section.
2. The representative(s) for the Client and the Agency shall administer this agreement with regard to personnel placement, additional
training requirements, adding or reducing the number of hours for onsite, patrols and billing services. The Agency is ultimately
responsible for the final decisions regarding the administration of this Agreement.
3. The Agency shall not discriminate in employment practices and policies or in assignment or selection to the Client premises because of
race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age or qualified handicapped person(s) or as otherwise specified by the applicable laws of the
Client's state.
4. The Agency shall provide proof of required Certifications, Licenses, General Liability Insurance and Worker's Compensation Insurance if
requested by the Client.
5. This Agreement may not be modified in any way except by an Agreement Addendum, executed by the Client and the Agency.
6. The Agency shall operate as an Independent Contractor and shall not be considered in any way to be acting as an agent or employee of
the Client. The Agency shall be responsible for paying or withholding wages, taxes, unemployment compensation and all other expenses
related to the Agency's employees. There are no verbal or other agreements, which modify or affect the terms of this Agreement.
7. The terms and conditions stated here within constitute the final and complete Agreement between the Client and the Agency.
8. The Agency does not guarantee that use of deterrents will prevent loss or damage. The Client acknowledges that no representations
have been made concerning the services to be provided other than as specified in this Agreement. The Client hereby acknowledges and
understands that the Agency does not undertake to guarantee against, or provide reimbursement or compensation for any loss or
damage to the Client arising out of the performance or nonperformance of this Agreement.
9. The Client shall pay all invoices for payment within fifteen (15) days of invoice date. A 5% late fee shall be charged for invoices not paid
within 15 days.
10. The Agency reserves the right to terminate this Agreement for any reason upon 30 days prior written notice to the Client and to
terminate services on delinquent accounts at any time. The Client reserves the right to terminate this Agreement for any reason upon 30
days written notice to the Agency at P.O. Box 8371, Bend, OR 97708.
11. In the event that any of the Agency's representatives are required to attend court hearings, arbitration, mediation hearings or other
negotiations, the Client agrees to pay the Agency for labor.
12. In the event that emergency, extra or special services are required or requested by the Client, the Client shall pay the Special Services
Rate as listed in this agreement (rates vary from $30-200 per hour, per officer depending on the nature of the request). Requests with
less than 24 hours notice may be billed up to $200 per hour, per officer.
13. In the event that any additional services are required or requested by the Client, then the Client agrees to compensate the Agency for
those services.
14. The Client shall notify the Agency in writing within ten (10) business days of any claimed breach or default as a condition of any right to
claim damages or other remedies. The Agency shall have a reasonable period to investigate and remedy any alleged breach or default.
The Agency shall not be liable for loss, damage or delay resulting from causes beyond its reasonable control.
15. In the event of litigation to enforce any of the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover their attorney's
fees and all other disbursements and costs. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the
case and statutory law of the State of Oregon. In the event any action is brought to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement,
jurisdictions and venue shall be in Deschutes County, Oregon. Any notice required by this Agreement shall be given by prepaid, first class,
certified mail, return receipt requested.
16. If any provision in this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, that provision will be enforced to the maximum possible extent and all
other provisions will remain valid and enforceable. No failure or delay by the Agency in exercising the Agency's rights under this
Agreement shall be a waiver of such rights.
17. The Client shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Agency and all of its agents and employees from and against all claims,
damages, losses and expenses, including attorney's fees and costs, in any way arising out of or resulting from any act(s) or omission(s) of
the Client, its agents, employees or independent contractors.
18. The Agency's officers reserve the right to carry firearms on their persons and/or in their patrol vehicles. The officers also reserve the right
to use emergency vehicle lighting on the client's property if they feel it's needed for their safety. Furthermore, the officers reserve the
right to make a citizen's arrest if they witness a crime committed in their presence.
Da_te:--==-I
Client's PI illted Name-& Signature
PSID# 44577 Date:________
Andrew Walters
Manager
Oregon Detective Agency
Page 3 of 3
Page 1 of 1
From: Steve Omalley
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 2:54 PM
To: 'Thomas Kuhn'
Subject: RE: Exhibit E -4 Peaks Medical Service Plan.doc
Tom,
I provided input for this waiver last year. I ultimately felt very positive about this situation. Given the services
they intend to provide and the trained personnel who will be staffing their first aid tent, I believe waiving the
ambulance standby requirement was reasonable.
I doml€TMt think there is anything to be gained, in the interest of public safety, by having the ambulance on
site as they wouldna€,Mt legally be able to provide transport anyway. Having a solid Basic Life Support team
and an AED on site seems appropriate.
Steve Oa€TMMalley
Deputy Chief EMS
Bend Fire & Rescue
541-322-6387 (o)
541-420-7481 (c )
3/1012015
HURLEY'RE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. C.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ADMiNISTRATION
• wwwhurley-re.com
March 12,2015
Board of County Commissioners via Hand Delivery
Deschutes County
1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200
Bend, OR 97701
Re: TA 13-4 Request to Re-Activate Matter
Dear Chair DeBone, Commissioner Baney, and Commissioner Unger,
Our firm serves as general counsel for Central Oregon Irrigation District (COlD) in its
application for the above-mentioned text amendment to allow piping as an outright use in the SR
2.5 Zone.
In a letter dated August 13, 2014, attached for reference, we requested that the instant application
be held in abeyance for a few months, in order to further explore issues raised in comments to
the pending application. The Board kindly granted our request.
Since last August, COlD has made every effort to consult with affected parties. COlD secured
the funds to engage a professional, third-party facilitator, Anne George, to conduct an assessment
in order to determine if sufficient interest exists in a collaborative process or mediation related to
this issue of the proposed piping project. Ms. George concluded that the neighboring property
owners are not interested in participation in this collaborative process, and thus did not
recommend pursuit of a collaborative process at this time. Her letter is attached. As such, COlD
has determined that a collaborative process with the surrounding property owners is not likely to
be productive. We therefore request that the pending application for TA 13-4 be brought before
the Board for action.
COlD also requests that this Board address recently discovered ambiguities in the Deschutes
County Code related to this text amendment. Deschutes County's code definitions have been
found to be ambiguous in a recent LUBA decision, LUBA No. 2013-086/095 Curl v. Deschutes
County and Central Oregon Irrigation District, issued March 19,2014. Because LUBA found
that Deschutes County's definition of "hydroelectric facility" included "conduit," and "conduit"
is pipe, LUBA concluded that under the Deschutes County Code, an act to pipe is an act to build
part of a "hydroelectric facility." Excerpts from pages 16-17 ofthe Curl decision explain the
Board's reasoning:
CorD Request to Re-Activate TA-13-4
Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
There is no dispute that the proposed use is Phase 2 of a
piping project associated with the Juniper Ridge hydroelectric
facility. DCC 19.04.40 supplies definitions for terms as used in
DCC Title 19, and defines "hydroelectric facility" broadly to mean
"all aspects of any project or deVelopment necessary for or related
to the generation of hydroelectric energy," including but not
limited to "conduits." "Conduit" is defined in turn to mean "any
tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade
structure which is or may be used to convey water." Id. Petitioners
argue that the proposed piping project is a conduit that is necessary
or related to the Juniper Ridge hydroelectric facility and therefore
the proposed piping in the SR 2.5 zone requires conditional use
approval pursuant to DCC 19.20.030(L).
If the proposed piping in the SR 2.5 zone were not associated with
a hydroelectric facility, it might be possible to categorize such
project solely as a "utility" for purposes ofDCC 19.88.120.
However, even ifthat is the case, because the piping proposed in
the present case is indisputably associated with a hydroelectric
facility, we agree with petitioners that the county erred in
concluding that the proposed use is "allowed without review"
under DCC 19.88.120.
Building a "hydroelectric facility" requires conditional use approval in Deschutes County. This
means that Deschutes County's Chapter 18.128.260 Conditional Uses, and specific provisions
for Hydroelectric Facilities, would apply. We find no support for the idea that it was Deschutes
County's legislative intent to make piping a canal a land use decision that is subject to the same
scrutiny as building a full-size, run-of-river, hydroelectric facility. We also find no support to
show that the County intended to process an application for a small hydroelectric facility as if it
were a full-size hydroelectric facility. We believe it is in the County's best interest, as well as
COlD's, to clarify the County's meaning in its code.
The list of requirements to obtain approval for a "hydroelectric facility" under DCC 18.128.260
is attached for reference. As that list illustrates, this is a very rigorous examination. It also
references "river" impacts 11 times, indicating that the BOCC intended for this section to apply
to run-of-river hydro, not in-canal piping. It is reasonable to conclude that it was not Deschutes
County Board of County Commissioners' intent to include a canal pipe as part of the
"hydroelectric facility" approval process in this chapter.
Small hydro is defined in the DCC as well, though not in the Definitions Chapter 18.04. It is
currently only allowed in the Open Space and Conservation Zone (OS&C), DCC Ch. 18.48. The
definition is briefly excerpted here, but the chapter is attached for additional reference.
Page 2 of5
COID Request to Re-Activate T A-13-4
Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
18.48.020. Uses Permitted Outright.
The following uses and their accessory uses are pennitted outright:
F. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an
Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050.
G. Construction, operation, and maintenance of small hydroelectric facilities, including
transmission lines serving such facilities, subject to DCC 18.48.070.
18.48.070. Limitations on Small Hydroelectric Facilities.
A. "Small hydroelectric facility" means a hydroelectric facility that qualifies for a Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") Conduit Exemption use.
B. DCC Chapter 18.84 and Sections 18.116.130 and 18.128.260 are not applicable to
small hydroelectric facilities.
As noted, Deschutes County distinguished between small hydro and run-of-river hydro in the
Code. The Code expressly notes that 18.128.260 ("hydroelectric facilities") doesn't apply. It
would be helpful to clarifY that difference, by adding the "small hydroelectric facility" definition
to the general definition section at 18.04, and to add an explanatory sentence to both definitions
in 18.04 that they are each different from the other, intentionally, in the Code.
• "hydroelectric facility"
• "small hydroelectric facility"
It would also be helpful to clarify the difference between "conduit" that is built as part of facility
construction, and "conduit" or "piping" that is installed separate from the construction of the
facility itself. The tenn "conduit" is used in many contexts throughout the code. It is used in
reference to hydroelectric facilities, small hydroelectric facilities, and general utility installations
(Chapter 12) such as to bury a carrier pipe under County roads (DCC 12.16.050(C)(1),
12.16.060(B)(4) and (5), 12.l6.llO(C) and (F), 12.16.170(E)). The current definition of
"hydroelectric facility" relied upon by LUBA references "all aspects of any project or
development necessary for or related to the generation of hydroelectric energy." That definition
is so broad as to be problematic for clear and consistent interpretations going forward.
• "conduit"
We have found no evidence that the BOCC intended to apply the broad definition of "conduit" to
any pipe connected in any way to a hydropower plant. However, that interpretation is plausible
as it is currently adopted. The County could either modifY the definition of "conduit" or modifY
the definitions of "hydroelectric facility" and "small hydroelectric facility" to note that "conduit"
is expressly excluded except for pipes within or expressly connected to the facility for a fixed
Page 3 of5
COlD Request to Re-Activate TA-13-4
Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
number of feet-like 20 feet, for example. Perhaps there's an engineering standard that would be
preferred by Deschutes County's experts.
• "piping"
Lastly, we suggest Deschutes County adopt a definition for "piping." It is woven throughout the
Code, but is never defined. It would be very helpful to add a definition for this term to DCC
18.04 definitions. Related definitions to be distinguished are:
• "Penstock," defined as "any conduit or other structure which is or may be used to
convey water to the driving mechanism of a generator."
• "Conduit," defined as "any tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch or
similar man-made structure which is or may be used to convey water.
The definition of "piping" should be different. Here's a suggestion for such language to start
discussion: "'piping' means enclosing a man-made water canal into an enclosed facility."
• "utility"
Finally, LUBA labored over Deschutes County's definition ofthe word "utility." DCC 18.04
defines "Utility facility" as:
any major structures, excluding hydroelectric facilities, owned or
operated by a public, private, or cooperative electric, fuel,
communications, sewage or water company for the generation,
transmission, distribution or processing of its products or for the
disposal of cooling water, waste or by-products, and including
power transmission lines, major trunk pipelines, power substations,
telecommunications facilities, water towers, sewage lagoons,
sanitary landfills and similar facilities, but excluding local sewer,
water, gas, telephone and power distribution lines, ad similar minor
facilities allowed in any zone. This definition shall not include
wireless telecommunication facilities where such facilities are
listed as a separate use in a zone.
If the County is amenable, it would be helpful to make an inclusive definition for irrigation
districts to be included in this classification literally, rather than leaving it to the interpretation of
bodies like LUBA.
Pursuant to the attached abeyance request letter, we ask that this Board re-activate this matter
and that deliberations commence on the proposed text amendment to resolve the question of
whether COlD may pipe in the SR 2.5 Zone as an outright use. We also ask that this Board
address definitional ambiguities in the County's Code, as related to the proposed text
amendment, as described here.
Page 4 ofS
I
I
1
COlD Request to Re-Activate T A-J3-4
Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
Sincerely,
~~
Elizabeth A. Dickson J. Kenneth Katzaroff
EAD/mls
Cc: Client
EncIs. August 13,2014 COlD Letter Requesting Abeyance;
February 10,2015 Letter from Mediator Anne George;
DCC 18.128.260
DCC 18.48
Page 5 of5
L:\Data\Liz\CLIENT FILES\C\COIDVUNIPER RIDGE PHASE JI\TEXT AMENDMEN1\BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS\Request
to Re-Activate TA 13-4 3.12.l5.docx
HURLEY RE 747 SWMiliViewWay. Bend. OR 97702
c. 541-317-5505 • Fax: 541-317-5507 • www.hurley-re.com ATTORNEYS AT
MAR 1 2 2015
August 13,2014
Board of County Commissioners
Deschutes County
1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ADMINISTRATION
Bend, OR 97701
Re: TA-13-4 Abeyance Request
Dear County Commissioners,
Our frrrn serves as general counsel for Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) in its
application for a text amendment to allow piping as an outright use in the S.R 2.5 Zone. We
respectfully request that this application be held in abeyance for a few months to allow us to
further explore issues raised in comments to the pending application.
To that end, COID's new manager, Craig Horrell, has consulted with the District's funding
partners in the Juniper Ridge II project, the subject of the pending text amendment. He has
received written confirmation from all partners of their support ofthis critical project and their
willingness to hold committed funds for another year to allow us to pursue a process to explore
comments. The funding partners' cooperation is due, in part, to Chairperson Baney's letter dated
August 4,2014, which states that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) will decide on
COID's application on or before March 25, 2015. COID appreciates the County's cooperation
with this piece of the plan to make exploration of comments possible.
On August 12,2014, the COID Board of Directors agreed to ask the BOCC to hold its TA-13-4
application in abeyance. The Board also committed necessary funds to engage a professional
facilitator to conduct a process that is tentatively planned to occur in two parts:
1. Assessment of mediation as a means to explore, understand, and potentially reach
compromise on implementation ofCOID's Juniper Ridge II piping project; then
2. Mediation to that end.
Each phase is anticipated to require approximately 3 months including summary of result by
report. Assessment is customary and recommended in cases where parties have significant
differences of opinion on a best result. lfthe assessment report indicates that the mediation has a
reasonable expectation of success, mediation is recommended and will follow if all parties are
willing to engage in the process.
The proposed assessment and mediation will be perfonned by a neutral third-party facilitator.
Following the assessment, the facilitator will issue a report on or around November 15,2014, as
to whether a formal mediation process would be beneficial. Please see the proposed schedule
attached for further detail on this concept, offered for information only.
In the spirit of open communication, dialogue, and finding a collaborative solution, com hopes
and that all interested parties will agree to participate with this assessment during this «time out"
in the legislative process.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth A. Dickson
EAD/hoh
Cc: client
Ene.
l:\data\liz\client files\c\coid\abeyance letter to county 8, 13.14.docx
2
Proposed Assessment and Mediation Schedule
Aug. 15 -Nov. 15,2014: Assessment Phase
Facilitator conducts assessment of process success with group (38 neighbors + 2 COlD +Des Co 50 max.)
Meets with small groups (15 meetings of3-4 at a time) and reports findings oflikely process success to all
parties.
Parties evaluate assessment and decide whether to proceed (Inc!. COlD at Nov. 11 meeting, BOCC at Nov. 12
meeting).
Nov. 15 -Mar. 24. 2015; Mediation Phase
Nov. 15 -Jan. IS
Parties enter into mediation process with facilitator, by design as recommended by facilitator. Format
customarily includes education phase, evaluation of alternatives phase, creative compromise phase, based on
findings in Assessment phase.
Jan. 15 Jan. 30,2015
Facilitator writes report and submits to parties for review.
Feb. I-Feb 15,2015
Parties provide draft comments and report finalized.
Feb. 15 -Feb. 28,2015
Final report considered by BOCC and Des Co staff
March 4, 2015
BOCC Work Session on T A 13-4.
March 25,2014
BOCC deliberates and votes on ratification of T A 13-4.
-OR-
Nov. 15 -Dec. 31. 2014: Decision Phase
BOCC takes T A 13-4 out of abeyance because mediation not recommended.
Work session scheduled to proceed with consideration ofTA by end of2014.
Anne E. George
Mediation, Facilitation + Public Involveme1t
Ben d, 0 reg 0 n B'i1i!OAii5iRD;;"iO~F~CO~M;;:-M~ISS::":'::IO:-:-NE-AS...J
tel: 503.502.20031 email: anne.eILgeorge@gmail.com; , ..,____A;;;;.;DM.:.:.:,I:.::NS~T:..:::RA:::.:TI;;::.ON~_ _.l
(NI!D~IlUll! . MAR 1 2 2015L
To: Craig Horrell, District Manager, Central Oregon Irrigation District
Date: february 10, 2015
Re: Possible Collaborative Process to Discuss Future of Pilot Butte Canal
This memo is an update on discussions to develop a possible collaborative process on the
future of Pilot Butte Canal. In August 2014, COlD contracted with me to conduct an
independent assessment to determine if there were sufficient interest in a collaborative
process or mediation related to the issue of the proposed piping of a section of the Pilot
Butte Canal and potential construction of a forebay in a specific residential area.
During the period August through September 2014, I contacted all of the property owners
in the identified neighborhood, a sample of property owners near the identified
neighborhood, as well as other community stakeholders. While not all of the identified
property owners or other stakeholders agreed to participate in the assessment, I was able
to interview a total of 46 people over 24 interviews from August to November 2014.
While a majority of the property owners interviewed for the assessment, as well as the
board and staff of COlD, initially indicated an interest in discussions on a possible
collaborative process, it has become apparent that the identified property owners are not
interested in participation in this specific process at this time.
In addition to follow-up email, telephone, mail, and in-person contact with property
owners interviewed in the assessment, I sent a written invitation by mail to property owners
of 76 identified properties in early January 2015 to invite them to a "Next Steps" meeting,
held on February 4,2015. This meeting, it was explained, was held to discuss their interest in
a possible collaborative process with COlD. COlD staff, two property owners, and one
concerned citizen attended the meeting. Two property owners of a shared residence
contacted me to let me know they were out of state and thus unable to attend. Of the
two property owners who attended, neither is interested in participation in the proposed
collaborative process I invited them to discuss. Based on these results, I do not
recommend pursuit of a collaborative process at this time.
While the immediate outcome of the process may not be perceived as ideal by COlD, I
want to commend the staff and Board for their participation. I also commend the property
owners who participated in the assessment and other discussions. Please let me know if
you, the staff, or the Board of Central Oregon Irrigation District need any further assistance.
Chapter IS.12S. CONDITIONAL USE
IS.12S.010. Operation.
18.128.015. General Standards Governing Conditional Uses.
IS.128.020. Conditions.
18.12S.030. Performance Bond.
18.128.040. Specific Use Standards.
18.12S.050. Airports, Aircraft Landing Fields, Aircraft Charter, Rental, Service
Maintenance Facilities Not Located in the A-D Zone.
18.12S.060. Automobile Wrecking Yard or Junkyard.
IS.12S.070. Cemeteries.
IS.12S.0S0. Church, Hospital, Nursing Home, Convalescent Home, Retirement Home.
IS.12S.090. Medical Clinic, Veterinary Clinic, Club, Lodge, Fraternal Organization,
Community Center, Grange Hall, Golf Course, Horse Stable and Horse
Events Requiring Conditional Uses, Grounds and Buildings For Games or
Sports, Country Club, Swimming, Boating, Tennis Clubs and Similar
Activities, Government Structures and Land Uses, Parks, Playgrounds.
IS.12S.100. Dog Pounds and Kennels.
IS.12S.110. Repealed.
IS.12S.120. Landfill, Solid Waste Disposal Site.
IS.12S.130. Commercial Use or Accessory Use Not Wholly Enclosed Witbin A Building, or
a Retail Establishment, Office, Service Commercial Establishment, Financial
Institution, or Personal or Business Service Establishment on a Lot Adjoining
or Across a Street From a Lot on a Residential Zone.
IS.12S.140. Commercial Amusement Establishment.
IS.128.150. Manufactured Home Park.
18.12S.160. Multi-Family Dwelling Complex.
18.12S.170. Recreational Vehicle Park.
18.128.180. Radio, Television Tower, Utility Station or Substation.
IS.128.190. Schools.
18.128.200. Cluster Development (Single-Family Residential Uses Only).
18.12S.210. Planned Development.
18.128.220. Planned Communities.
18.128.230. Dude Ranches.
18.128.240. Shopping Complex.
18.12S.250. High-Temperature Geothermal Wells and Small-Scale Geothermal Energy
Facilities.
18.12S.260. Hydroelectric Facilities.
18.128.270. Fill and Removal.
IS.128.2S0. Surface Mining of Non-Goal 5 Mineral and Aggregate Resources
IS.12S.290. Storage, Crushing and Processing of Minerals in Conjunction with the
Maintenance or Construction of Public Roads or Highways.
IS.12S.300. Mini-Storage Facility.
18.128.310. Bed and Breakfast Inn.
18.12S.320. Campgrounds.
IS.128.330. Microwave and Radio Communication Towers in the SM Zone.
IS.12S.340. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
18.12S.350. Guest Lodge.
IS.12S.360. Guest Ranch.
IS.128.370. Time-Share Unit.
IS.128.3S0. Procedure for Taking Action on Conditional Use Application.
18.128 (07/2010)
14. Water Quality. Activities shall be designed and conducted to comply with the water quality
standards of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. The equipment service and
fuel transfer areas, and the area occupied by drilling rigs shall drain into sumps. No fluids
of any type shall be allowed to enter stream courses.
15. Subsidence and Induced Seismicity. Activities shall be designed and conducted to
minimize the potential for land subsidence or induced seismicity which could result from
the withdrawal and/or injection of geothermal fluids. Except for prospect drilling, as
defined by ORS 522.005(15), the County may also require establishment of a monitoring
program to gauge such impacts during operations. If either subsidence or induced
seismicity is determined by the County to present a significant hazard, the County may
require remedial action including, but not limited to, reduced production rates, increased
injection of waste water or other nontoxic fluids or suspension of production.
16. Clean-up. Upon completion of each phase of a project, the site shall be promptly cleared of
all trash, refuse and other waste material. All drilling equipment shall be removed from
well pads within 60 days of the completion of a well.
17. Well Drilling Completion Notice. Applicants shall notify the County in writing of
completed well drilling and testing within seven days of said completion. Applicants shall
notify the County in writing of suspended drilling within seven days of said suspension,
when such suspension is expected to last longer than ISO days.
IS. Standby Wells. Wells which have encountered geothennal resources and which are
awaiting connection to a pipeline or energy facility shall be maintained at a minimum
steam-bleeding rate in compliance with Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral
Industry standards. The area surrounding the wellhead pads of standby wells and
producing wells shall be subject to the revegetation requirements ofDCC IS.12S.250(C).
19. Re-Entry of Wells. Applicants may redrill or otherwise re-enter the same well-bore of any
well for which a conditional use permit has already been issued as long as all conditions for
the use permit continue to be met.
20. Site Abandonment and Restoration. When a well or facility is pennanently abandoned, the
applicant shall remove all equipment, structures and other related material within ISO days
from the date operations cease. Thereafter, the applicant shall regrade the area of
operations to match original land contours as closely as practical and shall revegetate the
area subject to DCC IS.12S.250(C).
C. Revegetation. Following the completion of well drilling, or the permanent abandonment of a
well or facility, the applicant shall revegetate the area of operations as follows:
1. Previously stockpiled topsoil and chipped vegetation shall be respread over disturbed areas
prior to reseeding.
2. Disturbed areas shall be reseeded with native plants and grasses in the first fall following
completion of drilling or site abandonment. Temporary fencing of reseeded areas may be
required to facilitate revegetation. The revegetation shall be evaluated by the County
during the first spring following initial reseeding, and if determined to have resulted in less
than a 75 percent survival rate, additional revegetation shall be required in the immediately
succeeding fall season.
(Ord. 95-075 §1, 1995; Ord. 93-043 §23C-G, 1993; Ord. 91-03S §l, 1991; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991)
18.128.260. Hydroelectric Facilities.
A. The criteria set forth below shall apply to any construction or expansion of, or other
modification to, hydroelectric facilities in zones where such facilities are permitted as a
conditional use. A conditional use permit may be granted for the construction or expansion of,
or other modification to, a hydroelectric facility only upon findings by the Planning Director or
Hearings Body that the proposal meets each of the following criteria, where applicable:
18.128 (07/2010)
I. The facility is located at and physically connected to an existing man-made diversion or
impoundment.
2. The facility will not increase the maximum surface area or capacity of the impoundment
created by the existing dam or diversion to which the facility will be connected.
3. The facility will maintain or enhance to the greatest extent possible the existing scenic,
visual, environmental and aesthetic qualities of the affected stretch ofthe river.
4. The facility will maintain or enhance the existing recreational opportunities on or adjacent
to the affected stretch of the river.
5. The facility will maintain or enhance existing fish and wildlife habitat and will have no
adverse impact upon any threatened or endangered fish, wildlife or plant species or their
habitat.
6. The facility and its operation will maintain or enhance existing water quality in the affected
stretch of the river except during construction of the facility when adverse impacts on water
quality will be minimized. Specifically, the facility and its operation will not:
a. Deposit or create a zone for the deposit of sediments in the river at or adjacent to the
site;
b. Increase the temperature of the river in the affected stretch by any means, including but
not limited to removal of vegetation or reduction in streamflow; or
c. Create the potential for or result in spillage, leakage or discharge of oil, waste products,
chemicals or other substances which could reach the river.
7. The facility and its operation will not increase soil or bank erosion or destroy bank habitat
at or on land adjacent to the site except during construction of the facility, during which
time soil or bank erosion and destruction of bank habitat will be minimized.
8. The facility and its operation will maintain existing public access to the affected stretch of
the river.
9. The facility will not be located at or immediately adjacent to any identified archaeological
or historical site, national or state park, wildlife refuge, Bureau of Land Management
Outstanding Natural Area or Area of Critical Environmental Concern, Federal Research
Natural Area or U. S. Forest Service Special Interest Area.
10. The facility will not be located on any stretch of the river that is being studied or
recommended for inclusion in either the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Program or the
State Scenic Waterways Program, unless location of the facility at that site would not
preclude inclusion of the stretch in the state or federal program.
11. The facility and its operation will comply with all applicable noise, water quality and
pollution regulations of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
12. The facility and its operation will comply with all applicable state and local
fill-and-removal statutes and regulations.
B. The applicant for a conditional use permit for a hydroelectric facility, in addition to all other
requirements, shall submit the following for approval:
1. Detailed construction plans and profiles of all facility features including building elevations
of the powerhouse and other structures, excavation plans, a narrative describing where
blasting will occur and where excess material will be deposited, and landscaping and
reclamation plans.
2. Detailed plans for meeting the criteria set forth in DeC 18.128.260(B)(1).
3. Detailed plans for river enhancement documenting both on-site and off-site enhancement
plans consistent with adopted river-related goals and policies, such as plans and methods
for conserving water and enhancing stream flows. The plan shall identify costs, time
schedules and coordination activities with affected persons and agencies for such
enhancement plans.
4. A cash deposit, performance bond or other security acceptable to Deschutes County in an
amount equal to 100 percent of the estimated cost of river enhancement.
18.128 (07/2010)
5. Detailed plans for a water conservation and stream enhancement program to be funded by a
portion of revenues generated by the operation of the proposed facility. The program plans
shall contain the following:
a. A program timetable;
b. Projected gross revenues from the proposed facility;
c. Projected program expenditures and the percentage of gross revenues they represent;
d. Projected water savings and the percentage of known current water losses they
represent;
e. A declaration by the applicant that at least 50 percent of the conserved water will
remain undiverted by the applicant;
f. A declaration by the applicant that water diversion for power generation will not cause
water flow in the affected stretch of the river (from the diversion to the tailrace exit) to
fall below the minimum streamflow for that stretch as recommended by the Oregon
Department ofFish and Wildlife; and
g. A declaration that the applicant will enter into an agreement with the County to fulfill
all of the requirements in DeC 18.128.260(B)(l) through (5) before beginning
construction.
(Ord. 95-075 § I, 1995; Ord. 91-020 § I, 1991)
18.128.270. Fill and Removal.
Except as otherwise provided in DeC Title 18, no person shall fill or remove any material or
remove any vegetation, regardless of the amount, within the bed and banks of any stream or river or
in any wetland, unless such fill or removal is approved as a conditional use subject to the following
standards:
A. An application shall be filed containing a plan with the following information:
1. A detailed explanation of the planned fill or removal including the amount of material to be
filled or removed.
2. An explanation of why the fill or removal is necessary.
3. A site plan, drawn to scale and accompanied by such drawings, sketches and descriptions
as are necessary to describe and illustrate the proposed fill or removal. The site plan shall,
at a minimum, include:
a. An inventory of existing vegetation.
b. The proposed modifications, if any, to the vegetation.
c. Existing and proposed site contours.
d. Location of property lines, easements and high water marks.
e. Other site elements or information that will assist in the evaluation of the proposed fill
or removaL
B. Public facility and service uses such as construction or maintenance of roads, bridges, electric,
gas, telephone, water, sewer transmission and distribution lines, and related facilities controlled
by public utilities or cooperative associations, shall not be granted conditional use permits to fill
or remove unless the following findings are made:
I. That all necessary state and federal permits will be obtained as a condition of approval of
the conditional use.
2. That the public facility and service uses and related facilities cannot, as a practical matter,
be located outside of the wetland or bed and banks of the stream or river.
3. That the construction or maintenance requiring the fill or removal will be done in a manner
designed to minimize the adverse impact upon the wetland, stream or river.
4. That erosion will be adequately controlled during and after construction.
18.128 (07/2010)
[0) r--~~-!L...JJ-.-.!.a...~, ~', , !
Chapter 18.48. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ZONE -OS&C
11 t MAR 1 2 2015
18.48.010. Purpose.
18.48.020. Uses Permitted Outright. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
18.48.030. Conditional Uses Permitted. ADMINISTRATION
18.48.040. Dimensional Standards.
18.48.050. Setbacks.
18.48.060. Limitations on Conditional Uses.
18.48.070 Limitations on Small Hydroelectric Facilities
18.48.010. Purpose.
The purpose of the Open Space and Conservation Zone is to protect designated areas of scenic and natural
reSOUfces; to restrict development in areas with fragile, unusual or unique qualities: to protect and improve
the quahty of the air, water and land resources and to plan development that will conserve open space.
(Ord. 93-043 §6, 1993)
18.48.020. Uses Permitted Outright.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
A. Farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2).
B. Public and nonprofit agencies, museums and exhibits on lands where an exception has been granted in
accordance with Oregon Administrative Rules chapter 660, Division 4.
C. Public wildlife reserve or management area, not including structures.
D. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision Of subject
to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116.230.
E. Class III road or street project.
F. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District
except as provided in DCC 18.120.050.
G. Construction, opcration, and maintenance of small hydroelectric facilities, including transmission lines
serving such facilities, subject to DCC 18.48.070.
(Ord. 2008-018 §1, 2008; Ord. 2001-039 §3, 2001; Ord. 2001-016 §2, 2001; Ord. 97-023 §l, 1997; Ord.
94-041 §1, 1994; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991)
18.48.030. Conditional Uses Permitted.
The following uses may be allowed subject to DCC 18.128:
A. Private parks, picnic areas or hunting and fishing preserves.
B. Public parks and recreational areas owned and operated by a govemmental agency or nonprofit
community organization.
C. Utility facility except landfills.
D. Water supply and treatment facility.
E. Excavation, grading and fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or river or in a wetland
subject to DCC 18.120.050 and DCC 18.128.270.
F. Campground.
G. Wireless telecommunications facilities, except those facilities meeting the requirements of DCC
IS.116.250(A) or (8).
H. Surface mining of mineral and aggregate resources in conjunction with the operation and maintenance
of irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District, including the excavation and mining for
facilities, ponds, reservoirs, and the off-site use, storage, and sale of excavated material.
Chapter 18.48 (7/2008)
•
(Ord. 2001-039 §3, 2001; Ord. 2001-016 §2, 2001; Ord. 97-063 §3, 1997; Ord. 94-041 §I, 1994; Ord.
92-004 §9, 1992: Ord. 91-038 §1, 199])
18.48.040. Dimensional Standards.
In an OS&C Zone, the following dimensional standards shall apply:
A. The minimum lot size is 80 acres.
B. Building Height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height,
except as allowed under Dee 18.120.040.
(Ord. 94-041 §I, 1994; Ord. 92-055 §B, 1992)
18.48.050. Setbacks.
A. Minimum setbacks shall be 60 feet from an arterial or collector street or road right of way and 20 feet
from a street within a platted and recorded subdivision.
B. The setback from a perennial stream or lake ordinary high water mark shall be a minimum of 200 feet,
and [Torn an intermittent stream channel, 100 feet.
e. Each side setback shall be a minimum of 15 feet, except on a comer lot it shall be 30 feet from the street
side.
D. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements in DCe 18.116.] 80.
E. Rimrock Setback. Setbacks from rimrock shall be as provided in DCC 18.1 J 6.160.
F. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or
structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met.
(Ord.95-075 §1, 1995; Ord. 94-008 §28, 1994; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 86-053 §10, 1986; Ord. 83-037
§I3,1983)
18.48.060. Limitations on Conditional Uses.
The following limitations shall apply to a conditional use in an OS&C Zone:
A. An application for a conditional use in an OS&C Zone may be denied if, in the opinion of the Planning
Director or Hearings Body, the proposed use is not related to or sufficiently dependent upon the
recreational resources of the area.
B. The proposed use shall not significantly increase fire hazard or significantly increase risks to fire
suppression personnel. The Planning Director or Hearings Body may require establishment and
maintenance of fire breaks, the use of fire resistant materials in construction and landscaping, or attach
other similar conditions or limitations that will reduce fire hazards or prevent the spread of fire to
surrounding areas.
e. The Planning Director or Hearings Body may limit changes in the natural grade of land, or the
alteration, removal or destruction of natural vegetation to prevent or minimize erosion, pollution or
degradation of the natural attractiveness of the area.
D. An application for a conditional use in an OS&C Zone shall be denied if, in the opinion of the Planning
Director or Hearings Body, the proposed use would exceed the carrying capacity of the area Or would
be detrimental to the natural features or resources of the area.
E. An application for a conditional use in an OS&e Zone shall be denied if not in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
F. An application for a conditional use shall be denied if the proposed use would force a significant change
in, or significantly increase the cost of accepted farming or forest practices on agriculture or forest
lands.
G. Where the proposed use is adjacent to forest zoned land, a written statement recorded with the deed or
written contract with the County or its equivalent shall be obtained from the land owner which
recognizes the right of adjacent and nearby land owners to conduct forest operations consistent with the
Chapter 18.48 2 (7/2008)
Forest Practices Act and Rules for uses authorized in Oregon Administrative Rules 660-06-025(4)(e),
(l), (r), (s) and (v).
(Ord. 94-041 §l, 1994; Ord. 91-020 §J, 1991)
18.48.070. Limitations on Small Hydroelectric Facilities.
A. "Small hydroelectric facility" means a hydroelectric facility that qualifies for a Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission ("FERC") Conduit Exemption use.
B. DCC Chapter 18.84 and Sections 18.116.130 and 18.128.260 are not applicable to small hydroelectric
facilities.
C. Prior to issuance of a building pemlit, the applicant shall provide the County with documentation of the
FERC and state licenses for the small hydroelectric facility.
D. The applicant shall demonstrate protection of public health and safety by specitying necessary fencing,
sigtlage, and shielded lighting to protect the public from the electrical generation and transmittal
process.
E. The County may require establishment and maintenance of fire breaks, the use of fire resistant materials
in construction and landscaping, or attach other similar conditions or limitations that will reduce fire
hazards or prevent the spread of fire to sun-ounding areas.
F. The applicant shall submit conceptual construction plans and profiles of project features, including
building elevations, colors and textures to be used, and landscape plans.
1. Structures shall be finished in muted earth tones that blend with and reduce contrast with the
sunounding vegetation and landscape of the building site.
2. No large areas, including roofs, shall be finished with white, bright or reflective materials.
3. Roofing, including metal roofing, shall be non-reflective and of a color which blends with the
sun-ounding vegetation and landscape.
4. Landscaping:
a. Except as necessary for construction of access roads, building pads, public utility casements,
parking areas, etc., the existing tree and shrub cover shall be retained to screen the
development.
b. This provision does not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or
hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon
Forest Practices Act, or agricultural use of the land.
c. The Planning Director or Hearings Body may require the establishment of introduced
landscape material to screen the development, assure compatibility with existing vegetation,
reduce glare, direct automobile and pedestrian circulation or enhance the overall appearance
of the development while not interfering with the views of oncoming traffic at access points
or views of mountains, forests and other open and scenic areas as seen from a designated
landscape management road, river or stream.
d. Use of native species shall be encouraged.
5. Landscape plans shall be subject to DCC 18.48.070(F).
G. The applicant shall obtain an access pennit, if necessary, to the project site.
(Ord. 2008-018 §2,2008)
Chapter 18.48 3 (7/2008)
Q).Q. ..... ~
iJJ ..-'I o -< Deschutes County Board of Commissionersu.. 'f...•..E Q..•....•..... ....•.•.•••••......••..
ne c' 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board Business Meeting of 3116/15
DATE: February 27, 2015
FROM: Will Groves CDD (541) 388-6518
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Deliberation on a modification of conditions application (247-14-000401-MC) to change the wildlife
management plan approved for the subject property under County File Nos. CU-00-65 and MA-01-9.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
On December 18, 2014 staff issued an administrative approval of a modification (247-14-00040 I-MC)
to an existing conditional use decision (CU-00-65/ MA-01-9) that allowed the siting of a farm-related
dwelling more than 300 feet from a public or private road in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone (WA).
The administrative approval wholly removed the Wildlife Management Plan (WMP) required under the
previous decision and replaced it with six conditions of approval designed to protect and enhance deer
habitat on the property.
By Order 2014-046, dated December 29,2014, the Board initiated review of this application under
DCC 22.28.050 through a de novo hearing.
On December 30, 2014, Central Oregon Landwatch filed a timely appeal of this application. The notice
of appeal identified six objections to the administrative decision. The Board conducted a de novo
public hearing on February 2,2015. The written record closed on February 7, 2015. Staffhas
developed a decision matrix to help the Board engage with the key decision points in this matter.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Conduct deliberation and give direction to Staff.
ATTENDANCE: Will Groves, Laurie Craghead
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
Will Groves, Legal, Parties to 247-14-000401-MC.
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Envtronmental 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/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 27,2014
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Will Groves, Senior Planner
RE: Deliberation on a modification of conditions application (247-14-000401-MC) to
change the wildlife management plan approved for the subject property under
County File Nos. CU-00-65 and MA-01-9.
Background
On December 18, 2014 staff issued an administrative approval of a modification (247-14
000401-MC) to an existing conditional use decision (CU-00-65/ MA-01-9) that allowed the siting
of a farm-related dwelling more than 300 feet from a public or private road in the Wildlife Area
Combining Zone (WA). The administrative approval wholly removed the Wildlife Management
Plan (WMP) required under the previous decision and replaced it with six conditions of approval
designed to protect and enhance deer habitat on the property.
By Order 2014-046, dated December 29, 2014, the Board initiated review of this application
under DCC 22.28.050 through a de novo hearing.
On December 30, 2014, Central Oregon Landwatch filed a timely appeal of this application.
The notice of appeal identified six objections to the administrative decision. The Board
conducted a de novo public hearing on February 2, 2015. The written record closed on
February 7,2015. Staff has developed a decision matrix to help the Board engage with the key
decision points in this matter.
Key Issues:
Is the applicant required to comply with or document past compliance with the 2001
Wildlife Management Plan?
Staff: No, the modified WMP is all that is required to meet DCC 18.88.060 (B){1). The
modified Wildlife Management Plan (WMP) wholly replaces the 2001 WMP.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Applicant1 : The applicants have attempted to follow the existing, ambiguous, WMP.
However, the modified WMP would wholly replace the 2001 WMP.
Appellant: The applicant did not comply with the prior WMP and the extent of
compliance, if any, is undocumented. The new WMP discards several important wildlife
habitat protections included in the 2001 WMP.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the staff's findings on this issue.
Does the modification meet the 22.36.040(B} requirement that there has been a "change
of circumstances"?
Staff: A new WMP was cooperatively developed by ODFW and the applicant's biologist.
The availability of a new WMP for the property, containing current best habitat mitigation
practices and significantly improved clarity of required owner actions represents a
change of circumstances. The change in ownership, in itself, is not a change of
circumstances.
Applicant: The change in ownership of the property, coupled with a need to clarify the
poorly written and ambiguous 2001 WMP constitute a change of circumstances.
Appellant: The poorly written 2001 WMP and new ownership of the property of the
property do not constitute a change of circumstances.
Staff Recommendation: Modify staff's findings on this issue to identify the availability
of a new WMP for the property, containing current best habitat mitigation practices and
Significantly improved clarity of required owner actions represents a change of
circumstances. The change in ownership, in itself, is not a change of circumstances.
Is an additional condition required to minimize livestock/wildlife forage competition?
Staff: Under the current staff decision, livestock could eat all of the new forage provided
by the habitat mitigation, completely offsetting any wildlife advantage of that mitigation.
An additional condition is needed.
Applicant: The applicant proposed a condition of approval to address the forage
competition.
Appellant: Forage competition would offset mitigation measures.
Staff Recommendation: Modify staff's findings to revise the final paragraph of the
decision to identify forage competition as a relevant concern and impose the following
condition: Cattle grazing on the plateau area above the rim rock, including juniper
thinning areas, shall be limited to 4 weeks per year and shall only occur between June 1
1 "Applicant" and "Appellant" summaries are Staffs effort to summarize the respective party's position.
These are generally not direct quotes.
247-14-000401-MC Page 2 of4
and August 31, to minimize forage competition with deer. Livestock shall be excluded
from juniper thinning areas except as specifically allowed in this condition of approval.
Location of juniper thinning area.
Staff: The staff decision required the applicant to provide a map identifying Juniper
thinning areas within 30 days of final approval. The staff decision also required the
applicant to verify the thinning areas with ODFW prior to thinning.
Applicant: The applicant provided a map of completed and future thinning areas on an
air photo.
Appellant: Concerned mapped thinning areas would not be binding.
Staff Recommendation: Recognize applicant's "Google Earth" map presented at the
hearing as the map required under condition 4(a) of the staff decision.
Monitoring of the Habitat Mitigation:
Staff: The staff decision requires the applicant to schedule a monitoring visit in year 1
and 3.
Applicant: Supports staff approach.
Appellant: Concerned that the conditions of 2001 WMP were not completed and that
the modified WMP conditions will likely not be followed. Also concerned that that this
decision creates an unfunded mandate to monitor the conditions of this decision for both
ODFW and the County.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the staff's findings and conditions of approval on this
issue.
Ensuring success of the habitat mitigation.
Staff: Staff decision requires the applicant to schedule a monitoring visit in year 1 and
3. Reseeding can be required in year 3 if the initial seeding does not take.
Applicant: Supports staff approach.
Appellant: Concerned that two seedings may be insufficient to ensure establishment of
the mitigation vegetation.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the staff's findings and conditions of approval on this
issue.
Attachments
247-14-000401-MC Page 30f4
1. Administrative approval of 274-14-00040 1-MC
2. Arguments submitted by parties during the post hearing process.
3. Decision matrix.
247-14-000401-MC Page4of4
1
SHEPHERD WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN DECISION MATRIX
The Appellant’s testimony identified several issue areas in the Staff Decision. These are summarized in the matrix below.
Issue Information in Record Board Options Staff Comment
1.
Is the applicant
required to comply
with or document
past compliance
with the 2001
Wildlife
Management Plan?
Staff: No, the modified WMP is all that is required to meet DCC 18.88.060
(B)(1). The modified WMP wholly replaces the 2001 WMP.
Applicant: The applicants have attempted to follow the existing, ambiguous,
WMP. However, the modified WMP would wholly replace the 2001 WMP.
Appellant: The applicant did not comply with the prior WMP and the extent of
compliance, if any, is undocumented. The new WMP discards several
important wildlife habitat protections included in the 2001 WMP.
a. Adopt staff decision
findings, with or
without modification.
b. Find that specific
provisions of the
2001 WMP should be
included modified
WMP.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the staff’s findings on this issue.
Sample motion for BOCC: “Move that the Board adopt the staff’s findings.”
2.
Does the
modification meet
the 22.36.040(B)
requirement that
there has been a
“change of
circumstances”?
Staff: A new WMP was cooperatively developed by ODFW and the
applicant’s biologist. The availability of a new WMP for the property,
containing current best habitat mitigation practices and significantly improved
clarity of required owner actions represents a change of circumstances. The
change in ownership, in itself, is not a change of circumstances.
Applicant: The change in ownership of the property, coupled with a need to
clarify the poorly written and ambiguous 2001 WMP constitute a change of
circumstances.
Appellant: The poorly written 2001 WMP and new ownership of the property
of the property do not constitute a change of circumstances.
a. Adopt staff decision
findings, with or
without modification.
b. Find that there has
not been a change in
circumstance.
Staff Recommendation: Modify staff’s findings on this issue to identify the availability of a new WMP
for the property, containing current best habitat mitigation practices and significantly improved clarity of
required owner actions represents a change of circumstances. The change in ownership, in itself, is not a
change of circumstances.
Sample motion for BOCC: “Move that the Board modify the staff’s findings to identify the
availability of a new WMP for the property, containing current best habitat mitigation practices
and significantly improved clarity of required owner actions represents a change of circumstances.
The change in ownership, in itself, is not a change of circumstances.”
3.
Is an additional
condition required
to minimize
livestock/wildlife
forage competition?
Staff: Under the current staff decision, livestock could eat all of the new forage
provided by the habitat mitigation, completely offsetting any wildlife
advantage of that mitigation. An additional condition is needed.
Applicant: The applicant proposed a condition of approval to address the
forage competition.
Appellant: Forage competition would offset mitigation measures.
a. Adopt staff decision
findings, without
modification.
b. Impose applicant-
proposed condition.
Staff Recommendation: Modify staff’s findings to revise the final paragraph of the decision to identify
forage competition as a relevant concern and impose the following condition: Cattle grazing on the
plateau area above the rim rock, including juniper thinning areas, shall be limited to 4 weeks per year
and shall only occur between June 1 and August 31, to minimize forage competition with deer.
Livestock shall be excluded from juniper thinning areas except as specifically allowed in this condition
of approval.
Sample motion for BOCC: “Move that the Board modify staff’s findings to revise the final
paragraph of the decision to identify forage competition as a relevant concern and impose the
following condition: Cattle grazing on the plateau area above the rim rock shall be limited to 4
weeks per year and shall only occur between June 1 and August 31, to minimize forage
competition with deer. Livestock shall be excluded from juniper thinning areas except as
specifically allowed in this condition of approval.”
2
Issue Information in Record Board Options Staff Comment
4. Location of juniper
thinning area.
Staff: Staff decision required the applicant to provide a map identifying Juniper
thinning areas within 30 days of final approval. Staff decision also required the
applicant to verify the thinning areas with ODFW prior to thinning.
Applicant: Provided a map of completed and future thinning areas on an air
photo.
Appellant: Concerned mapped thinning areas would not be binding.
a. Adopt staff decision
findings, without
modification.
b. Recognize
applicant’s “Google
Earth” map presented
at the hearing as the
map required under
condition 4(a) of the
staff decision.
Staff Recommendation: Recognize applicant’s “Google Earth” map presented at the hearing as the map
required under condition 4(a) of the staff decision.
Sample motion for BOCC: “Move that the Board recognize applicant’s “Google Earth” map
presented at the hearing as the map required under condition 4(a) of the staff decision.”
5. Monitoring
Staff: Staff decision requires the applicant to schedule a monitoring visit in
year 1 and 3.
Applicant: Supports staff approach.
Appellant: Concerned that the conditions of 2001 WMP were not completed
and that the modified WMP conditions will likely not be followed. Also
concerned that that this decision creates an unfunded mandate to monitor the
conditions of this decision for both ODFW and the County.
a. Adopt staff decision
findings, without
modification.
b. Add a condition of
approval requiring
third-party, applicant
funded monitoring.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the staff’s findings and conditions of approval on this issue.
Sample motion for BOCC: “Move that the Board adopt the staff’s findings and conditions of
approval on this issue.”
6.
Ensuring success of
the habitat
mitigation.
Staff: Staff decision requires the applicant to schedule a monitoring visit in
year 1 and 3. Reseeding can be required in year 3 if the initial seeding does not
take.
Applicant: Supports staff approach.
Appellant: Concerned that two seedings may be insufficient to ensure
establishment of the mitigation vegetation.
a. Adopt staff decision
findings, without
modification.
b. Add a condition of
approval requiring the
applicant to repeat
seeding until the
vegetation is
established.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the staff’s findings and conditions of approval on this issue.
Sample motion for BOCC: “Move that the Board adopt the staff’s findings and conditions of
approval on this issue.”
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org
BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
10:00 A.M., MONDAY, MARCH 16, 2015
Commissioners' Hearing Room -Administration Building -l300 NW Wall St., Bend
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
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. Please complete a sign-up
card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and
clearly state your name when the Board calls on you to speak.
PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject ofa public
hearing will NOT be included in the official record ofthat hearing.
3. A PUBLIC HEARING (continued from March 4) and Consideration of First
Reading of Ordinance No. 2015-002, a Code Amendment to Allow a New
Manufactured HomelRV Park in the MUA-I0 Zone -Paul Blikstad,
Community Development
Suggested Actions: Continue hearing, take testimony; consider first reading of
Ordinance No. 2015-002.
4. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Approval of Document No.
2015-144, an Outdoor Mass Gathering Permit for the 4 Peaks Music Festival on
a Tumalo Area Property -Cynthia Smidt, Community Development
Suggested Actions: Open hearing and take testimony; approve Board signature
ofDocument No. 2015-144.
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 16,2015
Page 1 of6
5. CONSIDERATION of Board Signature of Order No. 2015-018, Closing the
Record for File #TA-13-4, Which Would Amend Code to Allow as a Use
Permitted Outright in the SR-2.5 Zone, the Operation, Maintenance and Piping
of Existing Irrigation Systems Operated by an Irrigation District Laurie
Craghead, County Counsel; Community Development Staff
Suggested Action: Move Board signature ofOrder No. 2015-018.
6. DELIBERATIONS and Consideration ofa Decision regarding the Shepherd
Property Wildlife Management Plan -Will Groves
Suggested Action(s): Deliberate; consider a decision.
CONSENT AGENDA
7. Board Signature of Resolution No. 2015-022, Authorizing Participation in the
2015-17 Oregon Community Dispute Resolution Grant Fund Program
8. Board Signature of Document No. 2015-136, an Amendment to the
Intergovernmental Agreement with WEBCO regarding the Early Learning Hub
and Maternal Child Health Program
9. Board Signature of Letters regarding the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council:
Accepting the Resignation of David Newton, and Thanking him for his Service;
and Reappointing, through January 31, 2018, the following: Nancy Gilbert,
Chuck Newport, Don Rife, Alan Unger and Rick Wright
10. Approval of Minutes:
. Business Meeting of March 11, 2015
,~ • Work Session of March 11,2015
~
I
1
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY I SERVICE DISTRICT
f
I 11. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for I the 9-1-1 County Service District
I
I
I Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 16,2015
Page 2 of6i
I
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
12. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
the Extensionl4-H County Service District
RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
13. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
Deschutes County
14. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
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) 388-6572, or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker@deschutes.org.
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 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS
192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other executive session items.
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. Ifyou have questions
regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.)
Monday, March 16
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s)
Tuesday, March 17
10:00 a.m. 911 Executive Board Meeting, at 911
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 16,2015
Page 3 of6
Monday, March 23
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, March 25
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s)
Monday, March 30
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
I
1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s)
I
Wednesday, April 1
I 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s)
!
I Monday, April 6 I
I 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
I
~
i
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s)
I Tuesday, April 7
3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting
I
!
I Wednesday, April 8
I
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) I
I
! Wednesday, April 15
10:00 a.m. Department Update Health Services, at Health
I
1
1
I Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 16, 2015
Page 4 of6I
I
I
Monday, April 20
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s)
Monday, April 20
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s)
Tuesday, April 21
10:00 a.m. 911 Executive Board Meeting, at 911
2:00 p.m. Department Update -Fair & Expo, at Fairgrounds
Wednesday, April 22
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s)
Monday, April 27
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, April 29
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s)
Monday, May 4
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s)
Tuesday, May 5
2:00 p.m. Department Update -Finance
3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 16,2015
Page 5 of6
Wednesday, May 6
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s)
Thursday, May 7
1:30p.m. Department Update -Assessor
Wednesday, May 13
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s)
Tuesday, May 19
I :30 p.m. Department Update Juvenile Community Justice, at Juvenile
Wednesday, May 20
2:30 p.m. Department Update -911 Service District, at 911
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) 388-6572, or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker@deschutes.org.
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 16, 2015
Page 6 of6