Loading...
2001-905-Minutes for Meeting December 17,2001 Recorded 12/20/2001h } r,o yt 1 COUNTY OFFICIAL MARYHSUE SPENHOLLOW, COUNTYRCLERKS Q 2001'905 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 12/20/200103:06:00 PM Board of Commissioners 1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752 www.deschutes.org Tom De Wolf Dennis R. Luke MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING Mike Daly DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2001 Today's public hearing was on an application for a plan amendment and zone change proposal regarding property adjacent to the City of Sisters (File PA-01- 4/ZC-01-4; Applicants are the Sisters School District and the Sisters Organization of Activities and Recreation, also known as SOAR). Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Dennis R. Luke and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Chris Schmoyer, Steve Miller and Kevin Harrison, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Media Representative Barney Lerten of bendnet. com; and 12 citizens. Chair Tom De Wolf opened the meeting at 9: 00 a.m. Chair DeWolf then read the opening statement (copy attached as Exhibit A). DEWOLF: Regarding pre -hearing contacts, has any member of the Board had any pre -hearing contacts that need to be disclosed? LUKE: Just that I attended a reception where the attorney for the School District was present. DALY: None. DE WOLF : None here. Do any members of the Board need to set forth the substance of any ex parte observations? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 1 of 21 Pages Sisters School District UGB Annexation Monday, December 17, 2001 Quality Services Performed with Pride WeIN-4 Just what was in the newspaper and the media. DALY: I have none. DEWOLF: Me, either. Are there any challenges from the members of the audience as to bias, prejudgment or personal interest? None were offered. CHRIS SCHMOYER: The matter before you this morning is an application for a plan amendment and a zone change to include approximately 98.2 acres inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Sisters. The proposal includes a plan amendment and a zone change. The plan designation currently is forest, and the zoning is F-1, forest use. The proposed plan designation would be urban residential reserve, and the proposed zoning would be urban area reserve, UAR-10. The property lies west of the City of Sisters. It is adjacent to the existing high school and the existing urban growth boundary and City limits boundary. The applicants in this matter are the Sisters School District and the Sisters Organization of Activities and Recreation, also known as SOAR. The property is a portion of an approximately 260 -acre parcel, consisting of Tax Lot 1003, and it is located on the Assessor's index map for Township 15 South, Range 10 East. (He then referred to an oversized map at this time, indicating the property in relation to other lots.) The northern portion of Tax Lot 1003, which would not be included in the urban growth boundary as part of this proposal, would be subject to a conservation easement managed by the Deschutes Basin Land Trust. The Hearings Officer held a public hearing on October 2, 2001, and the matter closed on October 23, 2001. On December 7, 2001, the Hearings Officer's decision was mailed to parties of interest. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 2 of 21 Pages Sisters School District UGB Annexation Monday, December 17, 2001 SCHMOYER: The Hearings Officer approved the decision, subject to conditions of approval. These are recommended conditions of approval, as the Hearings Officer's decision is now final; it has to have a de novo hearing before the Board of Commissioners, which is why we are here today. Her conditions stipulated that the Board adopt a resolution of intent to rezone the property, which would stipulate the City's annexation of the property, following a favorable vote; and the City's execution of an intergovernmental agreement, which would stipulate that the property be rezoned to public facilities and used for a proposed school campus and recreational facilities for SOAR. LUKE: Would the County have to rezone that, or would it be rezoned after it is annexed? SCHMOYER: After the vote occurs, upon a favorable vote of annexation, the City would annex it. They would rezone it. The zone change criteria in Title 22 include a criterion that annexation must occur per the zone change. So we have to include that as a part of this proposal. CRAGHEAD: In a sense, it's kind of an odd situation. You would have the annexation and the County zone change at the same time the City takes over and does a zone change. We have an annexation coupled with a zone change to a County zone, but the City will also have to rezone. DEWOLF: Because we don't have the zone that they need. SCHMOYER: Correct. The Hearings Officer also included two additional conditions that require the applicants to construct and/or fund certain road improvements, such as left- hand turn lanes on Highway 242, as well as improvements to the future intersection at Highway 20 and McKinney Butte Road. These conditions were found necessary to show compliance with the transportation planning goal. LUKE: There are a lot of others who will kick into that intersection, though. There have been discussions with ODOT on that. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 3 of 21 Pages Sisters School District UGB Annexation Monday, December 17, 2001 SCHMOYER: The City of Sisters had approved a transportation system plan in June 2001, and this intersection at McKinney Butte Road and Highway 20 is identified as a high priority, listed as number 3. It's likely to happen soon, as funding allows. LUKE: Was the site of the new high school part of the campaign for the bond measure? Did people know where it was going to be built? SCHMOYER: That might be a question for the applicant. I do not know. NANCY CRAVEN: (The attorney for the applicant.) Steve (Swisher, School Superintendent) and I will make the presentation on behalf of the applicants, and I think we'll provide you with a little bit of context for this. We'll also get into the procedural issues so that we understand what you're doing and what we have pending with the City. Steve Swisher is here with me, and Bill Reed of the School Board is also here; David Natowski of the OEA (Office of Economic Analysis) is here if we need to get into any of the transportation issues. Heather Wester, Chair of the School Board, is also here; in the event you have questions for School Board members or the School Superintendent. We're pleased to be here with a staff recommendation for approval and the Hearings Officer's recommendation of approval. We have, over the course of the last several months, coordinated this application with the City and the County and ODOT, and have resolved all issues that came up during the course of preparing the application. You'll see that the Hearings Officer imposed three conditions on her approval. One, related to a transportation issue that we've working through with ODOT and David Evans & Associates, plus the City and the County, addressed all of the issues that came up through your transportation planner, who I believe is here this morning, as well as the ODOT issue. So, we have come up with a contribution by the School District for the one intersection that indicated failure as a part of the introduction of new trips from the construction of the school. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 4 of 21 Pages Sisters School District UGB Annexation Monday, December 17, 2001 CRAVEN: This is a joint application by two public entities. It proposes to bring in the 100 or so acres that Chris Schmoyer mentioned. This is land that the School District obtained from the County as a part of a land exchange with the Forest Service. The County then deeded it to the School District to be used for recreation and school purposes. So the application is not only consistent with the deed restriction, but we have combined both the recreational entity that services the Sisters area and the School District, and are using the land for both of those purposes. The northern portion of the land that is under the conservation easement will remain as is, and we are not proposing to bring it in to the urban growth boundary. The purpose of the request is to allow the School District to have an integrated campus for the existing high school, which will become the middle school. The construction of the new high school and related SOAR facilities will accommodate the planned needs for the School District and SOAR for the next twenty years. We made a case in our application, and the Hearings Officer agreed, that the need for these facilities has been demonstrated, and that there were no alternative sites available within the existing urban growth boundary; also that this is the best site outside the urban growth boundary for the project. LUKE: One of the things we looked at here, in Bend, when they did schools out by the old drive-in theatre and the landfill, both of which are outside the urban growth boundary, the case was made that over 50% of the students came from outside the urban growth boundary. Is that the case here? CRAVEN: In fact it is even higher than that. Steve (Swisher) can speak to that. Let me provide a little bit of perspective. In my view, either one of these applicants could justify this 100 -acre expansion of the urban growth boundary of Sisters. We have combined these applicants and have come up with a coordinated approach for the use of that acreage through a contract between SOAR and the School District. I think it is a benefit to both the City and the County that we've been able to do that and do not have separate requests for these facilities. I think the case in the application demonstrates that this part of the County and the City of Sisters is in need not only of school facilities, but has a wholesale need of recreational facilities. So, I think it's a good application, and I think the standards have been met. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 5 of 21 Pages Sisters School District UGB Annexation Monday, December 17, 2001 CRAVEN: What I'd like Steve to do briefly is to describe what the exact plans are for the property, and talk about the needs of the School District. STEVE SWISHER: (Superintendent of the Sisters School District.) As we look at this map (referring to an oversized map), first of all I want you to get a sense of our School District boundaries. The boundaries go just about Fryrear Road, where the County landfill is, and runs up to the Jefferson County line, and in a couple of places actually goes over that line. Going west, it goes past Black Butte Ranch to just about where you go to Camp Sherman. In the portion in Camp Sherman, Black Butte School District sends their students grades 7 through 12 to our schools also. As we look at the area, there are approximately 200 students who live within the City of Sisters itself. We have about 1,100 students in our school system. Primarily they come from surrounding areas. In fact, if you take a look at the subject property on the map, it is just about in the geographic middle of the district. We have current facilities of an elementary school, housing K to grade 5; it's in the red roofed building on the right as you drive into town from Bend. The current middle school facility is sort of a hodge-podge of buildings; that is the old brick building that you see and the buildings behind it as you are driving from Bend into Sisters. That particular facility was built starting in 1929 in the gym portion; the brick building was built in 1938; a major portion in the middle was built in 1948 and remodeled in about 1984. Then there is a metal shed that currently houses students in the building. That houses the 6th through 8th graders, and is one of the compelling reasons why we need a new school facility. It is inadequate, both in space, size and facilities for a school. Our high school facility is now within the City of Sisters. That is the building that is proposed to become the middle school, as we vacate and abandon the downtown middle school location and move the students; and create a new high school facility. We also, in the industrial park area, lease a facility of about 3,000 square feet where our alternative school and school -to -work program are found, basically because of lack of space in other facilities, and because it is a convenient location. Our district office facility is in a donated space in downtown Sisters. It originally had been in the brick building, but as we converted that to a middle school, we needed the space for classrooms. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 6 of 21 Pages Sisters School District UGB Annexation Monday, December 17, 2001 SWISHER: The immediate need has to do with the fact that the middle school facility borders are unsafe in many ways, is overcrowded, and we need to move the students from there. We think the proposal, with the middle school and the high school, and the allocation of future property for perhaps a second elementary school in the future on this property, will have a great advantage in many ways as an integrated campus. Certain tutoring programs can take place and facilities can be co -utilized on this type of campus. This makes a lot of sense to us. Also, many of the after- school facilities for recreation, and students who go to latchkey programs, will benefit when SOAR is housed on that same property. It makes a lot of sense that it is right next door. A bond measure for a higher amount failed in November of 2000; in the spring of 2001 a reduced bond measure with reduced programming was passed. From that point the architectural planning has proceeded through the schematic design phase, and we are entering the final design phase. The School Board is in the process of selecting a general contractor to work as the construction manager. We reviewed those criteria and decided to go that way for cost savings, quality, speed and efficiency, and we hope we can start construction this spring in order to have our students moved by the fall of 2003. DEWOLF: Did the bond measure include details about the new elementary school as well? SWISHER: No, it did not. It is just indicated as possible future space. Our elementary school is adequate at this time. Over time, over many years, we predict that with the sewer infill infrastructure, we may need a second elementary school site. Right now, it's not in the foreseeable future. DEWOLF: I've also heard discussions about a 600 or 700 seat performing arts facility. Was that included in the bond measure? SWISHER: It was. There's a 900 -seat auditorium currently in the schematic design, which will be part of the new high school. LUKE: I know the site wouldn't have been on the bond measure itself, but were there discussions about where the new high school would be built? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 7 of 21 Pages Sisters School District UGB Annexation Monday, December 17, 2001 SWISHER: On the bond literature, it described the property west of the current high school as where the facility would be built. CRAVEN: We did submit as a part of our application significant data in regard to the justification of need, alternative sites, and more. You have all that in the record, but I'd be happy to go through it this morning if you'd like. DEWOLF: That's not necessary. I don't know if you can answer this, but with Neal (Thompson) here, I do have a question. When we were considering the Barclay Meadows and School District issue, one of the things talked about by the City was having a comp plan done by the fall of 2000. I still haven't seen anything, and I haven't gotten an update on where this issue is. It seems like what we are doing is basically creating a comp plan one land use application at a time. CRAVEN: Neal may be better to speak to this than I am. It's my understanding that they now have a grant from DLCD (Department of Land Conservation and Development) for the comp plan, and have consultants on board. I think they intend to work on it this spring. I don't know how long it is going to take, but the plan is to move that forward. DEWOLF: Do you know the timing on that, Neal? NEAL THOMPSON: (Planner with the City of Sisters.) What we're talking about is very frustrating to me, also. It seems like things have to happen in order to move it forward. There's a coordinated population forecast that needs to be done, and because of the timing of the census we delayed work on the comprehensive plan until we knew the census data. Now, through the County's leadership, we are going to do this coordinated population forecast, which will then allow us to get the comp plan completed by the fall of 2002, which is our goal. DEWOLF: I know that this is a crazy way to do comprehensive planning. I'm not standing in the way of this, but it is a bit awkward. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 8 of 21 Pages Sisters School District UGB Annexation Monday, December 17, 2001 DEWOLF: Is there anyone else on the proponents' side who would like to testify? No response was received. Do we have any opponents? MEL BRYAN: I'm a bit nervous; I've never done this kind of thing before, and I hope I've got some of the protocol right. I live in Sisters. LUKE: We want citizens to feel comfortable. BRYAN: I've got a series of points, some of which go directly to the heart of the application. The School Board repeatedly throughout their submission refers to growth in the school, and the need to expand facilities. In the report, the application that Chris Schmoyer has, on page 11 it states that the enrollment is 1,084, when in fact at that time it was actually 1,008, plus 29 in the flex program. That's what their base was, 1,084 students in the district. The district's school population is flat. In 1998, there were 1,097 kids in the School District. Four years later it had increased by 11 students, to 1,008. So we're not in what you'd call a boom. Our City's population was approximately 820 - I'm taking this off the street signs when you enter the City. When I moved there in 1993,'there were 820 in the City, and today the sign says 911. This averages about ten people per year during a national economic boom. The applicants state that we will grow to 1,250 by the year 2005, which is on page 5 of that report. The applicants use a population of 975 in 2001, which I think is wrong. But if they grow from 975 to 1,250 by the year 2005, we will average about 70 people to our City per year. In the past ten years, we've only averaged about ten people per year. I guess an oxymoron would be a pessimistic developer. Most developers believe that things are going to go to the moon. The application cites crowded rooms and aggressive future growth. Our K to grade 4 population has decreased by 13% since 1998. If you compare it to the school enrollment today, it's down by 13%. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 9 of 21 Pages Sisters School District UGB Annexation Monday, December 17, 2001 BRYAN: Sisters does not have a large industry or employer to attract young families, and recent tax increases have affected many of our fixed income retirees as well as young families. The economy locally in Sisters and the nation is poor. The 98.4 acres in the School Board's plans are probably not a concern for you nor important for the purpose of this hearing, because I think you are talking about just the land as opposed to the school. But I think it is worth knowing, and I want to be on record, that the land's use as a middle school, not a high school, becomes more of a focus for the County, the City and the School Board. In other words, instead of designating it for a new high school, we should do what is required, build a new middle school. There is mere puffing about needs, growth and enrollment in the application, and direction about the property's proposed use is needed. Taxpayers want more realistic programs for our school's needs. The County's growth is not being paralleled by Sisters' growth. In terms of the school's location and the impacts on traffic flow, and the impact of having all school grades on the same site, I think more study is needed. I think the proximity of a middle school, and elementary school and a high school all on the same campus is a mistake. DEWOLF: Don't you think that this could bring opportunities for mentoring and blending of different ages to help each other? Like we have it in La Pine? BRYAN: That's a definite possibility, but I think the few high schoolers who are qualified to do that could make the half mile or mile effort to go to the other school. I just think there are other things that occur every day on the playground. DEWOLF: The reason that I ask is that all of the questions you are raising are really questions for the School Board. These questions really don't have anything to do with the land use application that's before us. Even if you are absolutely, 100% right on all this, if the voters have voted to build a new high school, it doesn't matter what you and I think. That's democracy. BRYAN: Correct, Tom. Let me make one more point about the application in terms of the use of the land. There's a flood plain that has flooded before, per Mr. Cliff Clemmons, a long-time resident there. I haven't studied the flood plain, but there was apparently a flood before, according to him. I would question whether that might happen again. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 10 of 21 Pages Sisters School District UGB Annexation Monday, December 17, 2001 LUKE: What has flooded? BRYAN: I think it is called the Trout Lake or Trout River. I don't know the name, but there is a flood plain that goes through part of the property. Let me go back to this. This is probably bothering most taxpayers more than anything. In the last vote, and this relates to the annexation and is going to be a mess, I believe, we voted "no" 190 on the bond issue versus a "yes" of 177. There was a 53/47 percent split at the time against the $20.5 million bond issue. Since then that has flared up, since more numbers have come to the table. But the growth is not there. I'm just suggesting to you folks that the annexation should occur with a middle school. The point about the voters voting for the bond in the last election is correct, but before that it was turned down. It's sort of an apathy thing in the town, and we were bludgeoned with a major advertising program and letters to the editor; and some people had a bigger interest in this thing happening by the way they were directing it. I think today we have a different situation. They would disapprove it right now, I'm pretty sure of that. In addition, I'm questioning where the money is going to come from to pay for this, in view of the economic circumstances and the false projection of where the growth is. Now it is a School Board issue, but it all flips back to the County. How much investigation did the County do before the proposal was accepted, and how does that fit into it? DEWOLF: It doesn't. LUKE: The application numbers can't be too far off, but the sewer going into the City of Sisters should increase development there, and increase population. BRYAN: I would agree, except people go to where the jobs are, not because there is a sewer there. We need industry and employment to cover the tax basis, not a sewer system. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 11 of 21 Pages Sisters School District UGB Annexation Monday, December 17, 2001 LUKE: Again, the sewer should help that, because now the industry can hook up into the sewer. Maybe not today because of the economy, but that will change. It's hard to do; everything is a prediction. Our population projections are based on the best knowledge that we have. BRYAN: I think it was mentioned earlier that someone is going to do a population study. We don't have the jobs in Sisters, and we are not going to have them, sewer or no sewer. That's my opinion. DEWOLF: Anyone else like to speak to us this morning? JIM MACKEY: I'm even more nervous than he was. I don't live in the City limits; I live in an area called Sage Meadow, which is off Camp Polk Road, north of Sisters. I'm a relatively new resident of the area. One of the reasons I'm nervous is because I have only recently become involved in this. My facts are sketchy, but I've had the opportunity to participate or listen in on a couple of meetings, and I've listened to Mr. Bryan talk, and he seems to be the only voice at this point that at least questions this. I felt that it is important that others might speak. By background I'm a businessman. I spent about twelve years in industrial development in California early in my career. I have owned a couple of businesses, and found myself in Sisters because I was familiar with Central Oregon and it seemed to be a good place for my wife and me to retire. All of that being said, one of the things that occurred to me as we went through the first steps of the bond issue was the economic growth of the area, and the value of the real estate in the area. It has literally astounded me. The growth in value of the residential properties in the City of Sisters has increased immensely. The value of my property has probably increased at least 50 to 60 percent during the three years we've owned it. LUKE: But the taxable value can only increase by 3%. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 12 of 21 Pages Sisters School District UGB Annexation Monday, December 17, 2001 MACKEY: That's correct. Having said that, the question is, as people move into the area, where do they work? I know that what Mr. Bryan spoke of, relative to the need and the growth in the School District, that is a part of the report prepared by staff. In other words, if there is growth in the schools in an area, that is something you should be interested in. I don't see the growth, and the young people that I talk with in town all tell me that they can't afford to live in Sisters. The areas that they might live in that are currently included in the School District area, such as Tollgate and Crossroads, are fairly well populated now. The value of property has increased substantially in those areas, and the young people moving into the area are buying either in Redmond or in portions of Bend, and they are being employed either in the service industry in Sisters, or in industry in Redmond or Bend. By my knowledge, there is no current plan within the City of Sisters to expand the industrial employment base there. So the possibility within the next several years, or five or six years, for substantial growth in employment opportunity for young people is non-existent. DEWOLF: There are a couple things that I would raise. First of all, we just last year brought in sixty acres to be used for the expansion of industrial opportunity. The flip side of that is, I'm not sure how this is relevant to the land use application. MACKEY: The land use application I believe has to do with the need for additional school space. DEWOLF: If, in fact, you have a duly elected School Board that during their work believes that is the case, and they put the matter before the voters and had it approved, you may disagree with that --- MACKEY: No. The thing that bothers me is a point that you made earlier, and that is the process we're using here is disjointed and kind of backwards. I understand that the City is in the process of doing this coordinated population forecast, and I think the demographics of that would help make decisions. I think frankly that we are rushing to judgment here, because this is the first step of a very important set of steps that we are going to be going through. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 13 of 21 Pages Sisters School District UGB Annexation Monday, December 17, 2001 MACKEY: We passed a bond measure that does not include a number of the facilities that are forecast on the master plan. They will need to come back and get additional moneys for those additional facilities. My experience in these matters, as a voter and a citizen, is this. Once the base has been set it is very difficult for the voters, who unfortunately are generally lethargic and are not as attentive to these things as they should be, to vote against a future bond issues that might come for the additional facilities that will be added here. I'm not opposed to the education of our young people. I've sat on a couple of School Boards in my past. That's why I have difficulty even speaking here. But the land itself that you folks have dedicated to this purpose is not going to go anywhere. I don't believe that you would allow that land to be given to a private purpose, so it's not like we're dealing with a private piece of property in a high growth area, that would disappear and not be available for use by the School District in the future. Therefore, with the question of the growth that's happened in the last four to five years in the Sisters area, and the demand for new school space, plus the fact that I have had an opportunity to talk with at least a couple of School Board members that were on the School Board in the past when the high school was built. Unfortunately, I don't have documentation on this, which is why I am nervous. But I understand that when the original high school was built, it was designed so that it could be expanded. The hallways that are adjacent to the current gymnasium were constructed in a way in which additional classrooms could be built along those hallways to accommodate additional space. I'm sure that the School Board probably went through all of this, but in the face of the flat or minimum growth in the area, the fact that we haven't identified an employment base yet for the area, it seems to me that we are rushing very quickly to spend a lot of money in an area that is increasing in value, which is going against the opportunity for young people to move into the area. The tax base went up over 26% this last year, which doesn't help any young person moving in. I had three points essentially; the growth, the transportation - which we talked about, but as a citizen I'm not comfortable with it, knowing that the amount of transportation that's required is heavily prevalent within the middle school, not the high school as much. I drive by that middle school a lot, and there's a lot of access to it, and a huge traffic problem around it. To move it to an area where there is only highway to get in and out, without further study it seems to me it's difficult to understand. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 14 of 21 Pages Sisters School District UGB Annexation Monday, December 17, 2001 LUKE: There have been substantial studies done. The Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation, which is all three counties, and all the cities, just went through a big review of projects. There will be a light at the grade school area, and there will be a light out at this other one. It's a little bit further out on ODOT's priority list because of the lack of money. This last go -round of distributing money, and this planning process they went through, shows it will be on ODOT's schedule within three or four years. MACKEY: I'm sure that is true. At the end of the day, I can't vote on this. I'm done. I don't live in the City of Sisters. I know that the vote within the City of Sisters has been "no". They've been against this. DEWOLF: This is a School District wide vote, not just the City of Sisters. MACKEY: I know that. But the next vote, the vote required to annex, I can't participate in and neither can any of the other people in that extended area. I can't even mount an opposition to that. DEWOLF: You can mount an opposition. You can spend $200 million if you choose to. MACKEY: But the vote ultimately is within the City of Sisters. DEWOLF: All the questions that you've raised today are either for the School Board or the state legislature. MACKEY: But these issues are all in the report that you are approving. DEWOLF: I understand that. But the point that I'm trying to make here is that if you have issues around decisions that the School Board is making, those are for the School Board to consider. If you want to change the way that voting is done in this state, that requires altering the constitution. We have no authority there. What we're looking at is a matter for the community of Sisters to decide. The School District on the one hand, the City residents on the other. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 15 of 21 Pages Sisters School District UGB Annexation Monday, December 17, 2001 DEWOLF: I believe I am speaking for myself and both of my colleagues that we really believe in local control. It shouldn't be the big, bad County coming in and telling you or your School District or City the way that you ought to grow. We try to work as well as we can with these entities. When you look back through history, people complain that there is no planning, that nobody has any vision. Typically it is because they don't have "my" vision, or they don't plan what "I" want to plan. The fact is that this land has been dedicated specifically for this purpose from the beginning, and the School Board and the school staff have done all this planning. The conditions that are set and established by the Hearings Officer do deal with the transportation and the commitment of dollars that the School District will have to commit in order to answer those transportation needs. Nothing that I have heard today is specific to the land use application that is before us. MACKEY: The data is inaccurate at best. The statement was just made by Dennis that the transportation issue is not something that will happen within the next year or so. LUKE: The need for it is there; there's no question. MACKEY: I don't disagree with this. My whole point - and maybe you can't consider this - is that I think there's a rush to judgment here. It will be three years before this transportation thing happens. The School Board passed whatever it was at their last meeting, that they want to turn $900,000 of the interest back to the bond, but that was contingent upon the construction beginning in July of this year. This school's going to be up, and the transportation problem is going to exist before the transportation problem has been solved. The economic situation master plan hasn't been completed yet. But yet we're building all of this. We're all planning for something that we're not completely sure is going to happen. When you look at the numbers that are in the report that you prepared, they aren't accurate. And that's my concern. I don't know that I can make a fact -based point other than the fact that there are just too many holes in this. It seems to me that since the land is currently controlled by the County, delaying a judgment on this for another couple of years or so, since growth isn't going to overwhelm us, makes good sense to me. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 16 of 21 Pages Sisters School District UGB Annexation Monday, December 17, 2001 MACKEY: If I were a businessman in this economic climate, and I could do that, that's what I would do. Now I may not be able to do that as a County, and I may not be able to do that as a governmental agency, but I had to say it. I appreciate your listening to me. DEWOLF: Anyone else wish to speak? No response was offered. Not hearing any response, would it be our intention to continue this? Have there been any requests to leave the record open? CRAGHEAD: I believe the applicant has requested the record be left open for discussion on a couple of revisions so that I can do some review. You could leave the record open and hold a possible hearing in mid-January. We'd do a fully noticed hearing if necessary on a couple of the issues. Otherwise, it would be setting a date for deliberations. DEWOLF: Any final comments you'd like to toss out, Nancy? LUKE: If the record were to stay open, if the two opponents could present some numbers that they believe are inaccurate and have some way to show it, we would appreciate that. You could do that in writing. CRAVEN: I'd like to make a couple of points, because I think it's important for you to realize what the basis of this report was. The data that's included in our application, specifically in regard to population, building permits and growth, comes from Deschutes County as well as the Office of Economic Analysis. We have many pages of documentation with regard to projected growth, not only within the City of Sisters but also the surrounding area. Some of the information talked about this morning relates to the population of the City of Sisters. Obviously this application covers a lot more territory. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 17 of 21 Pages Sisters School District UGB Annexation Monday, December 17, 2001 CRAVEN: Also, the coordinated population gain that occurs at the end of each decade has nothing to do with regard to the Office of Economic Analysis data. That is a process that the County controls with regard to the allocation of population within the County after each census. That's what Neal was talking about today. It is clearly very important to their comprehensive plan update, because how many people they have relates to all sorts of things within the City. LUKE: And the County is also protesting the Portland State University numbers as being too low. CRAVEN: But that really has nothing to do with the OEA numbers that we have included in our application. There will be two accesses to the property, as you know. We are going to be paying for one of them. The traffic fix was evaluated by ODOT and by our traffic engineers. The failure at McKinney Butte Road and the Highway does not occur until 2013. Our commitment in this condition of approval provides for contribution to that intersection provided that it isn't otherwise funded through all these other means prior to 2013. So, while there was an issue related to McKinney Butte, we obviously fixed it, and will obviously contribute to it if necessary. The integrated campus proposed here includes a potential future elementary school. That was put in at the request of DLCD, so that as part of a twenty-year planning program, this covers all potential new school facilities that the School District might need. The City of Sisters is working and continues to work to expand its industrial land base, as you know. We're all involved in some cases related to the expansion of the industrial area. They've also recently approved a new affordable housing project. And I believe we've addressed adequately to standards that relate to this land use case. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 18 of 21 Pages Sisters School District UGB Annexation Monday, December 17, 2001 CRAVEN: I would like to have an opportunity to review some procedural issues with Laurie that she and I talked about briefly this morning. I think it probably makes sense to keep the record open to allow us to evaluate those issues and come back to the Board with proposed recommendations regarding whether an additional hearing is needed. DEWOLF: I guess my preference would be to leave the record open and continue this hearing so we don't have to go through the renotice process. CRAGHEAD: There may be a couple of issues that require a renotice of a hearing. We'd let the Board know that. DEWOLF: Then why don't we continue this to our first meeting in January, which is on Thursday, the 3rd? We can then either close the record and close the public hearing at that time, or continue it to a date certain. LUKE: What are we looking at? Is it about what is in the law? CRAVEN: We want to make sure that we are applying the appropriate approval criteria with regard to County and City related issues. If we could do it until January 3, I think we'd be ready to brief the Board on it, and decide where to go from there. The other alternative is if you want to put it out further. DEWOLF: We could do it the 91h CRAGHEAD: That might be preferable, because of the holidays. DEWOLF: Why don't we do that. We'll continue the public hearing and leave the public record open until January 9 at 10:00 a.m. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 19 of 21 Pages Sisters School District UGB Annexation Monday, December 17, 2001 CRAVEN: If there is a decision made of the need to notice that hearing date, I would like to see if we could get that done before the 91h, so that hearing could accommodate that need. The 9th would probably work better than the 3rd DEWOLF: So if anyone has any additional testimony they want to put in writing, submit that to our Community Development Department to Chris (Schmoyer), and we'll consider that as well. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Will you be taking testimony on the 9th, or just written comments? LUKE: The record is normally open for just written comments. DEWOLF: By the same token, if there are people who want to give testimony on what's been introduced into the written record, we're pretty flexible. CRAGHEAD: So you'll be limiting the testimony on the 9th to the rebuttal of what was said today? DEWOLF: I can't say that. If we're leaving the record open, we're leaving the record open. We can limit testimony in any way that we want at that time. LUKE: I really don't want to go through all of this again. I wouldn't mind leaving the record open for written comments. Staff can give a report of any negotiations, and depending upon what the recommendation is, if you believe that it's necessary to leave the record open for additional written comments, that's available, too. I'm not sure I want to go through oral testimony again. DEWOLF: If that would be our pleasure, we can just limit it to written testimony. This means we would not be able to discuss this with Nancy. Nancy would have to talk with Laurie, and Laurie would have to talk to us. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 20 of 21 Pages Sisters School District UGB Annexation Monday, December 17, 2001 LUKE: Laurie can provide a report to us. Is that a problem? CRAGHEAD: No. I can do a report based on my analysis and discussions. LUKE: You guys are doing legal stuff. CRAGHEAD: Yes. DEWOLF: That has been a frustration in the past, that once we close for oral testimony, we can't talk with these folks anymore. CRAGHEAD: Right. It's just a matter of a procedural issue, what we will be discussing. DEWOLF: Okay. So all we are going to accept is written testimony, unless we have to renotice for new information. Being no further testimony taken, the Board adjourned the meeting at 10: 00 a. m. DATED this 17th of December 2001 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Minutes of Public Hearing Sisters School District UGB Annexation Tom eWolf, Chair nnis R. Luke, Commissioner M. Daly, C6rnAissioner Page 21 of 21 Pages Monday, December 17, 2001 Introduction This is a denovo hearing before the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners following the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's findings and recommendation on files PA -0 1 -4/ZC-0 1 -4 issued on Friday, December 7, 2001. The applicant in this matter is requesting approval to change the plan designation and zoning of the subject property from Forest to Urban Residential Reserve and from Forest Use (F1) to Urban Area Reserve (UAR-10), respectively, and approval of an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 4 to include the subject property within the Sisters Urban Growth Boundary. A public hearing was held by the Hearings Officer on October 2, 2001. Evidence and testimony was received at the hearing. Burden of proof and Applicable criteria The applicant has the burden of proving that they are entitled to the land use approval sought. The standards applicable to the applications are listed on the handout provided. Hearings Procedure The procedures applicable to this hearing provide that the Board of County Commissioners will hear testimony, receive evidence and consider the testimony, evidence and information submitted into this record as well as that evidence constituting the record before the Hearings Officer. The record as developed to this point is available for public review at this hearing. Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the criteria set forth in the notice of this hearing and listed on the handout. Testimony may be directed to any other criteria in the comprehensive land use plan of the County or land -use regulations which any person believes apply to this decision. Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue, with sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners and parties to this proceeding an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes, appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. Order of Presentation The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a presentation of the prior proceedings and the issues raised by the Hearings Officer. The applicant will then have an opportunity to make a presentation and offer testimony and evidence. Opponents will then be given a chance to make a presentation. After both proponents and opponents have made a presentation, e1_6 L&L& ,F the proponents will be allowed to make a rebuttal presentation. At the Board's discretion, opponents may be recognized for a rebuttal presentation. At the conclusion of this hearing, the staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments. The Board may limit the time period for presentations. Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the Board's discretion. Cross-examination of witnesses will not be allowed. However, if any person wishes a question be asked of any person during that person's presentation, please direct such question to the Chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the witnesses. Pre -hearing Contacts I will now direct a question to the other members of the Board of County Commissioners. If any member of the Board, including myself, has had any pre - hearing contacts, now is the time to state the substances of those pre -hearing contacts so that all persons present at this hearing can be fully advised of the nature and context of those contacts and with whom contact was made. Are there any contacts that need to be disclosed? At this time, do any members of the Board need to set forth the substance of any ex parte observations or facts of which this body should take notice concerning these applications? Any person in the audience has the right during the hearings process to rebut the substance of any communication or observation that has been placed in the record. Challenges for Bias, Prejudgment, or Personal Interest Any party prior to the commencement of the hearing may challenge the qualifications of the Board of County Commissioners or any member thereof of bias, prejudgment or personal interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts. I will accept challenges now. Should any Board member be challenged, the member may disqualify himself or herself, withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity to hear these applications. Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed.