Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPolicy Review Batch 1 Revised June 2023 Page 1 Policy Review – Group 1 Updated June 2023 TO: Deschutes 2040 Project Management Team FROM: Andrew Parish, MIG CC: DATE: June 15, 2023 INTRODUCTION This memorandum includes existing and recommended policy language related to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan topics listed below. The Planning Commission reviewed these policies in November, 2022 and this draft presents updated language. 1. Community Engagement 2. Land Use and Regional Coordination 3. Agricultural Lands POLICY REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Table 1 lists existing policy language in underline and strikeout, along with a column of notes and discussion describing changes and their rationale. Items that have changed since initial review by the Planning Commission are highlighted and policies that have been updated since the most recent PC meeting are noted in bold text. Changes are based on a review by County staff and the consultant team, identified through further community engagement and/or coordination with technical advisors, and review by the Deschutes County Planning Commission. Numbering has been revised for consistency and navigation but likely will be updated again as the planning process proceeds. DRAFT Policy Review – Group 1 Updated June 2023 Page 2 Table 1. Community Engagement Policies Policy Language Notes and Discussion Goal 1: Maintain an active and open community involvement program that is accessible to all members of the community and engages the community during development and implementation of land use policies and codes. Provide for a robust community involvement program that includes all members of the community, including those who are commonly under-represented, by ensuring access to information, encouraging community collaboration, identifying and addressing barriers to involvement, and promoting efficient and transparent planning processes. Drafted revised, broad goal using language from policy and made more directive about being proactive about equity, inclusivity, actively recruiting under-represented groups. Split out other existing sub-policies into new policies. This goal language has been revised to use stronger language (“Provide”) and specifically identify/address barriers to public involvement, per Planning Commission direction. Minor change per PC discussion – “including” instead of “particularly.” 1.2.1 This section serves as the Community Involvement Program. The Planning Commission will be the Committee for Community Involvement, with County support. a. Maintain funding and staffing. b. Provide regular updates, speakers, panel discussions and handouts on land use law and policy. c. Appoint members through an open and public process to reflect the geographic areas and diverse values of Deschutes County residents. d. Meet with the Board of County Commissioners at least once a year to coordinate planning policies and activities. e. Complete an annual report on community involvement Removed unnecessary detail about while identifying the role and purpose of Planning Commission as CCI. This policy was updated to address Planning Commission direction. Removed the words “Continue to” at beginning of policy. DRAFT Policy Review – Group 1 Updated June 2023 Page 3 Policy Language Notes and Discussion implementation for the State Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee, the Board of County Commissioners and the public. Policy 1.1.1 Convene the Deschutes County Planning Commission as the County’s Committee for Community Involvement in order to provide a direct and transparent connection between County decision-making and the public. Policy 1.1.2. Write all County planning documents to be understandable, intuitive, and easily available to the general public, using simplified language where possible, with acronyms spelled out and technical language explained. Adaptation of existing (sub)policy, added “simplified language”. Policy 1.1.3. Hold area-specific comprehensive plan and zoning text amendment public hearings in locations and at times convenient and accessible to area residents, as appropriate. Moved to its own policy, added “accessible”. Policy 1.1.4. Provide property information to the public in an intuitive and easy-to-use manner. Formerly Land Use policy 1.3.6. generalized somewhat. Policy 1.1.5. Consult and coordinate with developers before submitting applications as required or recommended by the County Development Code to identify and discuss project requirements and impacts. Retained much of the existing language with some tweaks but separated into a broad goal and specific policies. Removed reference to pre-application requirements to avoid potential duplication or conflicts with development code provisions. DRAFT Policy Review – Group 1 Updated June 2023 Page 4 Policy Language Notes and Discussion Encourage community participation in planning through a variety of tools and techniques, including: a. Post all planning applications, decisions, projects and plans on the County website; b. Provide staff reports for comprehensive plan and zoning text amendments to the public in a timely manner; c. Write all County planning documents to be accessible and understandable to the general public, with acronyms spelled out and technical language explained; d. Hold area-specific comprehensive plan and zoning text amendment public hearings in locations and at times convenient to area residents, as appropriate; e. Require pre-application meetings for comprehensive plan and zoning text amendments; and for major or potentially contentious projects encourage the applicants to hold an informal community meeting before submitting an application. Moved relevant sub-policies to their own policies. Reach out to the community to discuss and respond to land use concerns in a timely manner. Unnecessary policy Policy 1.1.6 Invest in and support land use educational resources for community members including information related to rural living, agricultural practices, natural resources, and natural hazards. New policy based on community feedback. Open house comments supported this policy. Policy 1.1.7. Promote opportunities for community members to have civil dialogue around key community issues. New policy based on community feedback. Policy 1.1.8. Explore new and innovative ways to reach community members and promote participation in the planning process. New policy based on community feedback.Responses from online open house suggest the use of new and DRAFT Policy Review – Group 1 Updated June 2023 Page 5 Policy Language Notes and Discussion innovative tool was a success and supportive of this policy. Goal 2: Support the activities of the Committee for Community Involvement New goal to capture policies related to the functioning of the CCI Policy 1.2.1. Maintain adequate funding and staffing support for the Committee. Retained much of existing language; added "adequate" funding and staffing support. Policy 1.2.2. Provide regular updates, speakers, panel discussions, and handouts on land use law and policy. No change to existing language. Policy 1.2.3. Appoint members through an open and public process to reflect the diverse geographic regions, demographics, and values of Deschutes County residents. No change to existing language. Policy 1.2.4. Meet with the Board of County Commissioners at least once a year to coordinate planning policies and activities. No change to existing language. Policy 1.2.5. Complete periodic reports on community involvement implementation for the State Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee, the Board of County Commissioners, and the public. Retained much of existing language; made time period for reporting more general (periodic instead of annual). DRAFT Policy Review – Group 1 Updated June 2023 Page 6 Policy Language Notes and Discussion Policy 1.2.6. Maintain open and civil discourse among Committee members and with the public. New policy based on Planning Commission discussion and desire for “civility” to be included. No change since last PC. Table 2. Land Use Policies Policy Language Notes and Discussion Goal 1: Maintain an open and public land use process in which decisions are based on the objective evaluation of facts substantial evidence and a balancing of community needs. Rewording notes “substantial evidence” rather than “objective evaluation” and introduces the necessary balancing of community needs. This policy was updated from prior wording which mentioned “adequate findings of fact” to reflect Planning Commission direction. No change since last PC. Policy 1.3.1: Protect the limited amount of privately-owned land in Deschutes County through consideration of private property rights and economic impacts to property owners and the community when creating and revising land use policies and regulations. a.Evaluate tools such as transfer of development rights programs that can be used to protect private property. Policy 2.1.1. Balance the consideration of private property rights and the economic impacts of land use decisions on property owners with other community goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Recommend removing sub-policies (a, b, c) to the extent possible. New language attempts to simplify policy and specify that private property rights & economic impacts must be weighed as well as other community goals. This policy was updated to address Planning Commission direction, identifying the Comprehensive Plan as the location of Community Goals. No change since last PC. DRAFT Policy Review – Group 1 Updated June 2023 Page 7 Policy Language Notes and Discussion Policy 1.3.2: Consider sustainability and cumulative impacts when creating and revising land use policies and regulations. Recommend relocating to another section. Policy 1.3.3: Involve the public when amending County Code. Out of place/unnecessary. Recommend removing. Policy 1.3.4: Maintain public records which support the Comprehensive Plan and other land use decisions. Unnecessary. Recommend removing. Policy 2.1.2. Review the Comprehensive Plan every five years periodically and update as needed, in order to ensure it responds to address current conditions, issues, and opportunities, as well as amended State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and case law. Updated to make time period for updates more general. Consider ultimately moving this policy to a set of general policies. Policy 1.3.6: Maintain and enhance web-based property-specific information. Moved to Public Involvement section, see Table 1. Policy 2.1.3 The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map will be retained in official replica form as an electronic map layer within the County Geographic Information System and is adopted as part of this Plan. Kept as is. Policy 1.3.8 Implement, as appropriate, recommendations in the Final Report from the Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning dated January 2009. Outdated policy; recommend removing. Policy 1.3.9 A list of actions to implement this Comprehensive Plan shall be created, maintained and reviewed yearly by the Community Development Department and the Board of County Commissioners. This could potentially be described rather than enshrined in policy language. DRAFT Policy Review – Group 1 Updated June 2023 Page 8 Policy Language Notes and Discussion Policy 2.1.4. Implement Comprehensive Plan policies through the Community Development Department's annual work plan and other actions by the Department and the Board of County Commissioners. Policy 2.1.5. Explore methods to integrate carrying capacity into County land use decision making. New policy based on community input. Goal 2. Promote Regional Cooperation and Partnerships on Planning Issues. Goal 2: Coordinate and support regional planning efforts relating to growth, natural resources, recreation, and major infrastructure investments. Consider new text in place of previous text, based on community input. Added “natural resources” and “recreation” based on community feedback. Policy 2.2.1. Regularly Periodically review and update intergovernmental and urban management agreements to coordinate land use review on land inside urban growth boundaries and outside city limits. and update as needed. Consolidated with policy 4.2.5 Participate in and, where appropriate, coordinate regional planning efforts. a. Provide affected agencies, including irrigation districts, an opportunity to comment and coordinate on land use policies or actions that would impact their jurisdictions. Made more general; removed specific reference to irrigation districts; can call them out in other chapters, as needed. Minor rewording for clarity. DRAFT Policy Review – Group 1 Updated June 2023 Page 9 Policy Language Notes and Discussion Policy 2.2.2. Help coordinate regional planning efforts with other agencies on land use policies and actions that impact their jurisdictions. Support non-profit or public acquisition of lands determined through an extensive public process to have significant value to the community. Policy 2.2.3. Support the use of high value natural resource and recreational lands for public purposes, whether through acquisition, easements, or other means. Revised to eliminate reference to "extensive public processes." Support implementation of the Bend 2030 Plan and incorporate, as appropriate, elements from the Bend 2030 Plan into this Plan. Policy 2.2.4. Support the implementation of long-range plans of Deschutes County jurisdictions, incorporating elements of those plans into the County's Comprehensive Plan as appropriate. Made more general, recognizing potential need to do so with other community plans and that specific Plan names change or are replaced over time. Policy 2.2.5 Encourage cities to conduct urban reserve planning to facilitate orderly and thoughtful management of growth and infrastructure needs. New policy based on community feedback Policy 2.2.6 Collaborate with federal agencies on land management issues including homelessness, sustainable recreation expansion, and energy projects. New policy based on community feedback DRAFT Policy Review – Group 1 Updated June 2023 Page 10 Policy Language Notes and Discussion Policy 2.2.7 Collaborate with tribal governments on regional issues, particularly those that impact ceded lands or shared natural resources. New policy based on CTWS meeting. Policy 2.2.8 Support efforts to reduce barriers to regional infrastructure projects with community benefit while mitigating negative impacts. New policy based on community feedback Added clarifying language related to impacts or other tradeoffs. Policy 2.2.9 Support updates to unincorporated community area plans. New policy, moved from area specific policy section, changes to wording from previous PC worksession. Policy 2.2.10 In accordance with OAR 660-024-004 and 0045, Deschutes County, fulfilling coordination duties specified in ORS 195.025, shall approve and update its comprehensive plan when participating cities within their jurisdiction legislatively or through a quasi-judicial process designate regionally significant sites. Moved from 4.2.16, same language Policy 2.2.10 The County and City shall periodically review the agreement associated with the Redmond Urban Reserve Area. The following land use policies guide zoning in the RURA a. Plan and zone RURA lands for rural uses, in a manner that ensures the orderly, economic and efficient provision of urban services as these lands are brought into the urban growth boundary. b. New parcels shall be a minimum of ten acres. c. Until lands in the RURA are brought into the urban growth boundary, zone changes or plan amendments shall not allow more intensive uses or uses that generate more traffic, than were allowed prior to the establishment of the RURA. Moved and combined 4.2.9, 4.2.10 and 4.2.11 DRAFT Policy Review – Group 1 Updated June 2023 Page 11 Policy Language Notes and Discussion d. For Exclusive Farm Use zones, partitions shall be allowed based on state law and the County Zoning Ordinance. e. New arterial and collector rights-of-way in the RURA shall meet the right-of-way standards of Deschutes County or the City of Redmond, whichever is greater, but be physically constructed to Deschutes County standards. f. Protect from development existing and future arterial and collector rights-of-way, as designated on the County’s Transportation System Plan. g. A single family dwelling on a legal parcel is permitted if that use was permitted before the RURA designation. Additionally, the County-owned 1,800 acres in the RURA must be master planned before it is incorporated into Redmond’s urban growth boundary. Goal 3: Manage County owned lands efficiently, effectively, flexibly and in a manner that balances the needs of County residents. Goal 3: Manage county-owned lands to balance the needs of the community as articulated in the goals and policies of this Plan and other supporting planning documents. Eliminated the words "efficiently, effectively, and flexibly." Those are important goals but also words that can be subjective and can be used to question or oppose specific County actions. Where feasible, maintain and manage County owned properties as follows: a. Manage designated park lands to preserve the values defined in the park designation; Split into individual policies and revised to improve clarity. DRAFT Policy Review – Group 1 Updated June 2023 Page 12 Policy Language Notes and Discussion b. Permit public access to County owned lands designated as parks unless posted otherwise; c. Encourage properties located along rivers, streams or creeks or containing significant wildlife, scenic or open space values to be designated as park land. Policy 2.3.1. Manage lands with a park designation consistent with the goals and policies in Section X (Natural Resources) Reference specific parks/open space policies in separate section, if this policy is still relevant. Policy 2.3.2. Support park districts, state and/or federal agencies efforts to identify additional properties along rivers, streams, or creeks, or containing significant wildlife, scenic resource, or open space resources to designate as park land. Revised language in coordination with staff. Goal 4: Minimize onerous barriers to land use application and development review processes. New goal based on community input. Added “minimize onerous” based on PC input. Policy 2.4.1 Explore addition of specialty planning positions within CDD with expertise in wildlife, natural resources, and/or agricultural practices. New policy based on community input. Updated based on PC input. Policy 2.4.2 Explore measures to reduce development costs for projects related to agriculture and addressing houselessness, including fee reductions and expedited land use applications. New policy based on community input. Reworded for clarity based on PC input. DRAFT Policy Review – Group 1 Updated June 2023 Page 13 Table 3. Agricultural Lands Policies Policy Language Notes and Discussion Goal 1: Preserve and maintain agricultural lands, operations, and uses to support Deschutes County’s agricultural economy the agricultural industry. This policy was updated to address Planning Commission direction – adding references to agricultural operations and uses; and replacing the word “industry” with “economy” to help broaden the policy intent and capture Commissioners’ comments and concerns. No change since last PC meeting. Policy 3.1.1: Retain agricultural lands through Exclusive Farm Use zoning. No change recommended. Policy 3.1.2. Continue to apply Exclusive Farm Use sub-zones shall remain as described in the 1992 Farm Study and shown in the table below, unless adequate legal findings for amending the sub-zones are adopted or an individual parcel is rezoned as allowed by Policy 2.2.3. consistent with the County's most up-to-date adopted studies of agricultural land and as implemented through the County Development Code. Exclusive Farm Use Subzones • Subzone Name , Minimum Acres , Profile • Lower Bridge , 130 , Irrigated field crops, hay and pasture • Sisters/Cloverdale , 63 , Irrigated alfalfa, hay and pasture, wooded grazing and some field crops • Terrebonne , 35 , Irrigated hay and pasture • Tumalo/Redmond/Bend , 23 , Irrigated pasture and some hay • Alfalfa , 36 , Irrigated hay and pasture • La Pine , 37 , Riparian meadows, grazing and meadow hay Removed specific descriptive language which could change over time; referred to more general adopted study. Include subzone information in Comprehensive Plan narrative. DRAFT Policy Review – Group 1 Updated June 2023 Page 14 Policy Language Notes and Discussion • Horse Ridge East , 320 , Rangeland grazing Policy 3.1.3 Explore the evaluation and potential redesignation of lands with a farm designation and poor soils andlow productivity for protected open space, development of needed housing, or other uses that support community goals. Option A Policy 3.1.3 Support residential development on farm lands with poor soils and low productivity through new comprehensive plan and zoning designations, or other means as appropriate. Potential new policy option based on community feedback. Combined options discussed at PC. Remove options after internal discussion. Is this feasible/consistent with state law? How is this different from non-prime soils initiative? Would require more analysis if the County generally supports the intent of the policy option(s) within confines of state land use program Would this generate more tax dollars than other options? Expand to consider removing EFU designation and associated deferment for smallest parcels Do these properties already have established water rights; Would make a difference in whether housing is appropriate? Generally describing lands that haven’t been irrigated or farmed. Will: Boulder example – take a look at that type of program here Option B Policy 3.1.3 Support preservation of open space on farm lands with poor soils and low productivity through new comprehensive plan and zoning designations, or other means as appropriate. Potential new policy option based on community feedback Might be possible to do both A and B in a new high desert zone (e.g., set up a zone that allows other uses at DRAFT Policy Review – Group 1 Updated June 2023 Page 15 Policy Language Notes and Discussion a lower density than 1 home per 10 acres, including through clustering or other means) Would this incorporate some kind of tax deferment? Like idea of considering high desert zone generally; question whether all land currently deemed not well- suited for agricultural only good for development? Question that assumption and don’t see groundswell for that level of development. Like idea of exploring hybrid A/B option (option D) Option C Policy 3.1.3. Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments, including for those that qualify as non-resource land, for individual EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. No change recommended at this time. Research intent and possibly consider refinements during subsequent rounds of policy review. Seeing an increase in non-resource lands designations; what should this land be if not agricultural? Should we explore alternative designations? This language emphasizes that property owners have an option to rezone land if they can show they don’t have productive agricultural land Summary of history of establishment of EFU lands in 1970s by Commissioner Cyrus (over-designated EFU areas) DRAFT Policy Review – Group 1 Updated June 2023 Page 16 Policy Language Notes and Discussion Option D Policy 3.1.3 Explore creation of new zoning classification intended to balance value of high desert environment while allowing for limited housing opportunities. Hybrid option of A/B, trying to get at a high desert zone policy that seeks to balance natural resource value with supporting some housing. Policy 3.1.3. Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments, including for those that qualify as non-resource land, for individual EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. Replaced with above. Policy 3.1.4. Develop comprehensive plan policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. No change recommended at this time. Consider refinements to address status of this work during subsequent rounds of policy review. Policy 3.1.5. Uses allowed in Exclusive Farm Use zones shall comply with State Statute and Oregon Administrative Rule. Policy not needed; all allowed uses must comply with state law. Recommend removing. Policy 3.1.6. Regularly review farm regulations to ensure compliance with changes to State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and case law. No change recommended. Policy 3.1.7. Encourage water projects that benefit agriculture. Recommend moving to a different section of the Plan that addresses water resources policies, given that water use is such a large issue in the County and likely warrants its own section or chapter. Policy 3.1.8. Support a variety of methods to preserve agricultural lands, such as: a. Support the use of grant funds and other resources to assist local farmers; Delete from this section but retain most of this policy language under a new and updated set of policies under Goal 2 of this chapter. DRAFT Policy Review – Group 1 Updated June 2023 Page 17 Policy Language Notes and Discussion b. Work cooperatively with irrigation districts, public agencies and representatives and land owners; c. Encourage conservation easements, or purchase or transfer of development rights programs; d. Control noxious weeds; e. Encourage a food council or ‘buy local’ program. Goal 2. Promote a diverse, sustainable, revenue-generating and thriving agricultural sector. This policy was updated to address Planning Commission direction. Added more positive language rather than merely “Revenue-generating”. Policy 3.2.1. Encourage farming by promoting the raising and selling of crops, livestock and/or poultry. No change recommended. Policy 3.2.2. Support stakeholders in studying and promoting economically viable agricultural agriculture through the use of grant funds, research, and other resources dedicated to agricultural community members and stakeholders, including but not limited to farmers, agricultural researchers, farm bureaus, and other organizations in studying and promoting economically viable agricultural opportunities and practices. Expanded to add more specific language about stakeholder groups. Incorporated language from policy 3.1.8.a above. Policy 3.2.3. Support and encourage small farming enterprises through a variety of related strategies and programs, including, but not limited to, niche markets, organic farming, food council, buy local, farmers markets, farm-to-table activities, farm stands or value-added products, or other programs or strategies. Expanded to add additional examples to reflect current practices and incorporated language from Policy 3.1.8.e above. DRAFT Policy Review – Group 1 Updated June 2023 Page 18 Policy Language Notes and Discussion Policy 3.2.4. Work cooperatively with irrigation districts, public agencies and representatives, and landowners to promote and support agricultural uses and operations, including through use of rural reserves, conservation easements, transfer of development rights programs, land acquisition, and other preservation strategies. New policy incorporating language from policy 3.1.8.a and 3.1.8.b above. This policy was updated to address Planning Commission direction – including land acquisition as a listed strategy. Added reference to rural reserves to combine with 4.2.3 Policy 2.2.5. Support efforts to control noxious weeds and invasive species. New policy incorporating language from policy 3.2.8.d and adding reference to invasive species. Policy 3.2.6. Continue to review County Code and revise County Code as needed and consistent with state rules and regulations to permit alternative and supplemental farm activities that are compatible with farming, such as agri- tourism or commercial renewable energy projects. When a preferred alternative or supplemental use identified through a public process is not permitted by State regulations work with the State to review and revise their regulations. Revised to make a continuing course of action, include language about consistency with state rules, and separate the two policy ideas currently listed into individual policies. Policy 3.2.7. Work with the State to review and revise their regulations when a desired alternative or supplemental use identified by the County is not permitted by State regulations. Revised to separate the two policy ideas currently listed above into individual policies and to clarify this should be done when the County has identified an activity as a desire use. Policy 3.2.8. Use land use policy and development code requirements, including right-to-farm provisions, as well as coordination with other jurisdictions to minimize conflicts between This policy was added to address Planning Commission direction to specifically call-out the impacts of sprawl and other uses on farm practices. No change since last PC meeting. DRAFT Policy Review – Group 1 Updated June 2023 Page 19 Policy Language Notes and Discussion residential uses and agricultural uses and continue to promote the viable operation of agricultural uses. Policy 3.2.9. Provide resources such as technical assistance and access to grants to support on-site efficiency upgrades relating to agriculture. New policy based on community input Added “access to grants” and/or “technical assistance” Goal 3. Ensure Exclusive Farm Use policies, classifications, and codes are consistent with local and emerging agricultural conditions and markets. Oxford comma. Consider moving policies regarding rezoning/evaluation of agricultural land to this section. Policy 3.3.1. Identify and retain accurately designated agricultural lands. No change recommended. Policy 3.3.2. Continue to explore new methods of identifying and classifying agricultural lands. a. Apply for grants to review and, if needed, update farmland designations. b. Study County agricultural designations considering elements such as water availability, farm viability and economics, climatic conditions, land use patterns, accepted farm practices, and impacts on public services. c. Lobby for changes to State Statute regarding agricultural definitions specific to Deschutes County that would allow some reclassification of agricultural lands. No change recommended at this time. Minor revision (added “continue to”) to make a continuing course of action. Policy 3.3.3. Address land use challenges in the Horse Ridge subzone, specifically: No change recommended at this time. Consider revising during subsequent round of review to make a continuing DRAFT Policy Review – Group 1 Updated June 2023 Page 20 Policy Language Notes and Discussion a. The large number of platted lots not meeting the minimum acreage; b. The need for non-farm dwellings and location requirements for farm dwellings; c. Concerns over the impact on private property from off-road vehicles, facilities, and trails located on adjacent public lands. course of action or to move to an action planning document. Policy 3.3.4. Continue to work with the State to review and revise accessory farm dwelling requirements to address the needs of local farmers. Made minor wording change to make a continuing course of action. Policy 3.3.5. Encourage coordination between agricultural interests and fish and wildlife management organizations, including public agencies, non-governmental organizations and others. Made minor wording changes for clarity.